When issued, the Bonds will be secured by a pledge of Tax Revenues (defined in the Indenture) on a subordinate basis to amounts due under that certain Credit Agreement dated as of May 1, 2008, between Bank of America, N.A., and the Agency, as successor to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Monica, as amended or otherwise modified from time to time (the “BofA Credit Agreement”).
The Agency will undertake pursuant to the provisions of a Continuing Disclosure Certificate, to be dated the date of the Closing (the “Disclosure Certificate”) and executed by the Agency, to provide certain annual information and notices of the occurrence of certain enumerated events. A description of the undertaking is set forth in the Preliminary Official Statement (as defined below) and will also be set forth in the Official Statement.
As used herein, the term the “Agency Legal Documents” means and refers to this Purchase Agreement, the Indenture, the Continuing Disclosure Certificate, the Escrow Agreement, dated as of _____ 1, 2026, by and between the Agency and U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association providing for the refunding of the 2006 Bonds (the “2006 Bonds Escrow Agreement”) and the Escrow Agreement, dated as of _____ 1, 2026, by and between the Agency and U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association providing for the refunding of the 2011 Bonds (the “2011 Bonds Escrow Agreement” and, together with the 2006 Bonds Escrow Agreement, the “Escrow Agreements”).
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1218 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding 3 4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
3. Offering.
(a) It shall be a condition to the Agency’s obligations to sell and to deliver the Bonds to the Underwriter and to the Underwriter’s obligations to purchase, to accept delivery of and to pay for the Bonds that the entire aggregate principal amount of the Bonds shall be issued, sold and delivered by the Agency and purchased, accepted and paid for by the Underwriter at the Closing. The Underwriter agrees to make a bona fide public offering of all of the Bonds at the initial public offering prices or yields set forth in Exhibit A hereto and on the inside front cover page of the Official Statement. The Underwriter reserves the right to change, subsequent to the initial public offering, such initial offering prices as it shall deem necessary in connection with the marketing of the Bonds.
(b) The Underwriter agrees to assist the Agency in establishing the issue price of the Bonds and shall execute and deliver to the Agency at Closing an “issue price” or similar certificate, together with copies of supporting pricing wires or equivalent communications, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, with such modifications as may be appropriate or necessary, in the reasonable judgment of the Underwriter, the Agency and Bond Counsel (as defined below), to accurately reflect, as applicable, the sales price or prices or the initial offering price or prices to the public of the Bonds. All actions to be taken by the Agency under this section to establish the issue price of the Bonds may be taken on behalf of the Agency by the Agency’s municipal advisor, Urban Futures, Inc. (the “Municipal Advisor”) and any notice or report to be provided to the Agency may be provided to the Agency’s Municipal Advisor. (c) Except as otherwise set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, the Agency will treat the first price at which 10% of each maturity of the Bonds (the “10% test”), identified under the column “10% Test Used” in Exhibit A, is sold to the public as the issue price of that maturity (if different interest rates apply within a maturity, each separate CUSIP number within that maturity will be subject to the 10% test). At or promptly after the execution of this Purchase Agreement, the Underwriter shall report to the Agency the price or prices at which it has sold to the public each maturity of Bonds for which the 10% test is used. If at that time the 10% test has not been satisfied as to any maturity of the Bonds, the Underwriter agrees to promptly report to the Agency the prices at which it sells the unsold Bonds of that maturity to the public. That reporting obligation shall continue, whether or not the Closing Date (as defined below) has occurred, until the 10% test has been satisfied as to the Bonds of that maturity or until all Bonds of that maturity have been sold to the public.
(d) The Underwriter confirms that it has offered the Bonds to the public on or before the date of this Purchase Agreement at the offering price or prices (the “initial offering price”), or at the corresponding yield or yields, set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, except as otherwise set forth therein. Exhibit A also sets forth, identified under the column “Hold the Offering Price Used,” as of the date of this Purchase Agreement, the maturities, if any, of the Bonds for which the 10% test has not been satisfied and for which the Agency and the Underwriter agree that the restrictions set forth in the next sentence shall apply, which will allow the Agency to treat the initial offering price to the public of each such maturity as of the sale date as the issue price of that maturity (the “hold-the-offering-price rule”). So long as the hold-the-offering-price rule remains applicable to any maturity of the Bonds, the Underwriter will neither offer nor sell unsold Bonds of that maturity to any person at a price that is higher than the initial offering price to the public during the period starting on the sale date and ending on the earlier of the following.
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1219 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding 4 4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
(1) the close of the fifth (5th) business day after the sale date; or (2) the date on which the Underwriter has sold at least 10% of that maturity of the Bonds to the public at a price that is no higher than the initial offering price to the public.
The Underwriter shall promptly advise the Agency when it has sold 10% of that maturity of the Bonds to the public at a price that is no higher than the initial offering price to the public, if that occurs prior to the close of the fifth (5th) business day after the sale date. (e) The Underwriter confirms that any selling group agreement and any retail distribution agreement relating to the initial sale of the Bonds to the public, together with the related pricing wires, contains or will contain language obligating each dealer who is a member of the selling group and each broker-dealer that is a party to such retail distribution agreement, as applicable, to: (1) report the prices at which it sells to the public the unsold Bonds of each maturity allotted to it until it is notified by the Underwriter that either the 10% test has been satisfied as to the Bonds of that maturity or all Bonds of that maturity have been sold to the public; and (2) comply with the hold-the-offering-price rule, if applicable, in each case if and for so long as directed by the Underwriter. The Agency acknowledges that, in making the representation set forth in this subsection, the Underwriter will rely on: (A) in the event that a selling group has been created in connection with the initial sale of the Bonds to the public, the agreement of each dealer who is a member of the selling group to comply with the hold-the-offering-price rule, if applicable, as set forth in a selling group agreement and the related pricing wires; and (B) in the event that a retail distribution agreement was employed in connection with the initial sale of the Bonds to the public, the agreement of each broker-dealer that is a party to such agreement to comply with the hold-theoffering-price rule, if applicable, as set forth in the retail distribution agreement and the related pricing wires. The Agency further acknowledges that the Underwriter shall not be liable for the failure of any dealer who is a member of a selling group, or of any broker-dealer that is a party to a retail distribution agreement, to comply with its corresponding agreement regarding the hold-theoffering-price rule as applicable to the Bonds. (f) The Underwriter acknowledges that sales of any Bonds to any person that is a related party to the Underwriter shall not constitute sales to the public for purposes of this section. Further, for purposes of this section:
(1) “public” means any person other than an underwriter or a related party;
(2) “underwriter” means (A) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract with the Agency (or with the lead underwriter to form an underwriting syndicate) to participate in the initial sale of the Bonds to the public and (B) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract directly or indirectly with a person described in clause (A) to participate in the initial sale of the Bonds to the public (including a member of a selling group or a party to a retail distribution agreement participating in the initial sale of the Bonds to the public); (3) a purchaser of any of the Bonds is a “related party” to an underwriter if the underwriter and the purchaser are subject, directly or indirectly, to (i) at least 50% common ownership of the voting power or the total value of their stock, if both entities are corporations (including direct ownership by one corporation of another), (ii) more than 50% common ownership
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1220 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding 5 4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
of their capital interests or profits interests, if both entities are partnerships (including direct ownership by one partnership of another), or (iii) more than 50% common ownership of the value of the outstanding stock of the corporation or the capital interests or profit interests of the partnership, as applicable, if one entity is a corporation and the other entity is a partnership (including direct ownership of the applicable stock or interests by one entity of the other); and (4) “sale date” means the date of execution of this Purchase Agreement by the Agency and the Underwriter.
4. Use and Preparation of Documents. The Agency has caused to be prepared and delivered to the Underwriter prior to the execution of this Purchase Agreement copies of the Preliminary Official Statement dated _____, 2026, relating to the Bonds (the “Preliminary Official Statement”), which was approved by the Agency OS Resolution. The Agency ratifies, confirms and approves the use by the Underwriter prior to the date hereof of the Preliminary Official Statement.
The Agency has previously deemed the Preliminary Official Statement to be final as of its date for purposes of Rule 15c2-12 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Rule 15c2-12”), except for information permitted to be omitted therefrom by Rule 15c2-12. The Agency hereby agrees to deliver or cause to be delivered to the Underwriter, within seven (7) business days of the date hereof, but not less than one (1) business day prior to Closing a sufficient number of copies of the final Official Statement relating to the Bonds, dated the date hereof, which includes all information permitted to be omitted by Rule 15c2-12 and any amendments or supplements to such Official Statement as have been approved by the Agency and the Underwriter (the “Official Statement”) to enable the Underwriter to distribute a single copy of each Official Statement to any potential customer of the Underwriter requesting an Official Statement during the time period beginning when the Official Statement becomes available and ending 25 days after the End of the Underwriting Period (defined below). The Agency hereby approves of the use and distribution (including the electronic distribution) by the Underwriter of the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds. The Agency shall have executed and delivered to the Underwriter a certification to such effect in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Underwriter agrees that it will not confirm the sale of any Bonds unless the confirmation of sale is accompanied or preceded by the delivery of a copy of the Official Statement.
5. Representations, Warranties and Agreements of the Agency. The Agency hereby represents, warrants and agrees as follows:
(a) The Agency is a public entity existing under the laws of the State of California, including the Law.
(b) The Agency has full legal right, power and authority to enter into the Agency Legal Documents and carry out and consummate the transactions contemplated by the Agency Legal Documents.
(c) By all necessary official action of the Agency prior to or concurrently with the acceptance hereof, the Agency has duly authorized and approved the preparation and use of the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement, the execution and delivery of the Official Statement and the Agency Legal Documents, and the performance by the Agency of all transactions contemplated by the Agency Legal Documents; and the Agency Legal Documents will constitute legal, valid and binding obligations of the Agency, enforceable in accordance with their
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1221 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding 6 4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
respective terms, except as enforcement may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or similar laws or equitable principles relating to or limiting creditors’ rights generally. (d) The Agency is not in any material respect in breach of or default under any applicable constitutional provision, law or administrative regulation to which it is subject or any applicable judgment or decree or any loan agreement, indenture, bond, note, resolution, agreement (including, without limitation, the Indenture) or other instrument to which the Agency is a party or to which the Agency or any of its property or assets is otherwise subject, and no event has occurred and is continuing which with the passage of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute such a default or event of default under any such instrument; and the execution and delivery of the Agency Legal Documents, and compliance with the provisions on the Agency’s part contained therein, will not conflict with or constitute a material breach of or a material default under any constitutional provision, law, administrative regulation, judgment, decree, loan agreement, indenture, bond, note, resolution, agreement or other instrument to which the Agency is a party or to which the Agency or any of its property or assets is otherwise subject, nor will any such execution, delivery, adoption or compliance result in the creation or imposition of any lien, charge or other security interest or encumbrance of any nature whatsoever upon any of the property or assets of the Agency or under the terms of any such constitutional provision, law, regulation or instrument, except as provided by the Indenture.
(e) Except as described in or contemplated by the Official Statement, as of the date of the Closing, all authorizations, approvals, licenses, permits, consents and orders of any governmental authority, board, agency or commission having jurisdiction of the matter which are required for the due authorization by, or which would constitute a condition precedent to or the absence of which would materially adversely affect the due performance by, the Agency of its obligations under the Agency Legal Documents have been or will be duly obtained. (f) Between the date of this Purchase Agreement and the date of the Closing, the Agency will not, without the prior written consent of the Underwriter, offer or issue any bonds, notes or other obligations for borrowed money, or incur any material liabilities, direct or contingent, payable from Tax Revenues (as defined in the Indenture), nor will there be any adverse change of a material nature in the financial position, results of operations or condition, financial or otherwise, of the Agency.
(g) To the best knowledge of the officer of the Agency executing this Purchase Agreement, after due inquiry, as of the date hereof, there is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation, at law or in equity before or by any court, government agency, public board or body, pending or threatened against the Agency, affecting the existence of the Agency or the titles of its officers to their respective offices, or affecting or seeking to prohibit, restrain or enjoin the execution and delivery of the Indenture or the collection of the Tax Revenues or contesting or affecting, as to the Agency, the validity or enforceability of the Agency Legal Documents or contesting the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds for federal income tax purposes, or contesting the completeness or accuracy of the Preliminary Official Statement or the Official Statement, or contesting the powers of the Agency, or in any way contesting or challenging the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, or which might result in a material adverse change in the financial condition of the Agency or which might materially adversely affect the Tax Revenues of the Agency; nor, to the best knowledge of the officer of the Agency executing this Purchase Agreement, is there any known basis for any such action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation, wherein an unfavorable decision, ruling or finding would materially adversely affect
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1222 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding 7 4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
the validity of the authorization, execution, delivery or performance by the Agency of the Agency Legal Documents.
(h) As of the time of acceptance hereof and as of the date of the Closing, the Agency does not and will not have outstanding any indebtedness which indebtedness is secured by a lien on the Tax Revenues of the Agency superior to or on a parity with the lien provided for in the Indenture on the Tax Revenues, other than as disclosed in the Official Statement. (i) As of the time of acceptance hereof and as of the date of the Closing, the Agency has or will have complied with the filing requirements of the Law, including, without limitation, the filing of all Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules, as required by the Law. (j) As of the date thereof, the Preliminary Official Statement did not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements therein in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading (except that this representation does not include information relating to The Depository Trust Company or the book-entry-only system, the Insurer or the 2026 Reserve Policy). (k) As of the date thereof and at all times subsequent thereto to and including the date which is 25 days following the End of the Underwriting Period (as such term is hereinafter defined) for the Bonds, the Official Statement did not and will not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made not misleading (except that this representation does not include information relating to The Depository Trust Company or the book-entry-only system, the Insurer or the 2026 Reserve Policy). (l) If between the date hereof and the date which is 25 days after the End of the Underwriting Period for the Bonds, an event occurs which would cause the information contained in the Official Statement, as then supplemented or amended, to contain an untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make such information herein, in the light of the circumstances under which it was presented, not misleading, the Agency will notify the Underwriter, and, if in the opinion of the Underwriter or the Agency, or respective counsel, such event requires the preparation and publication of a supplement or amendment to the Official Statement, the Agency will cooperate in the preparation of an amendment or supplement to the Official Statement in a form and manner approved by the Underwriter, and shall pay all expenses thereby incurred. For the purposes of this subsection, between the date hereof and the date which is 25 days of the End of the Underwriting Period for the Bonds, the Agency will furnish such information with respect to itself as the Underwriter may from time to time reasonably request. As used herein, the term “End of the Underwriting Period” means the later of such time as: (i) the Agency delivers the Bonds to the Underwriter; or (ii) the Underwriter does not retain, directly or as members of an underwriting syndicate, an unsold balance of the Bonds for sale to the public. Notwithstanding the foregoing, unless the Underwriter gives notice to the contrary, the “End of the Underwriting Period” shall be the date of Closing. (m) If the information contained in the Official Statement is amended or supplemented pursuant to paragraph (l) hereof, at the time of each supplement or amendment thereto and (unless subsequently again supplemented or amended pursuant to such subparagraph) at all times subsequent thereto up to and including the date which is 25 days after the End of the Underwriting Period for the Bonds, the portions of the Official Statement so supplemented or amended (including
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1223 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding 8 4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
any financial and statistical data contained therein) will not contain any untrue statement of a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make such information therein in the light of the circumstances under which it was presented, not misleading (except that this representation does not include information relating to The Depository Trust Company or the book-entry-only system, the Insurer or the 2026 Reserve Policy).
(n) After the Closing, the Agency will not participate in the issuance of any amendment of or supplement to the Official Statement to which, after being furnished with a copy, the Underwriter shall reasonably object in writing or which shall be disapproved by counsel for the Underwriter.
(o) Any certificate signed by any officer of the Agency and delivered to the Underwriter shall be deemed a representation by the Agency to the Underwriter as to the statements made therein.
(p) The Agency will apply the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds for the purposes specified in the Official Statement.
(q) The Agency has not been notified of any listing or proposed listing by the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that the Agency is not a bond issuer whose arbitrage certifications may not be relied upon.
(r) The Agency will furnish such information, execute such instruments and take such other action in cooperation with the Underwriter, at the expense of the Underwriter, as it may reasonably request in order to qualify the Bonds for offer and sale under the “blue sky” or other securities laws and regulations of such states and other jurisdictions of the United States of America as the Underwriter may designate; provided, however, that the Agency will not be required to execute a special or general consent to service of process or qualify as a foreign corporation in connection with any such qualification in any jurisdiction. (s) The Agency will refrain from taking any action with regard to which the Agency may exercise control that results in the inclusion in gross income for federal income tax purposes of the interest on the Bonds or State of California income tax purposes of the interest on the Bonds.
(t) Except as disclosed in the Official Statement, the Agency has not defaulted in any material respect under any prior continuing disclosure undertaking within the previous five years.
(u) The Oversight Board has duly adopted the Oversight Board Resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds and no further Oversight Board approval or consent is required for the issuing of the Bonds or the consummation of the transactions described in the Preliminary Official Statement.
(v) The Department of Finance of the State of California (the “Department of Finance”) has issued a letter, dated _____, 2026, approving the issuance of the Bonds (the “Department of Finance Letter”). No further Department of Finance approval or consent is required for the issuance of the Bonds or the consummation of the transactions described in the Preliminary Official Statement. Except as disclosed in the Preliminary Official Statement, the
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1224 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding 9 4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
Agency is not aware of the Department of Finance directing or having any basis to direct the County Auditor-Controller to deduct unpaid unencumbered funds from future allocations of property tax to the Agency pursuant to Section 34183 of the Dissolution Act.
6. Closing. At 8:00 A.M., California time, on _____, 2026 (the “Closing Date”), or on such other date as may be mutually agreed upon by the Agency and the Underwriter, the Agency will, subject to the terms and conditions hereof, sell and deliver the Bonds to the Underwriter, duly executed and authenticated, together with the other documents hereinafter mentioned, and, subject to the terms and conditions hereof, the Underwriter will accept such delivery and pay the purchase price of the Bonds as set forth in Section 1 hereof in federal funds. Sale, delivery and payment as aforesaid shall be made at the offices of Anzel Galvan, LLP, San Francisco, California (“Bond Counsel”), or such other place as shall have been mutually agreed upon by the Agency and the Underwriter, except that the Bonds (with one certificate for each maturity and otherwise in a form suitable for the book-entry system) shall be delivered to the Underwriter in New York, New York, through the book-entry system of The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”).
Unless the DTC Fast Automated Securities Transfer (“FAST”) is utilized, the Bonds will be made available for inspection by DTC at least one business day prior to the Closing.
7. Closing Conditions. The Underwriter has entered into this Purchase Agreement in reliance upon the representations and warranties of the Agency contained herein, and in reliance upon the representations and warranties to be contained in the documents and instruments to be delivered at the Closing and upon the performance by the Agency of its obligations hereunder, both as of the date hereof and as of the date of the Closing. Accordingly, the Underwriter’s obligations under this Purchase Agreement to purchase, to accept delivery of and to pay for the Bonds shall be conditioned upon the performance by the Agency of its obligations to be performed hereunder and under such documents and instruments at or prior to the Closing, and shall also be subject to the following additional conditions:
(a) The Underwriter shall receive, within seven (7) business days of the date hereof, but in no event less than 1 day prior to Closing, copies of the Official Statement (including all information previously permitted to have been omitted from the Preliminary Official Statement by Rule 15c2-12 and any amendments or supplements as have been approved by the Underwriter), in such reasonable quantity as the Underwriter shall have requested; (b) The representations and warranties of the Agency contained herein shall be true, complete and correct on the date hereof and on and as of the date of the Closing, as if made on the date of the Closing and the statements of the officers and other officials of the Agency and the Trustee made in any certificate or other document furnished pursuant to the provisions hereof are accurate;
(c) At the time of the Closing, the Agency Legal Documents shall have been duly authorized, executed and delivered by the respective parties thereto, and the Official Statement shall have been duly authorized, executed and delivered by the Agency, all in substantially the forms heretofore submitted to the Underwriter, with only such changes as shall have been agreed to in writing by the Underwriter, and shall be in full force and effect; and there shall be in full force and effect such resolution or resolutions of the governing body of the Agency as, in the opinion of Bond Counsel, shall be necessary or appropriate in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby;
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1225 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding 10 4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
(d) At the time of the Closing, all necessary official action of the Agency relating to the Official Statement and the Agency Legal Documents shall have been taken and shall be in full force and effect and shall not have been amended, modified or supplemented in any material respect;
(e) At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall have received copies of each of the following documents:
(1) Bond Counsel Opinion. The approving opinion of Bond Counsel to the Agency, dated the date of the Closing and substantially in the form included as Appendix F to the Official Statement;
(2) Supplemental Opinion of Bond Counsel. A supplemental opinion or opinions of Bond Counsel addressed to the Underwriter, in form and substance acceptable to the Underwriter, and dated the date of the Closing, stating that the Underwriter may rely on the opinions of Bond Counsel described in paragraph (1) above as if such opinions were addressed to the Underwriter and to the following effect:
(i) the Purchase Agreement and the Escrow Agreements
have been duly executed and delivered by the Agency and (assuming due authorization, execution and delivery by and validity against the other parties thereto, as applicable) constitute the valid and binding agreements of the Agency, except as enforcement thereof may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other laws affecting enforcement of creditors’ rights and by the application of equitable principles;
(ii) the statements contained in the Official Statement under the captions [“INTRODUCTION,” “THE BONDS,” “REFUNDING PLAN,” “SECURITY FOR THE BONDS,” “TAX MATTERS,”] and in Appendices __ and __ insofar as such statements expressly summarize certain provisions of the Indenture or the opinion of Bond Counsel, are accurate in all material respects; and
(iii) the Bonds are not subject to the registration
requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Indenture is exempt from qualification pursuant to the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended. (3) Fiscal Consultant’s Certificate. A certificate of Urban Futures, Inc. (the “Fiscal Consultant”), dated the date of the Closing, addressed to the Agency and the Underwriter, in form and substance acceptable to the Underwriter, (i) certifying as to the accuracy of (A) the information contained in [APPENDIX __—“FISCAL CONSULTANT’S REPORT,”] and the information in the Official Statement under the captions [“THE PROJECT AREA” and “SECURITY FOR THE BONDS—Pass-Through Payments,”] (ii) consenting to the inclusion of such firm’s Fiscal Consultant’s Report in the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement, and (iii) stating that, to the best of such firm’s knowledge, but without having conducted any investigation with respect thereto, nothing has come to such firm’s attention between the date of such report and the date hereof which would materially alter any of the conclusions set forth in such report.
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1226 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding 11 4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
(4) Agency Counsel Opinion. An opinion of Counsel to the Agency, dated the date of the Closing and addressed to the Underwriter, in form and substance acceptable to the Underwriter to the following effect:
(i) the Agency is a public entity duly organized and
existing under the Constitution and laws of the State, with full right, power and authority to execute, deliver and perform its obligations under the Agency Legal Documents; (ii) the Agency Resolution and the Agency OS Resolution were duly adopted at meetings of the Agency, called and held pursuant to law, with all public notice required by law and at which quorums were present and acting throughout; and the Agency Resolution and the Agency OS Resolution are in full force and effect and have not been modified, amended or rescinded since their respective adoption dates; (iii) The Agency Legal Documents and the Official
Statement have been duly authorized, executed and delivered by the Agency and, assuming due authorization, execution and delivery by the other parties thereto, the Agency Legal Documents constitute the valid, legal and binding obligations of the Agency enforceable in accordance with their respective terms, except as enforcement thereof may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other laws affecting enforcement of creditors rights and by the application of equitable principles if equitable remedies are sought;
(iv) The execution and delivery of the Agency Legal
Documents and compliance with the provisions of the Agency Legal Documents, under the circumstances contemplated thereby, (1) do not and will not in any material respect conflict with or constitute on the part of the Agency a breach of or default under any agreement or other instrument to which the Agency is a party or by which it is bound, and (2) do not and will not in any material respect constitute on the part of the Agency a violation, breach of or default under any existing law, regulation, court order or consent decree to which the Agency is subject; (v) to the best of such counsel’s knowledge, except as
otherwise disclosed in the Official Statement, there is no litigation or proceeding, pending and served, or threatened against the Agency for which it has received service, challenging the creation, organization or existence of the Agency, or the validity of the Bonds or the Agency Legal Documents or seeking to restrain or enjoin any of the transactions referred to therein or contemplated thereby, or under which a determination adverse to the Agency would have a material adverse effect upon the financial condition or the revenues of the Agency, or which, in any manner, questions the right of the Agency to issue, sell and deliver the Bonds, to enter into the Indenture and the Escrow Agreements or to use the Tax Revenues for repayment of the Bonds or affects in any manner the right or ability of the Agency to collect or pledge the Tax Revenues; and
(5) Trustee Counsel Opinion. The opinion of counsel to the Trustee, dated the date of the Closing, addressed to the Underwriter, to the effect that:
(i) The Trustee is a national banking association, duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the United States of America, having full power to enter into, accept and administer the trusts created under the Indenture and the Escrow Agreements;
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1227 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding 12 4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
(ii) The Indenture and the Escrow Agreements have been
duly authorized, executed and delivered by the Trustee and the Indenture and the Escrow Agreements constitute the legal, valid and binding obligation of the Trustee, enforceable in accordance with their respective terms, except as enforcement thereof may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other laws affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally and by the application of equitable principles, if equitable remedies are sought; and
(iii) Except as may be required under Blue Sky or other securities laws of any state, no consent, approval, authorization or other action by any governmental or regulatory authority having jurisdiction over the Trustee that has not been obtained is or will be required for the execution and delivery of the Indenture or the Escrow Agreements, or the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Indenture and the Escrow Agreements. (6) Agency Certificate. A certificate of the Agency, dated the date of the Closing, signed on behalf of the Agency by a duly authorized officer of the Agency, to the effect that:
(i) the representations and warranties of the Agency
contained herein are true and correct in all material respects on and as of the date of the Closing as if made on the date of the Closing;
(ii) no event affecting the Agency has occurred since the date of the Official Statement which has not been disclosed therein or in any supplement or amendment thereto which event should be disclosed in the Official Statement in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and
(iii) no further consent is required to be obtained for the inclusion of the Agency’s audited financial statements, including the accompanying accountant’s letter for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 in the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement.
(iv) the Agency is not, in any material respect, in breach of or default under any applicable law or administrative regulation of the State or the United States or any applicable judgment or decree or any loan agreement, indenture, bond, note, resolution, agreement or other instrument to which the Agency is a party or is otherwise subject, which would have a material adverse impact on the Agency’s ability to perform its obligations under the Agency Legal Documents, and no event has occurred and is continuing which, with the passage of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a default or event of default under any such instrument. (7) Trustee’s Certificate. A Certificate, dated the date of Closing, to the effect that:
(i) the Trustee is a national banking association duly
organized and validly existing under the laws of the United States of America; (ii) the Trustee has full power, authority and legal right to comply with the terms of the Indenture and the Escrow Agreements and to perform its obligations stated therein; and
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1228 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding 13 4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
(iii) the Indenture and the Escrow Agreements have been duly authorized, executed and delivered by the Trustee and (assuming due authorization, execution and delivery by the Agency) constitute legal, valid and binding obligations of the Trustee in accordance with their respective terms, except as the enforcement thereof may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or similar laws or equitable principles relating to or limiting creditors’ rights generally.
(8) Legal Documents. Executed copies of this Purchase
Agreement, the Official Statement, and the other Agency Legal Documents. (9) Rating Letter. A letter from S&P Global Ratings (“S&P”) to the effect that the Insured Bonds have been assigned a rating of “_____”, which rating shall be in effect as of the Closing Date.
(10) Agency Resolutions. A copy of the Agency Resolution and the Agency OS Resolution.
(11) Oversight Board Resolution. A copy of the Oversight Board Resolution.
(12) Department of Finance Letter. A copy of the Department of Finance Letter.
(13) Agency Board Certificate. A certificate of the Clerk of the Agency to the effect that the Agency Resolution and the Agency OS Resolution were validly adopted, remain in full force and effect, and have not been amended, rescinded or otherwise modified since their respective date of adoption.
(14) Oversight Board Certificate. A certificate of the Clerk of the Oversight Board to the effect that the Oversight Board Resolution was validly adopted, remains in full force and effect, and has not been amended, rescinded or otherwise modified since its date of adoption.
(15) Defeasance Opinions. An opinion or opinions of Bond Counsel with respect to the defeasance of the Prior Bonds. (16) Verification Report. A report, dated the date of the Closing, of ___________, independent certified public accountants (the “Verification Agent”), to the effect that the Verification Agent has verified the accuracy of the mathematical computations of the adequacy of the deposits in the redemption funds for the Prior Bonds for the full and timely payment of all principal (including premium, if any) and interest due with respect to the Prior Bonds to be defeased with the funds referenced in the Escrow Agreements, as are then outstanding on the dates specified in the Official Statement at the then applicable redemption price. (17) 2026 Reserve Policy. The executed 2026 Reserve Policy issued by the Insurer.
(18) Insurer Counsel Opinion. An opinion of counsel to the Insurer, dated as of the Closing Date, addressed to the Underwriter and the Agency in form and substance acceptable to the Underwriter, substantially to the effect that: (i) the Insurer has been duly
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1229 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding 14 4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
incorporated and is validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of its incorporation; and (ii) the 2026 Reserve Policy constitute legal, valid and binding obligations of the Insurer enforceable in accordance with its terms, subject, as to enforcement, to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, rehabilitation and other similar laws of general applicability relating to or affecting creditors’ and/or claimants’ rights against insurance companies and to general equity principles.
(19) Additional Documents. Such additional certificates, instruments and other documents as Bond Counsel, the Agency or the Underwriter may reasonably deem necessary.
All the opinions, letters, certificates, instruments and other documents mentioned above or elsewhere in this Purchase Agreement shall be deemed to be in compliance with the provisions hereof if, but only if, they are in form and substance satisfactory to the Underwriter.
If the Agency or the Trustee shall be unable to satisfy the conditions to the obligations of the Underwriter to purchase, to accept delivery of and to pay for the Bonds contained in this Purchase Agreement, if the Agency shall determine in good faith (and provide written notice to the Underwriter) that legislation has been introduced or proposals made by the Governor of the State which if enacted and effective would impose additional limitations or burdens on the Agency or the City of Santa Monica (the “City”) by reason of the issuance of the Bonds or which purport to prohibit the issuance of the Bonds, or if the obligations of the Underwriter to purchase, to accept delivery of and to pay for the Bonds shall be terminated for any reason permitted by this Purchase Agreement, this Purchase Agreement shall terminate and the Underwriter shall be under no further obligation hereunder.
8. Termination. The Underwriter shall have the right to terminate this Purchase Agreement, without liability therefor, by notification to the Agency if at any time between the date hereof and prior to the Closing:
(a) any event shall occur which causes any statement contained in the Official Statement to be materially misleading or results in a failure of the Official Statement to state a material fact necessary to make the statements in the Official Statement, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (b) the marketability of the Bonds or the market price thereof, in the opinion of the Underwriter, has been materially adversely affected by an amendment to the Constitution of the United States or by any legislation in or by the Congress of the United States or by the State, or the amendment of legislation pending as of the date of this Purchase Agreement in the Congress of the United States, or the recommendation to Congress or endorsement for passage (by press release, other form of notice or otherwise) of legislation by the President of the United States, the Treasury Department of the United States, the Internal Revenue Service or the Chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Finance of the United States Senate or the Committee on Ways and Means of the United States House of Representatives, or the proposal for consideration of legislation by either such Committee or by any member thereof, or the presentment of legislation for consideration as an option by either such Committee, or by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation of the Congress of the United States, or the favorable reporting for passage of legislation to either House of the Congress of the United States by a Committee of such House to which such legislation has been referred for consideration, or any decision of any Federal or State
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1230 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding 15 4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
court or any ruling or regulation (final, temporary or proposed) or official statement on behalf of the United States Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service or other federal or State authority materially adversely affecting the federal or State tax status of the Agency, or the interest on bonds or notes or obligations of the general character of the Bonds; or (c) any legislation, ordinance, rule or regulation shall be introduced in, or be enacted by any governmental body, department or agency of the State, or a decision by any court of competent jurisdiction within the State or any court of the United States shall be rendered which, in the reasonable opinion of the Underwriter, materially adversely affects the market price of the Bonds; or
(d) legislation shall be enacted by the Congress of the United States, or a decision by a court of the United States shall be rendered, or a stop order, ruling, regulation or official statement by, or on behalf of, the Securities and Exchange Commission or any other governmental agency having jurisdiction of the subject matter shall be issued or made to the effect that the issuance, offering or sale of obligations of the general character of the Bonds, or the issuance, offering or sale of the Bonds, including all underlying obligations, as contemplated hereby or by the Official Statement, is in violation or would be in violation of, or that obligations of the general character of the Bonds, or the Bonds, are not exempt from registration under, any provision of the federal securities laws, including the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and as then in effect, or that the Indenture needs to be qualified under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended and as then in effect; or
(e) additional material restrictions not in force as of the date hereof shall have been imposed upon trading in securities generally by any governmental authority or by any national securities exchange which restrictions materially adversely affect the Underwriter’s ability to trade the Bonds; or
(f) a general banking moratorium shall have been established by federal or State authorities; or
(g) the United States has become engaged in hostilities which have resulted in a declaration of war or a national emergency or there has occurred any other outbreak of hostilities or a national or international calamity or crisis, or there has occurred any escalation of existing hostilities, calamity or crisis, financial or otherwise, the effect of which on the financial markets of the United States being such as, in the reasonable opinion of the Underwriter, would affect materially and adversely the ability of the Underwriter to market the Bonds; or (h) any rating of the Bonds shall have been downgraded, suspended or withdrawn by a national rating service, which, in the Underwriter’s reasonable opinion, materially adversely affects the marketability or market price of the Bonds; or (i) the commencement of any action, suit or proceeding described in Section 5(g) hereof which, in the judgment of the Underwriter, materially adversely affects the market price of the Bonds; or
(j) there shall be in force a general suspension of trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1231 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding 16 4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
9. Expenses. The Agency will pay or cause to be paid the approved expenses incident to the performance of its obligations hereunder and certain expenses relating to the sale of the Bonds, including, but not limited to, (a) the cost of the preparation and printing or other reproduction of the Agency Legal Documents (other than this Purchase Agreement); (b) the fees and disbursements of Bond Counsel, the Municipal Advisor, Fiscal Consultant and any other experts or other consultants retained by the Agency; (c) the costs and fees of the credit rating agencies; (d) the cost of preparing and delivering the definitive Bonds; (e) the cost of providing immediately available funds on the Closing Date; (f) the cost of the printing or other reproduction of the Preliminary Official Statement and Official Statement and any amendment or supplement thereto, including a reasonable number of certified or conformed copies thereof; (g) the Underwriter’s out-of-pocket expenses incurred with the financing; (h) the fees of a third party consultant for a continuing disclosure undertaking compliance review; and (i) expenses (included in the expense component of the spread) incurred on behalf of the City’s or the Agency’s employees which are incidental to implementing this Purchase Agreement. The Underwriter will pay the expenses of the preparation of this Purchase Agreement and all other expenses incurred by the Underwriter in connection with the public offering and distribution of the Bonds, and the fee and disbursements of Underwriter’s Counsel. The Underwriter is required to pay the fees of the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission in connection with the offering of the Bonds. The Agency acknowledges that it has had an opportunity, in consultation with such advisors as it may deem appropriate, if any, to evaluate and consider such fees. Notwithstanding that such fees are solely the legal obligation of the Underwriter, the Agency agrees to reimburse the Underwriter for such fees.
The Underwriter shall pay, and the Agency shall be under no obligation to pay, all expenses incurred by the Underwriter in connection with the public offering and distribution of the Bonds.
10. Notices. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Agency under this Purchase Agreement may be given by delivering the same in writing at the Agency’s address set forth above; Attention: Executive Director, and to the Underwriter under this Purchase Agreement may be given by delivering the same in writing to Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, 2121 Avenue of the Stars, 21st Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067, Attention: Sara Oberlies Brown, Managing Director.
11. Parties in Interest. This Purchase Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the Agency and the Underwriter and no other person shall acquire or have any right hereunder or by virtue hereof. All of the representations, warranties and agreements of the Agency contained in this Purchase Agreement shall remain operative and in full force and effect, regardless of: (i) any investigations made by or on behalf of the Underwriter; (ii) delivery of and payment for the Bonds pursuant to this Purchase Agreement; and (iii) any termination of this Purchase Agreement.
12. Effectiveness and Counterpart Signatures. This Purchase Agreement shall become effective upon the execution of the acceptance by an authorized officer of the Agency and shall be valid and enforceable at the time of such acceptance and approval. This Purchase Agreement may be executed by the parties hereto by facsimile transmission and in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered (including delivery by facsimile transmission) shall be an original, but all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument.
13. Headings. The headings of the sections of this Purchase Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not be deemed to be a part hereof.
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1232 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding S-1
4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
14. Governing Law. This Purchase Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
Very truly yours,
STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY,
INCORPORATED
By:
Its: Managing Director
Accepted:
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
By:
Executive Director
Time: ____________ p.m.
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1233 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding A-1
4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
EXHIBIT A
$__________
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
2026 TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BONDS
MATURITY SCHEDULE
Maturity Date
Principal
Amount Interest Rate Price
10% Test
Used
Hold the
Offering Price
Used
C Priced to the optional redemption date of August 1, 20__, at _____. T Term Bonds.
REDEMPTION PROVISIONS
Optional Redemption of Bonds. The Bonds are subject to optional redemption prior to their respective maturity dates as a whole, or in part by lot, on any date on or after [August 1, 20__], by such maturity or maturities as shall be directed by the Agency (or in absence of such direction, pro rata by maturity and by lot within a maturity), from any source of available funds. Such optional redemption shall be at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount to be redeemed, plus accrued but unpaid interest to the date fixed for redemption, without premium.
Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption of Bonds. The Bonds maturing August 1, 20__ and August 1, 20__ (the “Term Bonds”) shall also be subject to mandatory redemption in whole, or in part by lot, on July 1 in each year, commencing August 1, 20__ and August 1, 20__, respectively, as set forth below, from sinking fund payments made by the Successor Agency to the Principal Account pursuant to the Indenture, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof to be redeemed, without premium, in the aggregate respective principal amounts and on August 1 in the respective years as set forth in the following tables; provided however, that (y) in lieu of redemption thereof such 2026 Term Bonds may be purchased by the Agency pursuant to the Indenture, and (z) if some but not all of such Term Bonds have been redeemed pursuant to subsection (a) above, the total amount of all future sinking fund payments shall be reduced by the aggregate principal amount of such Term Bonds so redeemed, to be allocated among such sinking fund payments in integral multiples of $5,000 as determined by the Agency (written notice of which determination shall be given by the Agency to the Trustee and shall include a revised sinking fund schedule).
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1234 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding A
-2
4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
Term Bonds of 20__
August1 Principal Amount
(Maturity)
Term Bonds of 20__
August1 Principal Amount
(Maturity)
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1235 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding B-1
4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
EXHIBIT B
FORM OF ISSUE PRICE CERTIFICATE
$__________
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
2026 TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BONDS
The undersigned, on behalf of Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (“Stifel”) hereby certifies as set forth below with respect to the sale and issuance of the above-captioned bonds (the “Bonds”).
1. Sale of the General Rule Maturities. As of the date of this certificate, for each Maturity of the General Rule Maturities, the first price at which at least 10% of such Maturity was sold to the Public is the respective price listed in Schedule A.
2. Initial Offering Price of the Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturities. (a) Stifel offered the Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturities to the Public for purchase at the respective initial offering prices listed in Schedule A (the “Initial Offering Prices”) on or before the Sale Date. A copy of the pricing wire or equivalent communication for the Bonds is attached to this certificate as Schedule B.
(b) As set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement, dated _____, 2026, by and between Stifel and the Issuer, Stifel has agreed in writing that, (i) for each Maturity of the Hold-theOffering-Price Maturities, it would neither offer nor sell any of the Bonds of such Maturity to any person at a price that is higher than the Initial Offering Price for such Maturity during the Holding Period for such Maturity (the “hold-the-offering-price rule”), and (ii) any selling group agreement shall contain the agreement of each dealer who is a member of the selling group, and any retail distribution agreement shall contain the agreement of each broker-dealer who is a party to the retail distribution agreement, to comply with the hold-the-offering-price rule. Pursuant to such agreement, no Underwriter (as defined below) has offered or sold any Maturity of the Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturities at a price that is higher than the respective Initial Offering Price for that Maturity of the Bonds during the Holding Period.
3. Defined Terms.
(a) General Rule Maturities means those Maturities of the Bonds listed in Schedule A hereto as the “General Rule Maturities.”
(b) Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturities means those Maturities of the Bonds listed in Schedule A hereto as the “Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturities.” (c) Holding Period means, with respect to a Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturity, the period starting on the Sale Date and ending on the earlier of (i) the close of the fifth business day after the Sale Date (_____, 2026), or (ii) the date on which Stifel has sold at least 10% of such Holdthe-Offering-Price Maturity to the Public at prices that are no higher than the Initial Offering Price for such Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturity.
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1236 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding B-2
4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
(d) Issuer means the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Monica.
(e) Maturity means Bonds with the same credit and payment terms. Bonds with different maturity dates, or Bonds with the same maturity date but different stated interest rates, are treated as separate maturities.
(f) Public means any person (including an individual, trust, estate, partnership, association, company, or corporation) other than an Underwriter or a related party to an Underwriter.
The term “related party” for purposes of this certificate generally means any two or more persons who have greater than 50 percent common ownership, directly or indirectly. (g) Sale Date means the first day on which there is a binding contract in writing for the sale of a Maturity of the Bonds. The Sale Date of the Bonds is _____, 2026. (h) Underwriter means (i) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract with the Issuer (or with the lead underwriter to form an underwriting syndicate) to participate in the initial sale of the Bonds to the Public, and (ii) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract directly or indirectly with a person described in clause (i) of this paragraph to participate in the initial sale of the Bonds to the Public (including a member of a selling group or a party to a retail distribution agreement participating in the initial sale of the Bonds to the Public).
The representations set forth in this certificate are limited to factual matters only. Nothing in this certificate represents Stifel’s interpretation of any laws, including specifically Sections 103 and 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations thereunder.
The undersigned understands that the foregoing information will be relied upon by the Issuer with respect to certain of the representations set forth in the Tax Certificate and with respect to compliance with the federal income tax rules affecting the Bonds, and by Anzel Galvan LLP, in connection with rendering its opinion that the interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes, the preparation of the Internal Revenue Service Form 8038-G, and other federal income tax advice that it may give to the Issuer from time to time relating to the Bonds.
STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY,
INCORPORATED
By:
Name:
By:
Name:
Dated: ________, 2026
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1237 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding B-3
4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
SCHEDULE A
SALE PRICES OF THE GENERAL RULE MATURITIES AND INITIAL OFFERING
PRICES OF THE HOLD-THE-OFFERING-PRICE MATURITIES
(Attached)
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1238 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding B-4
4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
SCHEDULE B
PRICING WIRE OR EQUIVALENT COMMUNICATION
(Attached)
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1239 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding C-1
4938-0719-2701v2/200356-0693
EXHIBIT C
RULE 15c2-12 CERTIFICATE
The undersigned hereby certifies and represents to Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (the “Underwriter”) that [he/she] is a duly appointed and acting officer of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Monica authorized to execute this Certificate, and as such is to execute and deliver this Certificate and further hereby certify and reconfirm on behalf of the Agency to the Underwriter as follows:
(1) This Certificate is delivered to enable the Underwriter to comply with Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Rule”) in connection with the offering and sale of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Monica 2026 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds (the “Bonds”).
(2) In connection with the offering and sale of the Bonds, there has been prepared a Preliminary Official Statement, dated as of _____, 2026, setting forth information concerning the Bonds and the Agency, as issuer of the Bonds (the “Preliminary Official Statement”).
(3) As used herein, “Permitted Omissions” shall mean the offering price(s), interest rate(s), selling compensation, aggregate principal amount, principal amount per maturity, delivery dates, ratings and other terms of the Bonds depending on such matters and the identity of the underwriter(s), all with respect to the Bonds. (4) The Preliminary Official Statement is, except for the Permitted Omissions, deemed final within the meaning of the Rule and has been, and the information therein is accurate and complete in all material respects except for the Permitted Omissions. (5) If, at any time prior to the execution of the final contract of purchase, any event occurs as a result of which the Preliminary Official Statement might include an untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, the Agency shall promptly notify the Underwriter thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand as of the ______ day of ______, 2026.
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
By
Authorized Officer
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1240 Attachment: Attachment D - Bond Purchase Agreement (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding 1 SAVINGS MEMORANDUM
TO: Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Monica FROM: Urban Futures, Inc.
Michael Busch, Chief Strategy Officer
Branden Kfoury, Director
DATE: December 15, 2025
RE: Independent Municipal Advisor’s Report: Debt Service Savings Analysis for the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Monica 2026 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Background
The Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Monica (the “Agency”) is authorized under Section 34177.5(a)(1) of the California Health and Safety Code to issue refunding tax allocation bonds and other indebtedness for economic savings within the parameters set forth in Section 34177.5(a)(1) of the California Health and Safety Code (the “Savings Parameters”). In addition, Section 34177.5(h) of the California Health and Safety Code provides, in relevant part, that the Agency “…shall make use of an independent financial advisor in developing financing proposals and shall make the work products of the financial advisor available to the Department of Finance at its request.” Urban Futures, Inc., has been retained by the Agency to serve as its independent municipal advisor to determine compliance with the Savings Parameters for purposes of the incurrence by the Agency of the tax allocation refunding bonds in one or more series (collectively, “2026 Bonds”).
The Agency will issue the 2026 Bonds to refund the following obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency: (i) Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Project 2006 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series A (“2006 Bonds”); and (ii) Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Project 2011 Tax Allocation Bonds (“2011 Bonds” and together with the 2011 Bonds, the “Refunded Bonds”).
The Agency has selected Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (the “Underwriter”) to structure and negotiate the refunding of the Refunded Bonds. The financing goal is to maximize economic savings by reducing total debt service, and the savings generated from this refunding are anticipated to result in higher future property tax distributions to the taxing entities. This report may be used in presentations to the Agency Board and Los Angeles County Third Supervisorial District Consolidated Oversight Board, but actual savings will be final only after the pricing of the 2026 Bonds.
Plan of Refunding
Based on market conditions as of December 8, 2025, the Underwriter estimates that the refunding of the Refunded Bonds will achieve combined debt service savings of approximately $12.2 million and Net Present Value savings of approximately $7.0 million, or 12.2% of refunded par. The Underwriter’s estimates include the following key assumptions for the 2026 Bonds:
(i) a public market negotiated sale;
(ii) an underlying rating of “AA” assigned by S&P;
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1241 Attachment: Attachment E - Municipal Advisor Report (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, 2 (iii) the use of a reserve surety in lieu of a cash funded reserve fund; and (iv) a proportional savings structure by refunded series.
The Agency may select an alternative structure for the 2026 Bonds and other assumptions may be adjusted, which would change the refunding results.
Refunding Results
The following table shows the estimated sources and uses for the 2026 Bonds.
The tables on the following page show estimated Cash Flow and Net Present Value savings results assuming market conditions as of December 8, 2025. Additional information can be found in the attached Refunding Analysis.
Sources: Refunding of 2006 Bonds Refunding of 2011 Bonds Total Par Amount $ 15,755,000 $ 35,760,000 $ 51,515,000
Premium 610,363 4,294,338 4,904,701
$ 16,365,363 $ 40,054,338 $ 56,419,701
Prior Bonds Available Funds - 2,319,388 2,319,388
$ - $ 2,319,388 $ 2,319,388
Total Sources of Funds $ 16,365,363 $ 42,373,726 $ 58,739,089 Uses: Refunding of 2006 Bonds Refunding of 2011 Bonds Total Refunding Escrow Deposit $ 16,137,259 $ 41,867,169 $ 58,004,428 Costs of Issuance(1) $ 228,103 $ 506,557 $ 734,661
Total Uses of Funds $ 16,365,363 $ 42,373,726 $ 58,739,089 (1) Includes estimated costs of issuance, underwriter's discount, reserve surety expense, and contingency amount.
Table 1: Sources and Uses of Funds
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1242 Attachment: Attachment E - Municipal Advisor Report (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, 3 Proposed Refunding Complies With State Law
Based on the 2026 Bonds’ proposed structure and the estimated debt service savings according to numbers prepared by the Underwriter, Urban Futures, Inc. expects that the 2026 Bonds will comply with the Savings Parameters and other requirements of State Law as described below.
A. Total debt service (principal and interest) on the refunding bonds is less than total debt service on the refunded bonds (sec. 34177.5(a)(1)(A)): Section 34177.5(a)(1)(A) requires that the total interest cost to maturity on the refunding bonds or other indebtedness plus the principal amount of the refunding bonds or other indebtedness shall not exceed the total remaining interest cost to maturity on the bonds or other indebtedness to be refunded plus the remaining principal of the bonds or other indebtedness to be Refunding of
2006 Bonds
Refunding of
2011 Bonds Total
7/1/2026 $ 1,236 $ 3,273 $ 4,509
7/1/2027 106,333 515,413 621,745
7/1/2028 110,813 515,413 626,225
7/1/2029 110,063 515,413 625,475
7/1/2030 795,413 795,413
7/1/2031 796,413 796,413
7/1/2032 796,663 796,663
7/1/2033 796,163 796,163
7/1/2034 797,075 797,075
7/1/2035 794,675 794,675
7/1/2036 793,831 793,831
7/1/2037 794,250 794,250
7/1/2038 793,238 793,238
7/1/2039 794,350 794,350
7/1/2040 797,294 797,294
7/1/2041 796,731 796,731
7/1/2042 792,663 792,663
$ 328,443 $ 11,888,267 $ 12,216,710
Table 2: Cash Flow Savings
Refunding of
2006 Bonds
Refunding of
2011 Bonds Total
PV of savings from cash flow $ 306,029 $ 8,979,927 $ 9,285,956 Less: Prior funds on hand(1) $ - $ (2,319,388) $ (2,319,388) Plus: Refunding funds on hand $ 4,238 $ (1,561) $ 2,677 Net PV Savings $ 310,268 $ 6,658,977 $ 6,969,245
Net PV Savings as % of Refunded Par 1.95% 16.22% 12.24% (1) Consists of reserve account release in connection with defeasance of 2011 Bonds.
Table 3: Net PV Savings Summary
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1243 Attachment: Attachment E - Municipal Advisor Report (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, 4 refunded. The refunding of the Refunded Bonds is expected to generate an estimated total debt service savings of approximately $12.2 million calculated as follows: (i) total debt service on the Refunded Bonds, minus (ii) total debt service on the 2026 Bonds. Net Present Value savings are estimated to be approximately $7.0 million, or 12.2% of refunded par. The combined Net Present Value savings satisfy the Savings Parameters in Section 34177.5(a)(1) and is well-above the 3% minimum savings threshold in the Successor Agency’s Debt Management Policy.
B. Refunding bonds principal shall be used only for purposes of refunding outstanding Agency obligations (sec. 34177.5(a) (1)(B)): Section 34177.5(a)(1)(B) requires that the principal amount of the refunding bonds or other indebtedness shall not exceed the amount required to defease the refunded bonds or other indebtedness, to establish customary debt service reserves, and to pay related costs of issuance. The anticipated sources and uses of funds for the 2026 Bonds show that all proceeds of the 2026 Bonds will be used only to defease the Refunded Bonds and to pay related costs of issuance.
Proceeds of the 2026 Bonds will not be used for any other purposes, including new-money purposes.
C. Agency shall make diligent efforts to ensure lowest long-term cost financing is obtained, to structure refunding that does not provide for any bullets or spikes or variable rates, and shall hire an independent financial advisor (sec. 34177.5(h)): The Agency has retained Urban Futures, Inc., an independent financial advisor registered with the SEC and MSRB, to monitor the pricing of the 2026 Bonds. In order to achieve the lowest long-term cost of financing, the financing team will explore replacing the cash-funded debt service reserve fund of the 2011 Bonds with a reserve policy. In accordance with Section 34177.5(h), the 2026 Bonds will not be structured to include any bullet principal maturities, debt service spikes or variable rates.
Issuance of the 2026 Bonds by the Agency for the purpose of refunding the Refunded Bonds is recommended to achieve debt service savings.
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1244 Attachment: Attachment E - Municipal Advisor Report (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, 5 Appendix: Refunding Analysis
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1245 Attachment: Attachment E - Municipal Advisor Report (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Dec 16, 2025 4:19 pm Prepared by Stifel Public Finance (SOB) (Finance 8.901 Santa Monica TABs:120825-2025) Page 1
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency
2026 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds
**************************************************************************************************** Market Conditions as of December 8, 2025 (+0.20% Cushion) **************************************************************************************************** Dated Date 04/29/2026
Delivery Date 04/29/2026
Refunding 2006 Refunding 2011
Tax Allocation Tax Allocation
Sources: Bonds Bonds Total
Bond Proceeds:
Par Amount 15,755,000.00 35,760,000.00 51,515,000.00
Premium 610,362.60 4,294,338.45 4,904,701.05
16,365,362.60 40,054,338.45 56,419,701.05
Other Sources of Funds:
Prior Debt Service Reserve Fund 2,319,387.90 2,319,387.90 16,365,362.60 42,373,726.35 58,739,088.95
Refunding 2006 Refunding 2011
Tax Allocation Tax Allocation
Uses: Bonds Bonds Total
Refunding Escrow Deposits:
Cash Deposit 0.25 0.83 1.08
SLGS Purchases 16,137,259.00 41,867,168.00 58,004,427.00 16,137,259.25 41,867,168.83 58,004,428.08
Delivery Date Expenses:
Cost of Issuance 91,749.98 208,250.02 300,000.00
Underwriter's Discount 102,407.50 232,440.00 334,847.50 Surety Reserve (175 bps) 29,707.54 67,428.87 97,136.41
223,865.02 508,118.89 731,983.91
Other Uses of Funds:
Additional Proceeds 4,238.33 -1,561.37 2,676.96
16,365,362.60 42,373,726.35 58,739,088.95
Notes:
1. Preliminary and subject to change.
2. Interest rates reflect current market conditions and similar credits.
3. The refunding assumes an S&P rating of 'AA' which is consistent with the rating of the Prior Bonds.
4. Cost of Issuance and Underwriter's Discount are estimates for discussion purposes.
5. The refunding has been structured with no change to the term or debt service profile relative to the Prior Bonds.
6. Stifel neither guarantees these results nor commits to underwrite at these levels.
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1246 Attachment: Attachment E - Municipal Advisor Report (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Dec 16, 2025 4:19 pm Prepared by Stifel Public Finance (SOB) (Finance 8.901 Santa Monica TABs:120825-2025) Page 2
SUMMARY OF REFUNDING RESULTS
Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency
2026 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds
**************************************************************************************************** Market Conditions as of December 8, 2025 (+0.20% Cushion) **************************************************************************************************** Refunding 2006 Refunding 2011
Tax Allocation Tax Allocation
Bonds Bonds Total
Dated Date 04/29/2026 04/29/2026 04/29/2026
Delivery Date 04/29/2026 04/29/2026 04/29/2026
Arbitrage Yield 3.258832% 3.258832% 3.258832%
Escrow Yield 3.258759% 3.258833% 3.258812%
Value of Negative Arbitrage 0.96 -0.04 0.92
Bond Par Amount 15,755,000.00 35,760,000.00 51,515,000.00 True Interest Cost 3.016678% 3.667472% 3.619632%
Net Interest Cost 3.099210% 3.928933% 3.874315%
Average Coupon 5.000000% 5.000000% 5.000000%
Average Life 1.696 10.605 7.880
Par amount of refunded bonds 15,875,000.00 41,050,000.00 56,925,000.00 Average coupon of refunded bonds 4.738131% 5.534256% 5.488329% Average life of refunded bonds 1.729 10.925 8.360
PV of prior debt 16,505,559.97 50,171,245.78 66,676,805.75 Net PV Savings 310,267.65 6,658,977.55 6,969,245.20
Percentage savings of refunded bonds 1.954442% 16.221626% 12.242855% Percentage savings of refunding bonds 1.969328% 18.621302% 13.528575% Notes:
1. Preliminary and subject to change.
2. Interest rates reflect current market conditions and similar credits.
3. The refunding assumes an S&P rating of 'AA' which is consistent with the rating of the Prior Bonds.
4. Cost of Issuance and Underwriter's Discount are estimates for discussion purposes.
5. The refunding has been structured with no change to the term or debt service profile relative to the Prior Bonds.
6. Stifel neither guarantees these results nor commits to underwrite at these levels.
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1247 Attachment: Attachment E - Municipal Advisor Report (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Dec 16, 2025 4:19 pm Prepared by Stifel Public Finance (SOB) (Finance 8.901 Santa Monica TABs:120825-2025) Page 3
SAVINGS
Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency
2026 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds
**************************************************************************************************** Market Conditions as of December 8, 2025 (+0.20% Cushion) **************************************************************************************************** Present Value
Prior Refunding to 04/29/2026
Date Debt Service Debt Service Savings @ 3.2588316%
07/01/2026 5,208,110.00 5,203,601.39 4,508.61 4,483.58
07/01/2027 6,709,495.00 6,087,750.00 621,745.00 602,561.85 07/01/2028 6,711,475.00 6,085,250.00 626,225.00 587,643.30 07/01/2029 6,708,975.00 6,083,500.00 625,475.00 568,231.90 07/01/2030 4,517,412.50 3,722,000.00 795,412.50 698,724.31 07/01/2031 4,514,662.50 3,718,250.00 796,412.50 677,248.28 07/01/2032 4,516,412.50 3,719,750.00 796,662.50 655,812.19 07/01/2033 4,517,162.50 3,721,000.00 796,162.50 634,454.92 07/01/2034 4,513,825.00 3,716,750.00 797,075.00 614,729.82 07/01/2035 4,516,675.00 3,722,000.00 794,675.00 593,135.02 07/01/2036 4,514,831.26 3,721,000.00 793,831.26 573,391.99 07/01/2037 4,513,000.00 3,718,750.00 794,250.00 555,163.41 07/01/2038 4,513,237.50 3,720,000.00 793,237.50 536,595.75 07/01/2039 4,513,600.00 3,719,250.00 794,350.00 520,020.46 07/01/2040 4,513,543.76 3,716,250.00 797,293.76 505,098.61 07/01/2041 4,512,481.26 3,715,750.00 796,731.26 488,435.35 07/01/2042 4,514,912.50 3,722,250.00 792,662.50 470,225.40 84,029,811.28 71,813,101.39 12,216,709.89 9,285,956.14
Savings Summary
PV of savings from cash flow 9,285,956.14
Less: Prior funds on hand -2,319,387.90
Plus: Refunding funds on hand 2,676.96
Net PV Savings 6,969,245.20
Notes:
1. Preliminary and subject to change.
2. Interest rates reflect current market conditions and similar credits.
3. The refunding assumes an S&P rating of 'AA' which is consistent with the rating of the Prior Bonds.
4. Cost of Issuance and Underwriter's Discount are estimates for discussion purposes.
5. The refunding has been structured with no change to the term or debt service profile relative to the Prior Bonds.
6. Stifel neither guarantees these results nor commits to underwrite at these levels.
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1248 Attachment: Attachment E - Municipal Advisor Report (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Dec 16, 2025 4:19 pm Prepared by Stifel Public Finance (SOB) (Finance 8.901 Santa Monica TABs:120825-2025) Page 4
SAVINGS
Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency
Refunding 2006 Tax Allocation Bonds
**************************************************************************************************** Market Conditions as of December 8, 2025 (+0.20% Cushion) **************************************************************************************************** Present Value
Prior Refunding to 04/29/2026
Date Debt Service Debt Service Savings @ 3.2588316%
07/01/2026 4,076,903.75 4,075,668.06 1,235.69 1,228.83
07/01/2027 4,447,082.50 4,340,750.00 106,332.50 102,271.43 07/01/2028 4,449,062.50 4,338,250.00 110,812.50 103,266.51 07/01/2029 4,446,562.50 4,336,500.00 110,062.50 99,262.55 17,419,611.25 17,091,168.06 328,443.19 306,029.32
Savings Summary
PV of savings from cash flow 306,029.32
Plus: Refunding funds on hand 4,238.33
Net PV Savings 310,267.65
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1249 Attachment: Attachment E - Municipal Advisor Report (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Dec 16, 2025 4:19 pm Prepared by Stifel Public Finance (SOB) (Finance 8.901 Santa Monica TABs:120825-2025) Page 5
SAVINGS
Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency
Refunding 2011 Tax Allocation Bonds
**************************************************************************************************** Market Conditions as of December 8, 2025 (+0.20% Cushion) **************************************************************************************************** Present Value
Prior Refunding to 04/29/2026
Date Debt Service Debt Service Savings @ 3.2588316%
07/01/2026 1,131,206.25 1,127,933.33 3,272.92 3,254.75
07/01/2027 2,262,412.50 1,747,000.00 515,412.50 500,290.41 07/01/2028 2,262,412.50 1,747,000.00 515,412.50 484,376.79 07/01/2029 2,262,412.50 1,747,000.00 515,412.50 468,969.36 07/01/2030 4,517,412.50 3,722,000.00 795,412.50 698,724.31 07/01/2031 4,514,662.50 3,718,250.00 796,412.50 677,248.28 07/01/2032 4,516,412.50 3,719,750.00 796,662.50 655,812.19 07/01/2033 4,517,162.50 3,721,000.00 796,162.50 634,454.92 07/01/2034 4,513,825.00 3,716,750.00 797,075.00 614,729.82 07/01/2035 4,516,675.00 3,722,000.00 794,675.00 593,135.02 07/01/2036 4,514,831.26 3,721,000.00 793,831.26 573,391.99 07/01/2037 4,513,000.00 3,718,750.00 794,250.00 555,163.41 07/01/2038 4,513,237.50 3,720,000.00 793,237.50 536,595.75 07/01/2039 4,513,600.00 3,719,250.00 794,350.00 520,020.46 07/01/2040 4,513,543.76 3,716,250.00 797,293.76 505,098.61 07/01/2041 4,512,481.26 3,715,750.00 796,731.26 488,435.35 07/01/2042 4,514,912.50 3,722,250.00 792,662.50 470,225.40 66,610,200.03 54,721,933.33 11,888,266.70 8,979,926.82
Savings Summary
PV of savings from cash flow 8,979,926.82
Less: Prior funds on hand -2,319,387.90
Plus: Refunding funds on hand -1,561.37
Net PV Savings 6,658,977.55
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1250 Attachment: Attachment E - Municipal Advisor Report (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Dec 16, 2025 4:19 pm Prepared by Stifel Public Finance (SOB) (Finance 8.901 Santa Monica TABs:120825-2025) Page 6
BOND PRICING
Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency
2026 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds
**************************************************************************************************** Market Conditions as of December 8, 2025 (+0.20% Cushion) **************************************************************************************************** Maturity Yield to Call Call Premium
Bond Component Date Amount Rate Yield Price Maturity Date Price (-Discount) Serial Bond:
07/01/2026 4,760,000 5.000% 2.660% 100.393 18,706.80
07/01/2027 3,750,000 5.000% 2.650% 102.691 100,912.50
07/01/2028 3,935,000 5.000% 2.630% 104.968 195,490.80
07/01/2029 4,130,000 5.000% 2.610% 107.227 298,475.10
07/01/2030 1,975,000 5.000% 2.620% 109.344 184,544.00
07/01/2031 2,070,000 5.000% 2.660% 111.234 232,543.80
07/01/2032 2,175,000 5.000% 2.730% 112.810 278,617.50
07/01/2033 2,285,000 5.000% 2.810% 114.132 322,916.20
07/01/2034 2,395,000 5.000% 2.830% 115.729 376,709.55
07/01/2035 2,520,000 5.000% 2.930% 116.539 416,782.80
07/01/2036 2,645,000 5.000% 3.080% 115.236 C 3.230% 07/01/2035 100.000 402,992.20 07/01/2037 2,775,000 5.000% 3.210% 114.120 C 3.465% 07/01/2035 100.000 391,830.00 07/01/2038 2,915,000 5.000% 3.350% 112.932 C 3.672% 07/01/2035 100.000 376,967.80 07/01/2039 3,060,000 5.000% 3.460% 112.010 C 3.830% 07/01/2035 100.000 367,506.00 07/01/2040 3,210,000 5.000% 3.600% 110.849 C 3.990% 07/01/2035 100.000 348,252.90 07/01/2041 3,370,000 5.000% 3.790% 109.295 C 4.167% 07/01/2035 100.000 313,241.50 07/01/2042 3,545,000 5.000% 3.970% 107.848 C 4.320% 07/01/2035 100.000 278,211.60 51,515,000 4,904,701.05
Dated Date 04/29/2026
Delivery Date 04/29/2026
First Coupon 07/01/2026
Par Amount 51,515,000.00
Premium 4,904,701.05
Production 56,419,701.05 109.520918%
Underwriter's Discount -334,847.50 -0.650000%
Purchase Price 56,084,853.55 108.870918%
Accrued Interest
Net Proceeds 56,084,853.55
Notes:
1. Preliminary and subject to change.
2. Interest rates reflect current market conditions and similar credits.
3. The refunding assumes an S&P rating of 'AA' which is consistent with the rating of the Prior Bonds.
4. Cost of Issuance and Underwriter's Discount are estimates for discussion purposes.
5. The refunding has been structured with no change to the term or debt service profile relative to the Prior Bonds.
6. Stifel neither guarantees these results nor commits to underwrite at these levels.
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1251 Attachment: Attachment E - Municipal Advisor Report (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Dec 16, 2025 4:19 pm Prepared by Stifel Public Finance (SOB) (Finance 8.901 Santa Monica TABs:120825-2025) Page 7
AGGREGATE DEBT SERVICE
Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency
2026 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds
**************************************************************************************************** Market Conditions as of December 8, 2025 (+0.20% Cushion) **************************************************************************************************** Refunding 2006 Refunding 2011
Period Tax Allocation Tax Allocation Aggregate
Ending Bonds Bonds Debt Service
07/01/2026 4,075,668.06 1,127,933.33 5,203,601.39
07/01/2027 4,340,750.00 1,747,000.00 6,087,750.00
07/01/2028 4,338,250.00 1,747,000.00 6,085,250.00
07/01/2029 4,336,500.00 1,747,000.00 6,083,500.00
07/01/2030 3,722,000.00 3,722,000.00
07/01/2031 3,718,250.00 3,718,250.00
07/01/2032 3,719,750.00 3,719,750.00
07/01/2033 3,721,000.00 3,721,000.00
07/01/2034 3,716,750.00 3,716,750.00
07/01/2035 3,722,000.00 3,722,000.00
07/01/2036 3,721,000.00 3,721,000.00
07/01/2037 3,718,750.00 3,718,750.00
07/01/2038 3,720,000.00 3,720,000.00
07/01/2039 3,719,250.00 3,719,250.00
07/01/2040 3,716,250.00 3,716,250.00
07/01/2041 3,715,750.00 3,715,750.00
07/01/2042 3,722,250.00 3,722,250.00
17,091,168.06 54,721,933.33 71,813,101.39
Notes:
1. Preliminary and subject to change.
2. Interest rates reflect current market conditions and similar credits.
3. The refunding assumes an S&P rating of 'AA' which is consistent with the rating of the Prior Bonds.
4. Cost of Issuance and Underwriter's Discount are estimates for discussion purposes.
5. The refunding has been structured with no change to the term or debt service profile relative to the Prior Bonds.
6. Stifel neither guarantees these results nor commits to underwrite at these levels.
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1252 Attachment: Attachment E - Municipal Advisor Report (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Dec 16, 2025 4:19 pm Prepared by Stifel Public Finance (SOB) (Finance 8.901 Santa Monica TABs:120825-2025) Page 8
SUMMARY OF BONDS REFUNDED
Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency
2026 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds
**************************************************************************************************** Market Conditions as of December 8, 2025 (+0.20% Cushion) **************************************************************************************************** Maturity Interest Par Call Call
Bond Date Rate Amount Date Price
2006 Tax Allocation Bonds, 2006, SERIAL:
07/01/2026 4.500% 3,705,000 05/29/2026 100.000
07/01/2027 4.600% 3,870,000 05/29/2026 100.000
07/01/2028 5.000% 4,050,000 05/29/2026 100.000
07/01/2029 4.625% 4,250,000 05/29/2026 100.000
15,875,000
2011 Tax Allocation Bonds, 2011, TERM32:
07/01/2032 5.000% 7,105,000 05/29/2026 100.000
2011 Tax Allocation Bonds, 2011, TERM36:
07/01/2036 5.875% 11,390,000 05/29/2026 100.000
2011 Tax Allocation Bonds, 2011, TERM42A:
07/01/2042 5.875% 12,600,000 05/29/2026 100.000
2011 Tax Allocation Bonds, 2011, TERM42B:
07/01/2042 5.000% 9,955,000 05/29/2026 100.000
56,925,000
Notes:
1. Preliminary and subject to change.
2. Interest rates reflect current market conditions and similar credits.
3. The refunding assumes an S&P rating of 'AA' which is consistent with the rating of the Prior Bonds.
4. Cost of Issuance and Underwriter's Discount are estimates for discussion purposes.
5. The refunding has been structured with no change to the term or debt service profile relative to the Prior Bonds.
6. Stifel neither guarantees these results nor commits to underwrite at these levels.
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1253 Attachment: Attachment E - Municipal Advisor Report (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Dec 16, 2025 4:19 pm Prepared by Stifel Public Finance (SOB) (Finance 8.901 Santa Monica TABs:120825-2025) Page 9
ESCROW REQUIREMENTS
Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency
2026 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds
**************************************************************************************************** Market Conditions as of December 8, 2025 (+0.20% Cushion) **************************************************************************************************** Period Principal
Ending Interest Redeemed Total
05/29/2026 1,235,890.45 56,925,000 58,160,890.45
1,235,890.45 56,925,000 58,160,890.45
Notes:
1. Preliminary and subject to change.
2. Interest rates reflect current market conditions and similar credits.
3. The refunding assumes an S&P rating of 'AA' which is consistent with the rating of the Prior Bonds.
4. Cost of Issuance and Underwriter's Discount are estimates for discussion purposes.
5. The refunding has been structured with no change to the term or debt service profile relative to the Prior Bonds.
6. Stifel neither guarantees these results nor commits to underwrite at these levels.
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1254 Attachment: Attachment E - Municipal Advisor Report (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Dec 16, 2025 4:19 pm Prepared by Stifel Public Finance (SOB) (Finance 8.901 Santa Monica TABs:120825-2025) Page 10
ESCROW DESCRIPTIONS DETAIL
Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency
2026 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds
**************************************************************************************************** Market Conditions as of December 8, 2025 (+0.20% Cushion) **************************************************************************************************** Type of Type of Maturity First Int Par Max
Security SLGS Date Pmt Date Amount Rate Rate
Refunding 2006 Tax Allocation Bonds, Global Proceeds Escrow, Apr 29, 2026:
SLGS Certificate 05/29/2026 05/29/2026 14,122,508 3.750% 3.750% SLGS Certificate 05/29/2026 2,014,751 3.750%
16,137,259
Refunding 2011 Tax Allocation Bonds, Global Proceeds Escrow, Apr 29, 2026:
SLGS Certificate 05/29/2026 05/29/2026 36,640,837 3.750% 3.750% SLGS Certificate 05/29/2026 5,226,331 3.750%
41,867,168
58,004,427
SLGS Summary
SLGS Rates File 16DEC25
Total Certificates of Indebtedness 58,004,427.00
Notes:
1. Preliminary and subject to change.
2. Interest rates reflect current market conditions and similar credits.
3. The refunding assumes an S&P rating of 'AA' which is consistent with the rating of the Prior Bonds.
4. Cost of Issuance and Underwriter's Discount are estimates for discussion purposes.
5. The refunding has been structured with no change to the term or debt service profile relative to the Prior Bonds.
6. Stifel neither guarantees these results nor commits to underwrite at these levels.
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1255 Attachment: Attachment E - Municipal Advisor Report (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Dec 16, 2025 4:19 pm Prepared by Stifel Public Finance (SOB) (Finance 8.901 Santa Monica TABs:120825-2025) Page 11
ESCROW CASH FLOW
Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency
2026 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds
**************************************************************************************************** Market Conditions as of December 8, 2025 (+0.20% Cushion) **************************************************************************************************** Net Escrow
Date Principal Interest Receipts
05/29/2026 58,004,427.00 156,462.37 58,160,889.37
58,004,427.00 156,462.37 58,160,889.37
Escrow Cost Summary
Purchase date 04/29/2026
Purchase cost of securities 58,004,427.00
Notes:
1. Preliminary and subject to change.
2. Interest rates reflect current market conditions and similar credits.
3. The refunding assumes an S&P rating of 'AA' which is consistent with the rating of the Prior Bonds.
4. Cost of Issuance and Underwriter's Discount are estimates for discussion purposes.
5. The refunding has been structured with no change to the term or debt service profile relative to the Prior Bonds.
6. Stifel neither guarantees these results nor commits to underwrite at these levels.
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1256 Attachment: Attachment E - Municipal Advisor Report (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Dec 16, 2025 4:19 pm Prepared by Stifel Public Finance (SOB) (Finance 8.901 Santa Monica TABs:120825-2025) Page 12
UNDERWRITER EXCLUSION DISCLOSURE
Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency
2026 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds
**************************************************************************************************** Market Conditions as of December 8, 2025 (+0.20% Cushion) **************************************************************************************************** Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated ('Stifel') has been engaged or appointed to serve as an underwriter or placement agent with respect to a particular issuance of municipal securities to which the attached material relates and Stifel is providing all information and advice contained in the attached material in its capacity as underwriter or placement agent for that particular issuance. As outlined in the SEC's Municipal Advisor Rule, Stifel has not acted, and will not act, as your municipal advisor with respect to the issuance of the municipal securities that is the subject to the engagement.
Stifel is providing information and is declaring to the proposed municipal issuer that it has done so within the regulatory framework of MSRB Rule G-23 as an underwriter (by definition also including the role of placement agent) and not as a financial advisor, as defined therein, with respect to the referenced proposed issuance of municipal securities. The primary role of Stifel, as an underwriter, is to purchase securities for resale to investors in an arm's-length commercial transaction. Serving in the role of underwriter, Stifel has financial and other interests that differ from those of the issuer. The issuer should consult with its own financial and/or municipal, legal, accounting, tax and other advisors, as applicable, to the extent it deems appropriate.
These materials have been prepared by Stifel for the client or potential client to whom such materials are directly addressed and delivered for discussion purposes only. All terms and conditions are subject to further discussion and negotiation. Stifel does not express any view as to whether financing options presented in these materials are achievable or will be available at the time of any contemplated transaction. These materials do not constitute an offer or solicitation to sell or purchase any securities and are not a commitment by Stifel to provide or arrange any financing for any transaction or to purchase any security in connection therewith and may not relied upon as an indication that such an offer will be provided in the future. Where indicated, this presentation may contain information derived from sources other than Stifel. While we believe such information to be accurate and complete, Stifel does not guarantee the accuracy of this information. This material is based on information currently available to Stifel or its sources and is subject to change without notice. Stifel does not provide accounting, tax or legal advice; however, you should be aware that any proposed indicative transaction could have accounting, tax, legal or other implications that should be discussed with your advisors and / or counsel as you deem appropriate.
Notes:
1. Preliminary and subject to change.
2. Interest rates reflect current market conditions and similar credits.
3. The refunding assumes an S&P rating of 'AA' which is consistent with the rating of the Prior Bonds.
4. Cost of Issuance and Underwriter's Discount are estimates for discussion purposes.
5. The refunding has been structured with no change to the term or debt service profile relative to the Prior Bonds.
6. Stifel neither guarantees these results nor commits to underwrite at these levels.
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1257 Attachment: Attachment E - Municipal Advisor Report (7425 : Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Redevelopment Successor
Agency Report
City Council Meeting: January 13, 2026
Agenda Item: 11.B
1 of 1
To: Redevelopment Successor Agency
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Approval of Minutes for Redevelopment Successor Agency Meeting Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Successor Agency approve the minutes of the December 16, 2025 meeting.
Prepared By: David Yakobson, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Draft Minutes - December 16, 2025
11.B
Packet Pg. 1258
1 December 16, 2025
(NOT APPROVED)
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
REDEVELOPMENT SUCESSOR AGENCY MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 16, 2025
A special meeting of the Santa Monica Redevelopment Successor Agency was called to order by Chair Torosis at 5:59 p.m., on Tuesday, December 16, 2025, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA. There was no longer a teleconference site at Four Points Sheraton San Rafael Hotel, 1010 Northgate Drive, San Rafael, CA 94903.
Roll Call: Present: Chair Caroline Torosis
Chair Pro Tem Jesse Zwick
Agency Member Lana Negrete
Agency Member Dan Hall
Agency Member Ellis Raskin
Agency Member Barry Snell
Agency Member Natalya Zernitskaya
Also Present: Executive Director Oliver Chi
Interim Agency Attorney Heidi von Tongeln
Assistant Agency Secretary Maria Dacanay-Wisner
CONVENE On order of the Chair, the Redevelopment Successor Agency convened to a joint meeting with the City Council at 5:59 p.m., with all members present.
PUBLIC INPUT FOR
CONSENT CALENDAR
ONLY:
Member of the public Denise Barton commented on Consent Calendar items.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
JOINT MEETING WITH
THE REDEVELOPMENT
SUCCESSOR AGENCY
REPORT ON MEETING
COMPENSATION
There being a Consent Calendar for the City Council and the Redevelopment Successor Agency, motion by Agency Member Hall, seconded by Agency Member Raskin to hear the two Consent Calendars concurrently. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Agency Members Negrete, Hall, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya, Chair Pro Tem Zwick, Chair Torosis
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The Council convened to a joint meeting with the Redevelopment Successor Agency at 5:59 p.m. Pursuant to State law, the Clerk announced that Council will receive no compensation for meeting as the Redevelopment Successor Agency.
11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1259 Attachment: Draft Minutes - December 16, 2025 [Revision 1] (7482 : RSA Minutes (1 min)) 2 December 16, 2025
All items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion. The Clerk announced a correction for item
4.I. (December 9, 2025 minutes), that item 5.A should state that it was “Not heard”.
Motion by Agency Member Snell, seconded by Agency Member Zernitskaya, to approve the Consent Calendar including the correction for Item 4.I, reading resolutions by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Agency Members Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Negrete, Chair Pro Tem Zwick, Chair Torosis
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
LOW-MODERATE
INCOME HOUSING
ASSET FUND
4.G. Annual Report on Low-Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund for Fiscal Year 2024-25, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommend the Redevelopment Successor Agency:
1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;
2. Receive the Annual Report on the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund for Fiscal Year 2024-25 and authorize the City Manager to post the report on the City's website by December 31, 2025; and
3. Direct the City Manager to present the independent audit of the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund to the City Council upon completion of the independent audit of the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) and authorize the City Manager to post the results of the audit on the City's website after presentation to City Council.
MINUTES 4.H. Approval of Minutes for Redevelopment Successor Agency Meeting, were approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Successor Agency approve the minutes of the December 9, 2025 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT On order of the Chair, the Redevelopment Successor Agency meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1260 Attachment: Draft Minutes - December 16, 2025 [Revision 1] (7482 : RSA Minutes (1 min)) 3 December 16, 2025
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Maria Dacanay-Wisner Caroline Torosis
Assistant Agency Secretary Chair
11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1261 Attachment: Draft Minutes - December 16, 2025 [Revision 1] (7482 : RSA Minutes (1 min)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 13, 2026
Agenda Item: 11.C
1 of 8
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jing Yeo, Director, Administration
Subject: Consideration of Certain Prior Housing-Production Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning Regulations Related to Projects Utilizing State Law for Small Lot Subdivisions and Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential
Recommended Actions
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt findings of exemption under the California Environmental Qualiy Act as outlined in Environmental Review, below;
2. Adopt a Resolution Directing the Planning Commission to Initiate the Process of Amending the Zoning Ordinance Related to Projects Utilizing State Law for Small Lot Subdivisions Under 10 Units and Projects Consisting of Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential;
3. Approve Proposed Regulatory Updates to High-Rise Building Definitions and Single Stairway Multi-Family Building Provisions;
4. Ratify Adoption of the 2025 California Building Standards Code and Resolution making Findings of Climatic, Geological and Topographical Conditions, and
5. Repeal Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2821 (CCS), Permitting the Establishment of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as Part of Projects Utilizing Senate Bill (SB) 1123 on Vacant Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential, Ensuring Project Feasibility of SB 1123 Projects by Providing for Certain Relaxed Development Standards, and Expanding the Establishment of ADUs to All Projects Utilizing Government Code Sections 65852.28, and 66499.41 Which Includes Parcels Within Multiple-Unit Zoning District as Permitted Pursuant to SB 684.
Summary
On August 18, 2025, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick accepted an offer of employment with Housing Action Coalition (HAC). Prior to accepting employment, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick consulted with the City Attorney’s Office to determine whether accepting such a position
11.C
Packet Pg. 1262
2 of 8
would create a conflict of interest with his role on the City Council and took steps to avoid any actual or perceived conflict. Mayor Pro Tem Zwick began his employment with HAC on September 8, 2025. Subsequently, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick sought formal advice from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), who issued an advice letter concluding that, prospectively, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick would be disqualified from participating in certain City Council decisions relating to housing production under the FPPC’s interpretation of the Political Reform Act and its “nexus test.” In light of the advice from the FPPC and timing of the employment, staff recommends, out of an abundance of caution, that Council consider the prior housing-production related votes that were taken by the Council between August 12 and September 30, 2025. Approval of these items would confirm Council’s prior decisions and remove doubt with respect to the prior actions.
Discussion
On August 18, 2025, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick accepted an offer of employment with the Housing Action Coalition (HAC). Prior to accepting employment, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick consulted with the City Attorney’s Office to determine whether accepting such a position would create a conflict of interest with his role on the City Council, and took further steps to avoid any actual or perceived conflict, including making clear that he would perform no work related to Santa Monica, ensuring that Santa Monica was excluded from his professional portfolio, and confirming that HAC would cease advocacy activities in Santa Monica, which it did prior to his start date. Mayor Pro Tem Zwick began his employment with HAC on September 8, 2025.
In October 2025, following continued public questions and concerns, the City Attorney’s Office sought opinions from multiple outside law firms regarding the application of the Political Reform Act to Mayor Pro Tem Zwick’s employment.
On October 28, 2025, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick publicly announced that he would voluntarily recuse himself from all housing-production-related matters while seeking formal guidance from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Working in conjunction with the City Attorney’s Office, he then submitted a formal advice request to the FPPC on November 10, 2025.
11.C
Packet Pg. 1263
3 of 8
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC issued a formal advice letter concluding that, prospectively, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick is disqualified from participating in certain City Council decisions related to housing production under the FPPC’s interpretation of the Political Reform Act and its “nexus test.”
Specifically, while neither Mayor Pro Tem Zwick nor HAC's financial interest in housing production decisions made in Santa Monica met traditional criteria that would cause it to rise to the standard of being material, it was possible that under a separate “nexus test” that the FPPC might apply, “any reasonably foreseeable financial effect on a source of income to a public official or the official’s spouse is material if the decision will achieve, defeat, aid, or hinder a purpose or goal of the source.” Under that standard, the FPPC advised City housing production decisions could benefit HAC, despite safeguards put in place to ensure no direct benefit to either Mayor Pro Tem Zwick or HAC from such decisions.
The FPPC’s advice is forward-looking only. By statute, the FPPC does not issue opinions on past actions, and the FPPC did not find that Mayor Pro Tem Zwick acted improperly, violated the law, or failed to disclose his employment.
In light of the advice from the FPPC and timing of the employment, staff recommends, out of an abundance of caution, that Council consider the following housing-production related votes that were taken by the Council between August 12 and September 30, 2025. Approval of these items would confirm Council’s prior decisions and remove doubt with respect to the prior actions.
• Resolution of Intention for Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Related to Small Lot Subdivision Under 10 Units and Duplexes and Lot Splits for Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential
On August 12, 2025, Council adopted Resolution Number 11695 (CCS), directing the Planning Commission to initiate the process of formally amending the Zoning Ordinance related to: 1) projects utilizing State law permitting small lot subdivisions under 10 units; and 2) projects consisting of duplexes and lot splits for parcels zoned for Single-Unit Residential. The potential amendments would implement changes in State law arising out of SB 9/450, SB 684, and SB 1123, accompanying Council direction to incentive use of those State law provisions, as staff incorporates updates required after receiving implementation guidance from the California Department of Housing and Community
11.C
Packet Pg. 1264
4 of 8
Development (HCD). The item was moved by Councilmember Raskin, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, and approved on a vote of six to one.
The attached Resolution would direct the Planning Commission to re-start the Zoning Amendment process with respect to these potential amendments, but would not dictate to the Planning Commission what their recommendation for the proposed changes would be. After a public hearing for the recommendation by the Planning Commission, the proposed amendments will return to Council for a full public hearing and consideration.
• Approval of Proposed Regulatory Updates to High-Rise Building Definitions and Single Stairway Multi-Family Building Provisions
On September 9, 2025, Council: 1) directed staff to, as part of the City’s next regular building and fire code update process, align the City’s building and fire code definitions for high-rise buildings to be consistent with the Statewide high-rise definition as set forth in Health & Safety Code 13210(b); and 2) authorized staff to implement an updated Alternate Materials and Methods Request (AMMR) process for single-exit stairway multi-family residential buildings of up to six stories in height. The item was moved by Councilmember Raskin, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya, and approved on a vote of six to one.
Consistent with Council direction, staff presented to the City Council, and the City Council approved, building code updates which aligned building and fire code definitions for high-rise buildings as described below and has implemented an updated AMMR.
If Council votes to provide the same direction to staff, then the AMMR will continue and no amendment to the Building Code update would be necessary. • Adoption of the 2025 California Building Standards Code and Resolution making Findings of Climatic, Geological and Topographical Conditions On September 30, 2025, Council adopted Ordinance Number 2831 (CCS), and Resolution Number 11701 (CCS). Among other things, Ordinance Number 2831 and Resolution Number 11701, consistent with Council direction from its September 9 meeting, incorporated amendments to align the City’s building and fire code definitions for high-rise buildings to be consistent with the Statewide high-rise definition. The item
11.C
Packet Pg. 1265
5 of 8
was moved by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya, and approved by unanimous vote of seven to zero.
Ratification of the adoption of the City’s local Building Code amendments would affirm Council’s adoption and allow for continuity of Building Code applicability, limit complications with respect to permit processing, and no further action would be required.
Interim Zoning Regulations, Permitting the Establishment of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as Part of Projects Utilizing Senate Bill (SB) 1123 on Vacant Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential, Ensuring Project Feasibility of SB 1123 Projects by Providing for Certain Relaxed Development Standards, and Expanding the Establishment of ADUs to All Projects Utilizing Government Code Sections 65852.28, and 66499.41 Which Includes Parcels Within Multiple-Unit Zoning District as Permitted Pursuant to SB 684
On June 10, 2025, Council adopted Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2816 (CCS) to permit the establishment of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as part of projects utilizing SB 1123, which was to become effective as of July 1, 2025. Council gave further direction to return with additional amendments when the Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance was renewed that provided modified requirements and development standards to help ensure feasibility for projects utilizing SB 1123 and also allowed for the addition of ADUs for projects utilizing SB 684 in the multi-unit zoning districts.
On July 29, 2025, Council adopted Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2821 (CCS) to extend the interim zoning regulations adopted on June 10, 2025 and to include the additional provisions noted at the June 10, 2025 meeting.
As noted above, City Council then adopted Resolution Number 11695 (CCS) on August 12, 2025, directing the Planning Commission to initiate the process of formally amending the Zoning Ordinance to codify the provisions of Emergency Ordinance Number 2821. To date, no project has been submitted utilizing the provisions of the Emergency Ordinances. Accordingly, staff recommends City Council repeal Emergency Ordinance Number 2821.
If Council adopts the Resolution directing the Planning Commission to initiate the process to amend the Zoning Ordinance attached to this report, the proposed
11.C
Packet Pg. 1266
6 of 8
amendments will move through the typical Zoning Amendment process, including a public hearing and review and recommendation by the Planning Commission.
Environmental Review
The actions taken by the City Council were previously studied and determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as noted below.
Resolution of Intention for Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Related to Small Lot Subdivision Under 10 Units and Duplexes and Lot Splits for Parcels Zoned for SingleUnit Residential This Resolution of Intention is the formal initiation of the process to consider permanent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in accordance with the formal procedures of the SMMC and as such, is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines which states that CEQA does not apply “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The Resolution of Intention is a required step that is administrative in nature. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.
Approval of Proposed Regulatory Updates to High-Rise Building Definitions and Single Stairway Multi-Family Building Provisions
The proposed policy updates are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA guidelines, which states that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The proposed updates provide policy discussion on potential future building code updates that would establish an alternate process for single exist stairway multifamily residential buildings. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the proposed updates would not result in adverse physical impacts on the environment, and as such, is exempt from CEQA.
Adoption of the 2025 California Building Standards Code and Resolution making Findings of Climatic, Geological and Topographical Conditions The updates to the Building Code are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply “where it can be seen with 7 of 7 certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant
11.C
Packet Pg. 1267
7 of 8
effect on the environment.” The updates to the Building Code help maintain general public safety and welfare of the community. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the building code updates would not result in a significant effect on the environment, and therefore, are exempt from CEQA.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
June 10, 2025 Public Hearing and Adoption of an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance to Permit the Establishment of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as Part of Projects Utilizing Senate Bill 1123 on Vacant Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit
Residential
July 29, 2025 Public Hearing and Adoption of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Extending and Amending Regulations Established by
Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816 (CCS) to Permit the Establishment of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as Part of Projects Utilizing Senate Bill (SB) 1123 on Vacant Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential, Ensure Project Feasibility of SB 1123 Projects by Providing for Certain Relaxed Development Standards, and Expand the
Establishment of ADUs to All Projects Utilizing Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41 Which Includes
Parcels Within Multiple-Unit Zoning District as Permitted Pursuant to SB 684
August 12, 2025 Adoption of Resolution of Intention to Amend the Text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance Related to Projects Utilizing State Law Permitting Small Lot Subdivision Under 10 Units and Projects Consisting of Duplexes and Lot Splits for Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential
September 9, 2025 Approval of Proposed Regulatory Updates to High-Rise Building Definitions and Single Stairway Multi-Family
Building Provisions
September 30, 2025 Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting the 2025 California Building Standards Code and Adoption of a Resolution making Findings of Climatic, Geological and
Topographical Conditions
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.
11.C
Packet Pg. 1268
8 of 8
Prepared By: Jing Yeo, Director
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. 2026.01.13 - ROI_Small Lot Subdivisions
B. Written Comments
C. PowerPoint Presentation
11.C
Packet Pg. 1269
1 City Council Meeting: January 13, 2026 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _____________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE CITY’S ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO PROJECTS UTILIZING STATE LAW PERMITTING SMALL LOT SUBDIVISIONS UNDER 10 UNITS AND
PROJECTS CONSISTING OF DUPLEXES AND LOT SPLITS FOR PARCELS ZONED
SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
WHEREAS, California has a statewide housing crisis, represented by a shortage of nearly 3,500,000 homes; and
WHEREAS, California’s housing crisis stifles economic growth, contributes to the homelessness epidemic, consumes an ever-growing share of the paychecks of working families, and holds millions of households back from realizing the California dream of home ownership; and
WHEREAS, the State has declared that restrictive zoning, land use, and burdensome permitting policies at the local and state level are a major cause of the shortfall between California’s housing needs and the available supply of housing; and WHEREAS, home ownership is still the primary way in which most Americans build wealth and assets; and
WHEREAS, California has the third highest median home price in the country and the high cost of housing has pushed what was once a modest goal further and further out of reach for most people of color; and
WHEREAS, home ownership rates in California are among the lowest nationwide, and in recent years those numbers have continued downward, including a 3.19 percent decline from 2020 and 2022; and
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 1270 Attachment: 2026.01.13 - ROI_Small Lot Subdivisions (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim 2 WHEREAS, while the home ownership gap is an issue throughout the country, the rate of African American and Latinx home ownership is significantly worse in California – at a national level, African Americans and Latinx have a home ownership rate of 42 percent and 47 percent, respectively, while here in California, that rate drops down to 35 percent and 42 percent, respectively; and
WHEREAS, the Legislative Analyst’s Office has identified a lack of housing supply as one of the culprits for the severe home ownership gap; and WHEREAS, the Office’s 2016 housing affordability report found that “the state’s housing shortage also makes many Californians, not only low-income residents, more likely to commute longer distances, live in overcrowded housing, and delay or forgo home ownership”; and
WHEREAS, according to the Urban Institute, multifamily construction built for sale accounted for only 5.4 percent of all multifamily starts and only 2.7 percent of all singlefamily and multifamily home construction for the first three quarters of 2021; and WHEREAS, houses cost more in California due to increased costs, heavy regulatory hurdles, and mandatory features and fees that add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of each unit; and
WHEREAS, as production has slowed and changed, for-sale inventory has tightened, particularly for entry-level homes; and
WHEREAS, higher home prices have translated to less diversity in who is able to purchase a home; and
WHEREAS, home ownership is a powerful tool to close the racial and ethnic wealth gap across the State of California and nationwide; and
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 1271 Attachment: 2026.01.13 - ROI_Small Lot Subdivisions (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim 3 WHEREAS, the production of new market-rate housing frees up existing, more affordable housing elsewhere in the region for sale or rent to lower and middle-income households; and
WHEREAS, based on these realities, on September 19, 2024, Governor Newsom signed and approved Senate Bill 1123 (SB 1123) which became operative on July 1, 2025; and
WHEREAS, SB 1123 expands upon prior State law (SB 684) to allow a “vacant” parcel zoned for single-unit residential to be ministerially subdivided to up to 10 ownership units; and
WHEREAS, while most aspects of SB 1123 are compulsory, there are some areas that are at the discretion of each local jurisdiction, including the ability to include Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in SB 1123 projects; and WHEREAS, SB 1123 states that “a local agency is not required to permit an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit on parcels created through the exercise of the authority contained within this section”; and WHEREAS, however, if a local jurisdiction does decide to permit ADUs, “the units shall not count as residential units” when determining how many units can be established within developments that have subdivided a parcel pursuant to SB 1123; and WHEREAS, in order to provide more diverse housing options for residents in Santa Monica, on May 13, 2025, City Council gave direction to staff to return with an ordinance to allow ADUs in conjunction with projects utilizing SB 1123; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 2025, City Council adopted Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance (IZO) Number 2816 (CCS) (IZO 2816) implementing the allowance of ADUs
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 1272 Attachment: 2026.01.13 - ROI_Small Lot Subdivisions (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim 4 in SB 1123 projects; and
WHEREAS, the City Council provided additional direction at the June 10, 2025 hearing for staff to return with amendments to the interim zoning regulations established by IZO 2816 (interim zoning regulations) that modify specific requirements and development standards to ensure the feasibility of SB 1123 projects, including, but not limited to: (1) Eliminating the Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP) fee for projects with five or fewer units; and (2) Modifying the following development standards:
(a) permitting a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 1.5; (b) permitting a maximum building height of 3 stories/33 feet; (c) reducing the front setback by 30%, but no less than 10 feet; (d) eliminating upper-story stepbacks; and (e) eliminating interior setbacks and stepbacks between ADUs on newly created parcels, except as required by the California Building Code (CBC); and
WHEREAS, Council further directed staff to return with amendments to the interim zoning regulations to expand the allowance for ADUs in all projects utilizing Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41, which includes parcels within multiple-unit zoning districts as permitted pursuant to SB 684; and
WHEREAS, on July 29, 2025, the City Council adopted emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2821 (IZO 2821), extending IZO 2816 until December 31, 2026 and amending the interim zoning regulations to include Council direction from June 10, and further provided direction to start the process for amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance to add the interim zoning regulations set forth in IZO 2821; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Programs 4.E and 4.F of the City’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element, City Council adopted implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 9 on April 11,
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 1273 Attachment: 2026.01.13 - ROI_Small Lot Subdivisions (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim 5 2023, as Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential, with the local amendments to allow for more than four units on parcels 10,000 square feet or greater; and WHEREAS, since local implementation, SB 9 was revised by SB 450, taking effect January 1, 2025, which amended the law to:
• Remove the option to prohibit projects that would result in the demolition of more than 25% of existing exterior walls
• Make clear that a local agency cannot impose objective standards to lot split/duplex projects unless: 1) the standards apply uniformly within the zone; or 2) the standards are more permissive than standards in the underlying zone • Remove authorization for a local agency to deny a proposed housing development if the building official makes a written finding that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the physical environment (i.e., the authorization to deny based on a written finding that the proposed project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety remains in place).
• Require an agency to approve or deny applications within 60 days of a complete application otherwise will be deemed approved.
• Make additional legislative findings to clarify that SB 9 applies to all cities, including charter cities; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the state law required amendments, on January 28, 2025, in order to facilitate diverse housing choices in the City’s highest opportunity areas,
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 1274 Attachment: 2026.01.13 - ROI_Small Lot Subdivisions (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim 6 in conjunction with necessary updates arising out of SB 450, the City Council gave direction to return amendments to the City’s regulations governing ministerial approval for certain lot splits and duplexes on parcels zoned for single-unit residential by: (1) removing the owner-occupancy requirement for lot splits and duplexes and clarifying that vacant or demolished parcels, as well as lots with approved demolition permits, are eligible for lot splits and duplexes, (2) allowing one roof deck per unit, and (3) ensuring that no standard within this ordinance or the underlying zoning district shall preclude the construction of 2 units, not including ADUs, of at least 1200 square feet each; and WHEREAS, on May 13, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed hearing, and, after considering all oral and written testimony, on May 27, 2025, adopted Ordinance Number 2814, which, in part, amended Section 9.31.125 to (1) remove the owneroccupancy requirement for lot splits and duplexes and clarifying that vacant or demolished parcels, as well as lots with approved demolition permits, are eligible for lot splits and duplexes, (2) allow one roof deck per unit, and (3) ensure that no standard within this ordinance or the underlying zoning district shall preclude the construction of 2 units, not including ADUs, of at least 1500 square feet each; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the City Council’s adoption and amendment of Section
9.31.125, the City received informal advice from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) indicating that a separation of the statutory requirements under SB 9/450 and the provisions of the City’s regulations related to duplexes and lot splits on parcels zoned for single-unit residential would be favorable for HCD’s review; and
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 1275 Attachment: 2026.01.13 - ROI_Small Lot Subdivisions (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim 7 WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to separate the statutory requirements of SB 450 and the City’s expanded regulations related to duplexes and lot splits on parcels zoned for single-unit residential to clarify those amendments made pursuant to state law requirements under SB 9/450 and those created pursuant to the City’s local authority; and
WHEREAS, additional amendments to SMMC Chapter 9.31, Standards for Specific Uses and Activities, and SMMC Section 9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential, will be desirable to comply more closely with State law and to allow for lot splits and duplexes in single-unit residential zoning districts pursuant to prior Council direction; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now wishes to direct the Planning Commission to initiate an amendment to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance related to projects utilizing state law permitting small lot subdivisions under 10 units and projects consisting of duplexes and lot splits for parcels zoned for single unit residential.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.46.030(A), the City Council does hereby direct the Planning Commission to initiate an amendment to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance related to projects utilizing state law permitting small lot subdivisions under 10 units and projects consisting of duplexes and lot splits for parcels zoned for single unit residential.
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 1276 Attachment: 2026.01.13 - ROI_Small Lot Subdivisions (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim 8 SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter, the same shall be in full force and effect and shall supersede any prior adopted Resolutions regarding the same subject matter.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Heidi von Tongeln
Interim City Attorney
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 1277 Attachment: 2026.01.13 - ROI_Small Lot Subdivisions (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1278 Attachment:
1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 12:04 PM
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
ar Mayor Torosis and City Councilmembers,
I to urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void.
Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Wilma Hall
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1279 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 2 David Yakobson
From: Kathy Knight <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 12:04 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
January 13, 2026
I ask you to rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th St. The FPPC found Councilmember Jesse Zwick had a disqualifying conflict due to his Housing Action Coalition employment, yet he made the motions to approve the 2644 30th St. rezoning allowing 85 foot tall housing projects.
- Kathy Knight
[email protected]
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1280 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 3 David Yakobson
From: Gretchen Sharp <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 12:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I’ve lived in Sunset Park for many years, raised here with my family, and I cherish the library system and the abundance of family-friendly activities that make our neighborhood a wonderful place to grow up.
This is why I’m deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would fundamentally alter the fabric of our community.
The idea of allowing three-story developments and significantly increased density goes far beyond what state law permits and feels like a rushed attempt to push through changes without proper citizen input.
This isn't how we should approach such impactful decisions. We can’t simply add density without thoroughly understanding the implications for safety, evacuation capacity, and the infrastructure demands it would create.
We elected you to represent our interests, and this ordinance is not what Santa Monicans voted for. I urge you to reconsider this proposal and roll it back before it goes to the Planning Commission. Our neighborhoods deserve thoughtful planning, not hasty changes that could lead to irreversible consequences.
Please listen to the voices of your constituents and halt this proposed ordinance now.
Gretchen Sharp
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1281 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 4 David Yakobson
From: Dayle Kerry <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 12:23 PM
To: barbanell; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Heidi von Tongeln; Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Subject: OPPOSITION to 11C: Ratification of Previously Discredited Votes on the January 13, 2026, Santa Monica City Council Agenda
EXTERNAL
Thank you.
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
On Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 10:00 AM, barbanell <[email protected]> wrote:
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Dan Hall <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: Oliver Chi <[email protected]>, Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Nina Fresco <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
From: Jerry Bass & Stephanie Barbanell/Santa Monica
Re: Subject: OPPOSITION to 11C: Ratification of Previously Discredited Votes on the January 13, 2026, Santa Monica City Council Agenda
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
“Hard proof exists of an alignment between some of our local elected officials and the development industry.”
Specifically, there is overwhelming evidence that Councilman Zwick has a gross conflict of interest and a pro developer bias, such that ALL the decisions he was involved in, as outlined by numerous neighborhood groups, are TAINTED and must be vacated.
Santa Monica’s reputation is already tarnished by rising crime and safety issues, let’s not add CORRUPTION .
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1282 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 5 ZWICK’S FAILURE TO RECUSE HIMSELF, means all decisions he was involved in must be revoted upon.
Zwick must resign or be removed from office for his violation of public trust! Sincerely,
Jerry Bass & Stephanie Barbanell, Santa Monica residents since 1983 Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1283 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 6 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 12:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln
Subject: OPPOSE agenda item 11. C: Ratification of Previously Discredited Votes
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I oppose item 11.C.
You simply must start over on ALL the tainted votes!
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Concerned Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1284 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 7 David Yakobson
From: Ramesh Ramalingam <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 12:58 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance— SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Ramesh Ramalingam
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1285 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 8 David Yakobson
From: Ramesh Ramalingam <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 12:58 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Ramesh Ramalingam
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1286 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 9 David Yakobson
From: Ramesh Ramalingam <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 12:59 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
[Name]
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1287 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 10 David Yakobson
From: Ramesh Ramalingam <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 12:59 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ramesh Ramalingam
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1288 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 11 David Yakobson
From: Lainie Zepeda <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 1:05 PM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v.
City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich 2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused 3.
Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments 4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds
This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1289 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 12 David Yakobson
From: TROY PARR <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 1:33 PM
Subject: Request to Void ALL Conflict-Tainted Votes by Crooked Zwick
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick shamefully participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
-Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
-Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them -Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Troy Parr - Santa Monica Voter
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1290 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 13 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 1:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Item 11 C
-----Original Message-----
From: Elisa Olson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 1:06 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 11 C
EXTERNAL
Attention Council Members
Withdraw item #11 C until the matter can be accurately investigated and evaluated.
Sincerely,
Long time residents of Santa Monica
Elisa and Elliott Olson
Sent from my iPad
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1291 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 14 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 1:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]
Cc: Scott Harris
Subject: re: Agenda item number 11-C
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
My husband and I have been home owners in Sunset Park since 2011.
We are very upset with you possibly increasing building heights, floor areas, and changing setbacks (we have our new neighbors now looking into our living room and backyard because of your cityplanning changes) in our neighborhoods. This goes beyond state law requirements.
Unfortunately, this is NOT the Santa Monica we moved to, where our children go to school, and have been a part of for over a decade. Your proposed changes are not only unsightly, but also are making it an unfit, unhappy place to live in.
We have lived in many cities throughout the US and countries and have always been pleased with our city councils and the direction our communities were headed. We have loved living in Santa Monica until recently and are sorely disappointed with all the new builds (high rises along Lincoln) and the direction you are leading our community.
Please think about this thoughtfully before you vote.
Respectfully,
Jennifer & Scott Harris
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1292 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 15 David Yakobson
From: athena baron <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 2:29 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Athena Baron
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1293 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 16 David Yakobson
From: athena baron <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 2:30 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Athena baron
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1294 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 17 David Yakobson
From: athena baron <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 2:30 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasijudicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Athena Baron
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1295 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 18 David Yakobson
From: Shari Phillips <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 2:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: RE: Item 11C
EXTERNAL
Dear SM City Council Members,
Please withdraw Item 11C until the matter can be accurately investigated and evaluated. We must take the time to make sure whether or not this is the best move for our city.
Thanks,
Shari Phillips
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1296 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 19 David Yakobson
From: Thea Phillips <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 2:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 11C
EXTERNAL
Dear SM City Council Members,
Please withdraw Item 11C until the matter can be accurately investigated and evaluated. We must take the time to make sure whether or not this is the best move for our city.
Cheers,
Thea Phillips
310.387.5661
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1297 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 20 David Yakobson
From: diana hinek <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 2:51 PM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v. City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich
2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused
3. Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments
4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Diana Hinek,
Santa Monica resident and home owner, mother, business owner Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1298 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 21 David Yakobson
From: Katie Doerr
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 3:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: David Yakobson
Subject: RE: 1-13-25 City Council Item 11C: OPPOSE - Rescind Rezoning 2644 30th Street Moved By Zwick and Other Conflicts/Irregularities
Correct, no redaction necessary. Thanks.
From: councilmtgitems <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 8:57 AM
To: Katie Doerr <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 1-13-25 City Council Item 11C: OPPOSE - Rescind Rezoning 2644 30th Street Moved By Zwick and Other Conflicts/Irregularities
Hi Katie,
I’m assuming these emails won’t need any redactions, but before I include them with written comments, are you able to confirm?
Thank you
David Yakobson
Staff Assistant III
(310) 458-8211 x2066
santamonica.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 1:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]> Cc: Oliver Chi <[email protected]>; Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Subject: 1-13-25 City Council Item 11C: OPPOSE - Rescind Rezoning 2644 30th Street Moved By Zwick and Other Conflicts/Irregularities
EXTERNAL
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1299 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 22 Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers:
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest, as well as other potential conflicts and procedural irregularities.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows housing developments up to 85' tall with state bonuses. Two lawsuits have been filed alleging failure to comply with CEQA, violation of the general plan, and failure to follow required zoning change procedures.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The FPPC determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition (HAC). Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
HAC endorsed Jesse Zwick, Natalya Zernitskaya and Caroline Torosis in 2022 and Barry Snell, Dan Hall, Natalya Zernitskaya and Ellis Raskin in 2024. To receive such endorsements, candidates typically must affirm alignment with the group's legislative goals (such as upzoning and parking lot infill). This raises questions about whether other councilmembers may also have conflicts when voting on housing production items aligned with HAC's goals.
Additionally, multiple employees of the lobbying firm involved in this matter made donations in 2024 to CEPS, a PAC that endorsed Barry Snell, Dan Hall, Natalya Zernitskaya and Ellis Raskin. This web of financial and political relationships raises serious questions about the independence of the decision-making process.
HOUSING PRODUCTION ITEMS INVALID
The City Attorney placed certain housing production items in which Zwick participated on Item 11C for Council to reapprove or ratify. The 2644 30th Street rezoning is not included, despite being originally brought forward in a package of zoning changes intended to increase housing production.
During this time, Zwick also brought forward the upzoning of surface parking lots, which would apply to 2644 30th Street once upzoned. The elimination of surface parking for infill development is a specific policy HAC advocates for, reinforcing the pattern of conflicts.
QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISION IS VOID
Because a zoning change is a quasi-judicial decision, Councilmember Zwick's motion to approve the rezoning on September 30, 2025 is invalid. The October 14, 2025 covenant motion is also invalid. Furthermore, the covenant flows from an invalid upzoning and is therefore moot.
PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES
This item was brought forward by a lobbyist without the standard application process or $34,000 fee. Emails show the lobbyist drafted much of the staff report, resolution and ordinance, which created a false narrative that they were correcting an error instead of changing the land use that was established 15 years ago (see attached).
Staff appears to have characterized this as "legislative" despite it being the quasi-judicial zoning change of one building on one parcel, seemingly to avoid higher scrutiny.
Council had voted to table this item and pursue amendments to the legal non-conforming use code instead, which would not increase housing production. While residents were told staff were too busy for that work, the Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1300 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 23 lobbyist continued working with staff on the upzoning. Emails show Mayor Torosis was in discussions with the lobbyist during this period. The City Attorney wrote to the lobbyist: "Councilmember Torosis mentioned that you have additional facts/suggested edits for the resolution and ordinance... Would you mind sending along what you have so we can ensure we have everything?"
Residents were not afforded this same access. Instead, our public comment time is frequently cut to one minute—a change Mayor Torosis told me was made to align with the County, her employer. This creates a twotiered system where lobbyists draft city legislation while residents' voices are limited.
RESCISSION
To redo the rezoning, Council would need to start from the beginning with a public hearing, new motion, and new vote—not simply "ratify" an invalid motion. However, given that the rezoning violates the City's General Plan, ignored environmental implications, failed to follow required procedures, and is the subject of multiple lawsuits, the ethical approach is to formally declare the rezoning invalid and rescind it.
Thank you,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and Voter
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1301 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 24 David Yakobson
From: Jennifer Montesi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 2:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Heather Averick
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them
Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Montesi
--
Jennifer L. Montesi, Ph.D.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1302 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 25 Licensed Clinical Psychologist
CA PSY 25940
Clinical Associate Professor
UCLA Department of Psychology
[email protected]
www.jennifermontesiphd.com
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1303 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 26 David Yakobson
From: Randolph Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 3:33 PM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision.
Petrovich v. City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich
2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused
3. Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments
4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Randolph Davis
Compass Brentwood
11601 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 101
Los Angeles CA 90025
m: 310.382.4392
[email protected]
DRE# 01426183
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1304 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 27 To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1305 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 28 David Yakobson
From: Sacha Feldman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 9:38 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Sacha Feldman
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1306 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 29 David Yakobson
From: Julie Pearl Slater <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 3:53 PM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v.
City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich 2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused 3.
Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments 4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds
This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1307 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 30 David Yakobson
From: Jane Gonzalez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 4:11 PM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v.
City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich 2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused 3.
Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments 4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds
This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Gonzalez
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1308 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 31 David Yakobson
From: Kathy Kane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 4:11 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned and very upset about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Kathy Cody
Bay Street, Santa Monica
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1309 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 32 David Yakobson
From: Kathy Kane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 4:12 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kathy Cody
Bay Street, Santa Monica
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1310 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 33 David Yakobson
From: The Lable Group Limited <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 4:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I’ve lived in the beautiful and safe North of Montana neighborhood for just 18 months, and I chose this area for its quiet and peaceful atmosphere. The ability to walk to Montana Avenue for shopping and dining is something I truly cherish. However, I am deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that could drastically change our community.
This ordinance would allow new housing developments to reach three stories, and significantly increase the floor area limits with much smaller setbacks than we currently have. We shouldn’t be going beyond the limits established by state law, SB1123, and I fear that if this ordinance passes, it will fundamentally alter the neighborhoods we love. This isn't what Santa Monicans voted for when they elected you.
The rushed nature of this process, which has not allowed for meaningful citizen input, is unacceptable.
Density is not synonymous with affordability, and we cannot add housing without fully understanding the implications for safety, evacuation capacity, and our existing infrastructure.
I urge you to reconsider this ordinance and roll it back before it goes to the Planning Commission. Let’s preserve the charm and safety of our neighborhoods, for ourselves and future generations.
Thank you for your attention.
Stephen J. Lable
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1311 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 34 David Yakobson
From: David Gilmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 4:36 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance— SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
David Gilmore
Sunset Park
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1312 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 35 David Yakobson
From: Edgar Vasquez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 4:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I’ve only lived in Santa Monica for a year, but in that short time, I’ve come to appreciate the safety, cleanliness, and charm of our neighborhoods. The local parks, the wonderful restaurants, and grocery stores within walking distance make this place feel special. However, I’m deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that could change everything I love about our community.
This new ordinance goes beyond the recent state law, SB1123, allowing three-story buildings and significantly larger developments. I believe the lack of 3+story buildings is what makes Santa Monica unique and picturesque. Each home is able to get natural sunlight instead of it being blocked by 3+story buildings. The potential density increase could completely alter our neighborhoods, making them unrecognizable and putting a strain on our infrastructure, safety, and evacuation capacity.
The rushed process around this zoning change is troubling. It feels like our voices are being overlooked during a time when meaningful public input is essential. We shouldn’t be moving forward with something so impactful without truly understanding its implications.
I urge you to roll back this proposal and listen to the community. We can find solutions that respect the character of Santa Monica without rushing into irreversible decisions.
Please stop this ordinance before it goes any further.
Edgar Vasquez
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1313 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 1 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Selby <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:45 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; [email protected]; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for items 10.A and 11.C
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
As a 22-year resident of Santa Monica and a municipal affordable housing finance professional, I would like to provide my support to items 10.A and 11.C.
Regarding item 10.A, this program provides flexibility to developers to properly develop and finance Cityapproved multifamily housing projects. While Santa Monica residents continue to have the discretion to provide meaningful oversight of housing produced in the City, flexibility for developers to best address community needs and secure financing drives down costs and speeds production of approved projects. The more quickly a project is developed and the less expensive it is to develop drives rents down. This benefits our entire community.
Regarding item 11.C, I strongly support staff recommendations. These thoughtful and well-researched recommendations preserve environmental health, allow for new units to be built in a manner consistent with the scale of our community, and do not reduce safety outcomes for residents.
As the state becomes increasingly insistent on imposing their will over the will of individual communities, these recommendations are a thoughtful way for the City of Santa Monica to continue to determine our own destiny.
Kind regards,
Elizabeth Selby
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1314 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 1 David Yakobson
From: Janis Adams <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick Subject: Please listen to the residents. Please.
EXTERNAL
Please stop overly tall buildings in Sunset Park!
I’ve lived on Pearl St. for 30 years.
This sweet little neighborhood cannot support over building.
It’s just a little neighborhood and already Pearl St. is jammed with cars trying to access the freeway at 5:00.
Please vote against multi-lot, multi-storied buildings in Sunset Park.
Otherwise, the neighborhood will be ruined.
Thank you,
Janis Adams
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1315 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 2 David Yakobson
From: Tuvya Zaretsky <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:34 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman; Tuvya Zaretsky
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I write with great concern regarding the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my block and throughout our Sunset Park neighborhoods. As a homeowner, in a low density neighborhood, I strongly object to rezoning considerations under consideration that goes beyond state law with this ordinance. SB1123 was already a significant shift.
I, along with our neighbors, have spoken with developers who I believe are pushing for this change without regard for the significant and concerning impacts to our lives and community, I feel such a substantial rezoning is unnecessary and does not warrant the negative safety impacts upon our low density neighborhoods. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
As a long time Santa Monica homeowner, I do not believe there is a need to go to three stories.
I am not convinced there is a need to increase FAR to 1.5 and respectfully oppose it.
I don’t believe Santa Monica needs reduced setbacks.
I already felt unrepresented by the original SB1123 law. It is CA law now, but please do not do anything to exceed its provisions. Regarding Agenda Item 11C(2), I ask that you NOT send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please consider my request and the voices of other Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for your work on behalf of us all.
Sincerely,
Tuvya Zaretsky
32nd Street
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1316 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 3 David Yakobson
From: Matt Goldenberg D.O. <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:34 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis
Cc: Oliver Chi; Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Oppose 11C: Request for Transparency and Process Clarification Re: SB 1123
EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis,
Thank you for your prompt responses to many members of the NOMA, FOSP, NEN and PNA neighborhoods. It has come to our attention that many of the neighbors who wrote to the City Council about their concerns and opposition to Agenda Item 11C, specifically those who OPPOSED any action going beyond the State Law of SB1123, have received similar responses from you.
Our primary concern is ensuring full transparency and clarity in the City Council’s process. While the responses provided to community members may be technically accurate, we are concerned that they do not fully reflect the practical implications of the actions under consideration.
It is our understanding that the only way to ensure the Council does NOT proceed beyond the requirements of state law is to rescind the prior emergency action AND refrain from taking any vote this evening related to AB 1123—including votes to initiate either an emergency or standard process by referring an ordinance to the Planning Commission.
Put simply, any action taken tonight regarding AB 1123 would constitute a step toward exceeding state law.
Opposition to going beyond state law is precisely the concern expressed by residents in our neighborhoods!
In trying to fully understand what this vote re: SB 1123 does and does not do, we seek to clarify a few points:
- 1. Scope vs. consequence of the vote
When you state that the City Council is “not adopting a zoning ordinance” and that “no rules are being locked in,” can you please confirm that the vote nonetheless constitutes a required procedural step without which the underlying ordinance could not ultimately be enacted?
2. Prior emergency action
Can you confirm whether this same policy was previously adopted by the Council on an emergency basis, and whether that action was subsequently challenged in court on the grounds that the Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1317 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 4 circumstances did not meet the legal standard for an emergency?
3. Reintroduction with direction
Following that challenge, can you confirm whether the measure was reintroduced through the City's normal legislative process, accompanied by non-standard direction to the Planning Commission instructing it to ensure the measure’s approval?
4. Reason the item returned to Council
You state that the current action would “restart a public review process.” Can you confirm whether the reason this matter is before the Council at all is an independent determination that the original sponsoring councilmember was conflicted at the time of the prior vote, rendering that vote invalid?
5. Sponsor’s role and donor involvement
Can you confirm whether the same sponsoring council member participated in drafting the language of the ordinance in coordination with a major donor who stood to uniquely benefit from its adoption? And can you confirm whether this donor-related issue is separate from—and in addition to—the conflict of interest that invalidated the prior vote?
6. Characterization of Council discretion
When you state that the Council is merely deciding “whether to study how those laws should be addressed locally,” can you confirm whether Council declining to restart this process would, as a practical matter, prevent the ordinance from advancing in its current form? (As this is what the letters you received, and responded to, were advocating for. Not advancing the process in any form or function.)
Warmly,
Matt Goldenberg, Vice-Chair of NOMA
John Reynolds Vice President of FOSP
Tricia Crane, Chair of Northeast Neighbors
Brian O'Neil, Co-Chair of PNA
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1318 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 5 David Yakobson
From: Tuvya Zaretsky <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:38 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Tuvya Zaretsky
32nd Street
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1319 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 6 David Yakobson
From: Kathy Knight <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:38 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
January 13, 2026
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void.
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them.
To require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process.
Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Sincerely,
Kathy Knight and Joe Faris
Sunset Park residents for 30 years
[email protected]
(310) 450-5961
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1320 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 7 David Yakobson
From: Jar <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:44 AM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v.
City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich 2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused 3.
Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments 4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds
This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
JB
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1321 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 8 David Yakobson
From: Jar <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Cc: Shawn Landres
Subject: Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I’ve lived in Sunset Park for two years, drawn to the beautiful vibe of Santa Monica. It’s a community I cherish, and that’s why I’m deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that could dramatically change our neighborhoods. This rushed process isn’t normal for such significant rezoning, and it feels like we’re being pushed into something without adequate consideration or input from those who call this place home.
Allowing three-story buildings with much larger floor areas and smaller setbacks doesn’t just alter the skyline; it risks the very essence of what makes our community special. Density does not equate to affordability, and cramming more people into our neighborhoods neglects critical factors like safety, evacuation capacity, and the strain on our infrastructure. This isn’t what we voted for when we elected you.
I urge you to reconsider and roll back this ordinance before it goes to the Planning Commission, where it may be too late for meaningful change. Let’s prioritize thoughtful, community-driven planning that respects our shared values. Please don’t send this unneeded ordinance forward.
Thank you for your consideration.
JB
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1322 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 9 David Yakobson
From: Jill Jurenka <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:46 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance— SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Jill Jurenka
2235 23RD St. Santa Monica
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1323 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 10 David Yakobson
From: Jill Jurenka <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:47 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Jill Jurenka
2235 23RD St. Santa Monica
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1324 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 11 David Yakobson
From: Charles Andrews <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:50 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: subject 11C(2) - do not advance the ROI for SB1123 local ordinance
EXTERNAL
To Our City Council:
I am not an architect, or city planner, or politician. But as someone who loves Santa Monica and has lived here 40 years, I often take walks around my lovely neighborhood, and I can recognize a big stinky pile of something that should not be there, and should be immediately eliminated by the parties responsible.
You will get plenty of professional breakdowns of all the specific reasons why your SB 1123 is such a very bad idea, so allow me to take the overview.
Like other domains of our government, you have gone way to FAR with this one, and people will not forget. Just in case you want to continue your political careers.
You have already demonstrated too many times your ideological worship of density, but this really takes the mask off. You wave the false flag of "affordable housing," then you take bad legislation from Sacramento and double down, without even a pretense that this is furthering the affordability of future housing. Three stories replacing two, increased FAR, and most remarkably, removing even the minimal strictures for affordable units. Pure and simple, this will benefit the bottom lines of developers, and further destroy what used to be charming and desirable about Santa Monica, with no benefit for our affordability crisis.
Since your true intentions have become well displayed, here's a thought: get your fellow Council member Zwick to scare up five more well-paid positions lobbying for increased dense housing, so we can recuse you all from housing votes, and the bad ones will all go down, on a 1 -0 vote. (Thank you, Lana.)
And while you txry to straighten out the Zwick scandal, please make your first re-vote about our SM Civic Auditorium. We need to get back to that as soon as possible. And that re=vote might just salvage your careers. Please back up and do the right things, and make this a happy new year for the residents of this once-great city. Kick this uncalled for, unnecessary and damaging ordinance down the road, so far you never come back to it. Please.
Thank you.
Charles Andrews
40 years in Ocean Park
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1325 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 12 15 years a columnist for The Mirror and the SM Daily Press Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1326 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 13 David Yakobson
From: Michael J <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I have lived in Northeast Santa Monica for 45 years, a community I cherish for its walkability, tranquility, and friendly neighbors. I am writing to voice my concern about the proposed zoning ordinance that threatens to forever change our beloved city. The proposal to allow new housing projects to rise three stories and exceed current floor-area limits by 50% is deeply troubling. Such drastic changes will densify our neighborhoods to a point where they may become unrecognizable.
I believe the increased density and housing will overwhelm the current infrastructure and parking necessity, which is being overlooked. This is not merely about building more homes; it’s about maintaining the safety and livability of our community. Adding density without understanding the implications on evacuation capacity and infrastructure demands is reckless.
Moreover, this rushed process for such a significant rezoning is unacceptable. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law, as outlined in SB1123. Density does not equal affordability, and this isn’t what Santa Monicans voted for when we elected this council.
I urge you to reconsider this ordinance. Please roll it back and give our community the chance to engage meaningfully in this important decision. Let’s protect Santa Monica's essence together. --
Michael Jolly
Santa Monica, CA
Sent from iMac on Gmail
Electronic Privacy Notice: This email and any attachments contain information that is or could be covered by electronic communications privacy laws and is confidential and proprietary. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this information in any manner. Please reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and immediately delete it. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1327 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 14 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:55 AM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers, I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated. The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating. Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust. I request that the City Council: Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves. Thank you. Sincerely, [Name] Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1328 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 15 David Yakobson
From: Mark Borenstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:56 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Oppose Agenda Items 11C(2) and 10(A)
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I write to oppose the City Attorney’s recommendation to re-vote on several housing related actions taken by the City Council when Council Member Jesse Zwick was under a conflict of interest because of his negotiation for, and ultimate acceptance of a job with the Housing Action Coalition (HAC). These are grouped under Item 11-C on the Council’s agenda for its January 13, 2026 meeting. The Council should also reject the re-vote on, and extension of the Pilot Program for the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program, Item 10A.
1. You have received many comments about Mr. Zwick’s conflict; I will not repeat the history of Mr.
Zwick’s ethical violations you have already received. Although the City Attorney contends she and Mr.
Zwick have been completely transparent in this matter, both Mr. Zwick and the City Attorney have refused to release information concerning when Mr. Zwick first began considering a position with HAC. It was undoubtedly well before August 18, 2025, when Mr. Zwick accepted a well-paid position with HAC.
The staff report on Item 11-C suggests that Mr. Zwick expressed interest in a position with HAC in June 2025, and perhaps earlier.
His disqualification from housing-related Council business should date from when Mr. Zwick first began considering HAC employment, since that is when Mr. Zwick began, in effect, auditioning for employment on housing issues. At a minimum, the City Attorney needs to disclose the earliest date when Mr. Zwick said he might be interested in a job with HAC. All housing related actions by the Council from that date are likely void. That is why the emergency ordinance on SB1123, already the subject of litigation, should be repealed.
2. The re-vote on the Resolution to have the Planning Commission consider a local SB1123 ordinance, as initially proposed by Mr. Zwick, is unnecessary. We now know the local emergency ordinance was proposed by Mr. Zwick at the behest of a developer, Stephen Anderson in December 2024 and January 2025. Obviously, there was no emergency 6 months later when Mr. Zwick proposed the emergency. The emergency ordinance by Mr. Zwick to allow ADUs and to relax development standards was virtually verbatim from the developer, without any disclosure by Mr. Zwick of its provenance and more importantly, without any evaluation by the Planning department as to whether Santa Monica needed a local SB1123 ordinance. No other jurisdiction has adopted a local SB1123 ordinance since state law already provides development standards and ministerial review of SB1123 projects.
There is no reason for a Resolution re-vote to include anything about SB1123. The state standards Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1329 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 16 provide all the needed incentives for developers to use SB1123 to develop single family homes (albeit expensive, market rate homes that do nothing to help the City increase moderate and low income housing). The Resolution should delete any reference to SB1123.
The City has yet to honor its July 2025 promise to the Housing and Community Development agency to repeal the illegal amendment to the local SB9 ordinance that eliminated owner occupancy. The Planning Department has yet to publish its recommendation for some version of a local SB9-type ordinance that attempts to eliminate owner occupancy again. Yet the Council has directed the Commission to consider these issues as part of the Resolution. Why would the Council Members want to waste the Commissioners’ time with a local SB1123 ordinance when these other significant issues are already on the Commission’s agenda?
If the Council insists on having the Commission devote time to a SB1123 local ordinance, it must make clear the Commission is to start from scratch. It must not use the developer driven, emergency SB1123 ordinance as the baseline for crafting a new proposed ordinance.
3. On Agenda Item 10-A, the Council cannot simply re-vote on the Pilot Program for the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP), first adopted by emergency ordinance on August 12, 2025. Nor can it adopt a regular ordinance to retroactively approve the pilot program it improperly adopted on Augst 12, 2025. There was no public notice of the proposed regular ordinance; nor was it sent to the Planning Commission for consideration. The same is true for the proposed first reading of a regular ordinance to codify the expansion of the AHPP pilot program beyond the 1000 units. The staff indicated that these proposed ordinances are part of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. They are subject to SMMC 9.37.050(B) which requires 20 days published notice.
Beyond the process—the community needs more than a few days to consider this extraordinary procedure to reinstate an obviously ethically challenged emergency ordinance and approve a new one, the policy is another developer giveaway without increasing the affordable housing the City needs. Mr.
Zwick’s new employer even sent its executive director—Mr. Zwick’s new boss, to testify in person in favor of the pilot program, a few days before Mr., Zwick accepted employment, all without Mr. Zwick disclosing anything to the public. What hubris! The pilot program will create moderate and low income ghettos while at the same time, it will bail out aggressive developers who promised affordable housing in exchange for excessive bonus density. It is likely that some of the promised affordable housing will not be built within four years of the market rate housing. The affordable housing might never get built. The developers should be held to their commitment to construct housing in multi-income buildings, or their bonus, market rate apartments should be eliminated.
The Council should abandon this folly, even in the face of a litigation threat by developers. They have nothing vested by the pilot program and are no worse off than they were before the pilot program was improperly adopted in August.
This pilot program puts the lie to the Council’s claim to support affordable housing and the “missing middle” housing our community needs. This is bad policy masquerading as a boon to low and moderate income housing. The Council should not accept the City Attorney’s invitation to redo the original vote and the Planning Department suggestion to expand a very bad program.
Mark Borenstein
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1330 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 17 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 11-C for council mtg 1/13/26 re housing density
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Councilmembers:
Please OPPOSE Irresponsible DensificaƟon – SB1123 SM local zoning ordinance I’m a resident of the Sunset Park neighborhood and strongly prefer that we, as a city, not exceed the requirements of CA State law on housing density in single-family zoned neighborhoods. I oppose any ordinance (or council member in support) that would permit 3 stories or allow 50% more floor area than at current. Please do the same and permit only responsible, measured, growth in density in Santa Monica.
Thank you,
Jim Jusko
2244 26th Street, Santa Monica
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1331 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 18 David Yakobson
From: Maryanne Korenic <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a longtime Ocean Park resident for 20 years, I cherish the strong sense of community and safety our neighborhood offers. It’s disheartening to see plans for a new zoning ordinance that threaten the very fabric of our beloved Santa Monica. The proposed changes, allowing three-story buildings and significantly increased floor area, are a drastic shift that I, along with many others, never voted for when electing this council.
This process feels rushed and isn’t what we expect for such a monumental change. We need time for thoughtful discussions, not hurried decisions that sidestep community input. Increasing density without a clear understanding of the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands is reckless. Our neighborhoods deserve more consideration than this.
Please reconsider pushing this ordinance forward. It is not necessary to exceed state law or to make our neighborhoods unrecognizable. I urge you to roll back this proposal. Let’s prioritize the values that brought us all to Santa Monica—community, safety, and thoughtful development.
Now is the time to act. We must ensure our voices are heard before it’s too late.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1332 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 19 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:59 AM
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause
11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v. City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich
2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused
3. Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments
4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Wilma Hall
Sunset Park resident
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1333 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 20 David Yakobson
From: Lian Bloch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Sunset Park for the past 40 years, I’ve cherished the close-knit community we’ve built, where neighbors know each other and local businesses thrive. This sense of safety and camaraderie is something I hold dear. While I understand the general need for more housing, I am very worried about the direction that Santa Monica is going with a reactionary and excessive emphasis on hyper-development within existing residential zones.
The proposed zoning ordinance is alarming, allowing new housing projects to soar to three stories with minimal setbacks, well beyond the already-expansive limits of SB1123. The rushed process of this rezoning is frustrating and has left no room for genuine community input. We cannot simply add density without fully understanding the implications on safety, traffic, and infrastructure demands.
I urge you to roll back this proposal and not send it forward to the Planning Commission. We must prioritize maintaining the livability and safety of our neighborhoods. Please listen to the voices of the community before making such irrevocable changes.
Please consider and thank you.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1334 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 21 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: 11c - emphasis on 1123-related, rescind all previous votes that included Jesse Zwick's vote
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Council Members,
I respectfully but urgently request that you rescind all housing-related votes in which Councilman Jesse Zwick participated—both those under reconsideration tonight and others not yet being revisited. While I don't question his intentions, the fact remains that he was in a conflicted position from which he significantly influenced these housing votes through his participation in discussions and, in many cases, as the key motioner or seconder. If Council wishes to advance these items again, we need a clean process with different members bringing items forward, motioning, and seconding—and passing them under those circumstances.
The SB1123 Local Ordinance Requires Special Attention
The SB1123 local ordinance is particularly troubling. This ordinance is not legally required from everything I can tell, and its process has been compromised from the start.
Consider this timeline:
The ordinance was initially proposed by a for-profit developer who dictated its terms to Councilman Zwick entirely outside public view. These communications only came to light through either a PRA or lawsuit discovery, but regardless was not viewed publicly without those. The item was brought forward on an "emergency" basis during the exact period when the FPPC's independent findings determined Councilman Zwick had a conflict of interest. This emergency designation rushed the ordinance into law immediately, bypassing the Planning Commission, skipping any study, eliminating the normal planning process, and avoiding standard public engagement. There was no actual emergency.
Councilman Zwick participated enthusiastically and meaningfully in the discussion, even actively attempting to influence colleagues' votes (as he confirmed to me directly). At the time, his colleagues, you all, had no reason to know you were hearing arguments from someone with a material conflict of interest. You were entitled to consider his position as one offered in good faith, representing constituent interests rather than a future employer's interests. This was a discussion he should never have been part of, regarding an ordinance that should never have been brought forward under these circumstances.
The original motion to take it to a vote was by Zwick. With the conflicted vote providing the crucial fifth vote needed for an emergency ordinance, it barely passed.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1335 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 22 The Subsequent Actions Are Equally Concerning
The emergency ordinance drew a well-founded lawsuit challenging its emergency status. This led Council—while still allowing the conflicted member to vote on housing matters—to attempt to codify it differently as backup. You voted to send it to the Planning Commission, again using Councilman Zwick's votes to get there. But you didn't simply request Planning Commission study—you directed them to return with affirmative approval. The fact that city staff didn't even provide images showing what this major, dramatic change might look like or its neighborhood impacts makes clear the goal was simply to rubber-stamp approval with minimal public engagement.
I understand the urgency to address affordable housing. But cutting corners and working sub rosa does a disservice to this important cause. Proceeding this way damages the very issue you want to support.
This Is an Opportunity to Get It Right
This chance to revisit these votes is a gift—an opportunity to right the ship. Now that the conflict has been established by independent findings, you can make decisions based on complete information about the provenance of these proposals. If you choose to proceed, you need everything fresh: new motion, new second, new process.
But most importantly: no new ordinance is required, and it certainly isn't required to relax neighborhood development standards in order to implement SB1123.
Why are we doing this? You don't need to do this. And you certainly shouldn't do it with any recommendation to go to 3 stories, 1.5 FAR, or reduced setbacks.
Thank you for your consideration.
Heather
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1336 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 23 David Yakobson
From: Carol Joffe <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I’ve lived in Sunset Park for 30 years, drawn by its tree-lined streets and the sense of community that fills our neighborhood. These qualities are now at risk as you consider a zoning ordinance that would drastically reshape Santa Monica. The potential for three-story housing developments and increased floor area limits threatens the very essence of what we love about our home.
This proposal goes beyond the boundaries set by state law and does not reflect the values we voted for when electing you. A rushed process like this, with little room for citizen input, is unacceptable for such a significant change. We need to prioritize thoughtful planning over density; more density does not equal more affordability, and we must consider the implications on safety, evacuation, and our infrastructure.
Please do not move forward with this unnecessary ordinance. Our neighborhoods deserve better, and we must not allow this rushed decision to go unchallenged. I urge you to roll back this proposal and listen to the voices of those who cherish Santa Monica as it is.
Make the right choice for our community.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1337 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 1 David Yakobson
From: Rashmi Mulllur <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I’ve called Sunset Park my home for the past 10 years, drawn here by the safety and excellent schools that foster a family-oriented environment. I cherish the quiet streets and the sense of community that comes from a neighborhood that has not been overbuilt or urbanized. However, the proposed zoning ordinance threatens to change all that.
This plan to allow multi-story buildings with much higher density goes far beyond what even the new state law, SB1123, allows. Adding such density in a hurried process without adequate community input is not what we, as Santa Monicans, voted for when we elected you. Density does not equate to affordability, and it’s crucial to consider the implications this change will have on our safety, evacuation routes, and overall infrastructure.
We cannot rush into irreversible changes that would densify our neighborhoods to the point of unrecognizability. I urge you to roll back this proposed ordinance. Please do not send it forward to the Planning Commission. We need a process that respects our voices and the distinct character of our beloved community.
Let’s ensure that Santa Monica remains a place where families can thrive in safety and serenity. Please act now.
-Rashmi Mullur, MD
2670 33rd St, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1338 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 2 David Yakobson
From: lmarreola <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting Jan 13
EXTERNAL
Please void all votes by Cou cilmember Zwick pertaing to housing Policies.
Please Rescind upzoning at 2644 30th St.
Please Oppose SB1123. Please save our Single Family neighborhoods from densification.
Carol and Larry Arreola
Sunset Park Resi
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone -------- Original message --------
From: Friends of Sunset Park <[email protected]> Date: 1/11/26 8:46 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Carol & Larry Arreola <[email protected]>
Subject: Action Alert!
View this email in your browser
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
FOSP Action Alert!
January 11, 2026
3 Critical Actions
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1339 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 3 WHAT’S HAPPENNG:
This week's City Council meeting is critical, and there are three actions you can take.
In addition to letter writing, we need people at Tuesday's City Council meeting to speak on these items. Please join us!
ACTION 1
Ask City Council to Declare Housing Policy Items Void due to Jesse Zwick's Conflicts of Interest
The FPPC confirmed that Councilmember Jesse Zwick—who works for an organization advocating for these exact housing policies—had a disqualifying conflict. He didn't just vote: he proposed, motioned, and seconded these items. Simply "ratifying" these compromised votes won't restore public trust. We're asking residents to write in requesting these votes be declared null and void, then only brought back if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them. This is about ensuring a clean, uncompromised process—not the policies themselves.
Write your own letter, or use this LINK to send a pre-written letter.
Scroll down for the text of the letter and email addresses if the letter doesn't populate for you.
Please send before noon on Tuesday, January 13.
ACTION 2
Ask Council to Reject a Zoning Ordinance that Goes Far Beyond State Law to Densify Residential Neighborhoods
A zoning ordinance that will existentially change all of Sunset Park and much of Santa Monica is being pushed by Members of the City Council. They are going far beyond state law requirements: raising height limits in all R-1 neighborhoods to 3 stories, expanding buildable footprints by 50%, and permitting much reduced setbacks, which will allow for Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1340 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 4 massive, market rate townhome complexes on any lot, and multi-lot complexes. This could densify every residential neighborhood to the point of unrecognizability. The state law they're using as cover is already active—anyone can use it now. No other city in the state is doing this. The Council is re-voting on whether to send this ordinance to the Planning Commission following Zwick's conflicts. We must stop it now. This will change our neighborhood forever.
Use this LINK (and a new program) to write your own letter or use it to generate a letter specifically tailored to your unique preferences.
Or use this LINK to send a pre-written letter.
Scroll down for the text of the letter and email addresses if the letter doesn't populate for you.
Please send before noon on Tuesday, January 13.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1341 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 5 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
ACTION 3
Ask Council to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
The FPPC found Councilmember Jesse Zwick had a disqualifying conflict due to his Housing Action Coalition employment, yet he made the motions to approve the 2644 30th Street rezoning allowing 85-foot tall housing projects. California law voids such quasijudicial decisions, requiring a complete restart. While the City reconsiders other Zwick Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1342 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 6 housing decisions, this rezoning— which violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and is the subject of multiple lawsuits against the City—remains uncorrected. Residents urge the Council to rescind it at their January 13, 2026 meeting before irreversible development proceeds.
Write your own letter, or use this LINK to send a pre-written letter.
Scroll down for the text of the letter and email addresses if the letter doesn't populate for you.
Please send before noon on Tuesday, January 13.
Letter to City Councilmembers
Action 1
TO: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
SUBJECT: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
1. Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
2. Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1343 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 7 3. Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
[Name]
Letter to City Councilmembers
Action 2
TO: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
SUBJECT: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica residents and roll back this unnecessary ordinance.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1344 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 8 We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send it back to the Planning Commission. I respectfully request that you rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Letter to City Councilmembers
Action 3
TO: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
SUBJECT: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street Dear Mayor Torosis and City Councilmembers,
I to urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void.
Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1345 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 9 Sincerely,
[Name]
Thank you for taking action!
Stay informed! – Join Friends of Sunset Park
Becoming a member is a great way to connect with neighbors.
Friends of Sunset Park is a city-recognized non-profit neighborhood organization working to improve the quality of life for all residents of Sunset Park and Santa Monica.
Please join us!
Visit our website to join or renew: www.FriendsofSunsetPark.org Visit the Friends of Sunset Park Facebook Page here.
Add your voice to your neighborhood!
www.FriendsofSunsetPark.org
Copyright © 2026 Friends of Sunset Park, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you're a current or prospective member of FOSP Our mailing address is:
Friends of Sunset Park
PO Box 5823
Santa Monica, CA 90409-5823
Add us to your address book
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1346 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 10 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1347 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 11 David Yakobson
From: Ray and Dina Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Jesse Zwick voting
EXTERNAL
Council Members,
We have been reading of the situation where a member, Jesse Zwick has been voting on items that will financially benefit his employer, and in turn, himself.
Assuming these reports are true. It seems to us that this is unethical and a conflict of interest.
First, he should resign from the City Council.
Second, if he does not resign, he should recuse himself from future voting on anything related to real estate development proposed by his employer.
Third, anything he voted on before should be revoted.
Thank you,
Raymond and Nadina Johnson
Santa Monica residents
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1348 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 1 David Yakobson
From: lmarreola <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:04 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Action Alert!
EXTERNAL
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone -------- Original message --------
From: Friends of Sunset Park <[email protected]> Date: 1/11/26 8:46 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Carol & Larry Arreola <[email protected]>
Subject: Action Alert!
View this email in your browser
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
FOSP Action Alert!
January 11, 2026
3 Critical Actions
WHAT’S HAPPENNG:
This week's City Council meeting is critical, and there are three actions you can take.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1349 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 2 In addition to letter writing, we need people at Tuesday's City Council meeting to speak on these items. Please join us!
ACTION 1
Ask City Council to Declare Housing Policy Items Void due to Jesse Zwick's Conflicts of Interest
The FPPC confirmed that Councilmember Jesse Zwick—who works for an organization advocating for these exact housing policies—had a disqualifying conflict. He didn't just vote: he proposed, motioned, and seconded these items. Simply "ratifying" these compromised votes won't restore public trust. We're asking residents to write in requesting these votes be declared null and void, then only brought back if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them. This is about ensuring a clean, uncompromised process—not the policies themselves.
Write your own letter, or use this LINK to send a pre-written letter.
Scroll down for the text of the letter and email addresses if the letter doesn't populate for you.
Please send before noon on Tuesday, January 13.
ACTION 2
Ask Council to Reject a Zoning Ordinance that Goes Far Beyond State Law to Densify Residential Neighborhoods
A zoning ordinance that will existentially change all of Sunset Park and much of Santa Monica is being pushed by Members of the City Council. They are going far beyond state law requirements: raising height limits in all R-1 neighborhoods to 3 stories, expanding buildable footprints by 50%, and permitting much reduced setbacks, which will allow for massive, market rate townhome complexes on any lot, and multi-lot complexes. This could densify every residential neighborhood to the point of unrecognizability. The state law they're using as cover is already active—anyone can use it now. No other city in the state Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1350 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 3 is doing this. The Council is re-voting on whether to send this ordinance to the Planning Commission following Zwick's conflicts. We must stop it now. This will change our neighborhood forever.
Use this LINK (and a new program) to write your own letter or use it to generate a letter specifically tailored to your unique preferences.
Or use this LINK to send a pre-written letter.
Scroll down for the text of the letter and email addresses if the letter doesn't populate for you.
Please send before noon on Tuesday, January 13.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1351 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 4 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
ACTION 3
Ask Council to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
The FPPC found Councilmember Jesse Zwick had a disqualifying conflict due to his Housing Action Coalition employment, yet he made the motions to approve the 2644 30th Street rezoning allowing 85-foot tall housing projects. California law voids such quasijudicial decisions, requiring a complete restart. While the City reconsiders other Zwick Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1352 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 5 housing decisions, this rezoning— which violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and is the subject of multiple lawsuits against the City—remains uncorrected. Residents urge the Council to rescind it at their January 13, 2026 meeting before irreversible development proceeds.
Write your own letter, or use this LINK to send a pre-written letter.
Scroll down for the text of the letter and email addresses if the letter doesn't populate for you.
Please send before noon on Tuesday, January 13.
Letter to City Councilmembers
Action 1
TO: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
SUBJECT: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
1. Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
2. Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1353 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 6 3. Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
[Name]
Letter to City Councilmembers
Action 2
TO: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
SUBJECT: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica residents and roll back this unnecessary ordinance.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1354 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 7 We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send it back to the Planning Commission. I respectfully request that you rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Letter to City Councilmembers
Action 3
TO: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
SUBJECT: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street Dear Mayor Torosis and City Councilmembers,
I to urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void.
Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1355 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 8 Sincerely,
[Name]
Thank you for taking action!
Stay informed! – Join Friends of Sunset Park
Becoming a member is a great way to connect with neighbors.
Friends of Sunset Park is a city-recognized non-profit neighborhood organization working to improve the quality of life for all residents of Sunset Park and Santa Monica.
Please join us!
Visit our website to join or renew: www.FriendsofSunsetPark.org Visit the Friends of Sunset Park Facebook Page here.
Add your voice to your neighborhood!
www.FriendsofSunsetPark.org
Copyright © 2026 Friends of Sunset Park, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you're a current or prospective member of FOSP Our mailing address is:
Friends of Sunset Park
PO Box 5823
Santa Monica, CA 90409-5823
Add us to your address book
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1356 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 9 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1357 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 11 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Larson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:34 AM
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
Due to the FPPC ruling, all these votes are tainted.
Thank you,
Cathy Larson
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1358 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 12 David Yakobson
From: SALLY STINER <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:36 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
SDear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
[Name]
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1359 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 13 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:37 AM
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
I am a resident of Sunset Park and I have been challenged by many of the decisions of late by the newly elected City Council.
Our great city of Santa Monica is becoming overdeveloped, crime ridden and dangerous.
We are counting on your leadership to assist in returning Santa Monica to the welcoming, friendly and beautiful city that it once was. Not the over-developed and homeless center of the US.
I am respectfully asking you to declare the housing policy items void due to Jesse Zwick's conflict of interest.
Sincerely,
Lynn Novatt
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1360 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 14 David Yakobson
From: Teri D Bernstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:38 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: I am an EXEMPLAR of YIMBY and I OPPOSE item 11C
EXTERNAL
Greetings, City Councilmember--
I am an EXEMPLAR of YIMBY and I oppose item 11C
I built a home on the west side of 29th with my ex-husband in 1993 and later bought another home next door, which we rented out. He got the big house in the divorce; I got the rental house.
Behind us, on 28th street, the properties are zoned R-4 and, for the most part, 2 story apartments and condominiums exist there. LITERALLY IN MY BACK YARD. They have been good neighbors, on a human scale for the City.
When certain Councilmembers make prejudicial assumptions about who I am because I oppose Corporate building on R-1 streets, and Neighborhood Commercial encroachment across from single family homes on short boulevard streets, I feel I need to tell you who I really am.
We tore down a neighborhood eyesore, with multiple cat hotels under a lean-to on the North side, and all the window broken out to provide cat access. We had to endure all kinds of ridiculous red-tape to build there, as it seems then and since then, that the City's mandate to Building and Safety is to make things as difficult as possible for small builders. (and as easy as possible for Corporate Lobbyist Developers) It is a long story, probably more suited to a blog or a newspaper article than a City Council meeting.
Anyway, here is my situation: I believe in renting; I believe in rent control. There is a law that says I can evict my tenant by paying a relocation fee of around $40,000, so that I can move in there. My tenant is 81 years old and is still working at an office at the end of the block.
The SPIRIT of the law wants to protect tenants like mine, but $40,000 won't do it.
So, to satisfy the SPIRIT of the law, I live in a 2+1 apartment in Santa Monica while I try to get plans together to build an ADU behind the 3+2 house. But with laws changing so rapidly, it is hard to decide what to do. Two years ago, I couldn't build a 2nd story balcony on the ADU without serious setbacks. Now the city wants to allow 7 story apartment buildings 1/2 a block away that can look into every backyard. Hmm. A few years ago, the City outlawed front-facing garages, forgetting that some of us don't have alleys.Hmm.
Meanwhile, back to me and my tenant.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1361 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 15 I have paid well over the $40,000 relocation fee in rent in the last year and a half. And will continue to pay almost $4000 a month...
IT HAS BEEN THE RIGHT THING TO DO, in order to not displace an elderly tenant.
I expect the City to do the right thing, too.
I have the hope that the City Council will follow the laws the state has mandated to support housing, but not try too bend the law to look for loopholes...instead...try to follow the spirit of the law, and the mandated neighborhood meetings (LUCE) that set neighborhood standards. And stop pretending you are building affordable housing. You aren't.
We didn't elect you to be DINOs (Democrats In Name Only). We didn't elect you to follow the lead of Trump and Corporate honchos out for a buck. We elected you to protect our city.
Find out what the stories of the other people on my block are...
Thanks for listening,
Teri Davis Bernstein
Santa Monica Resident 1982-1985 and 1993-present
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1362 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 16 David Yakobson
From: Dan J. <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Members of City Council,
As a 25-year Wilmont resident, I strongly oppose the proposed zoning ordinance allowing multistory buildings and substantially increased density throughout Santa Monica and, in particular, in single-family neighborhoods.
This proposed ordinance exceeds SB 1123 and is being rushed forward with inadequate public input. A change of this scale demands justification and transparency—neither of which has been provided.
Density does not equal affordability. This proposal trades public safety, evacuation capacity, and neighborhood character for unnecessary bulk and height. It raises height limits throughout single-family districts, inflates floor-area ratios, shrinks setbacks, and abolishes stepbacks; all changes that are irreversible once imposed.
Why is the City advancing an ordinance that goes beyond state law? And why is Council willing to impose sweeping changes without demonstrating clear benefits or addressing their consequences? Santa Monica’s neighborhoods are not expendable policy experiments. Withdraw this proposed ordinance and halt further action.
Respectfully,
Daniel Jansenson
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1363 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 17 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Morse <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:45 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on.
He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
**Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
**Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them **Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nancy M. Morse
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1364 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 18 David Yakobson
From: Joan Habschmidt <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:47 AM
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest. The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses.
The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law. According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Joan habschmidt
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1365 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 19 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Morse <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:48 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in Santa Monica. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
**We don’t need to go to three stories.
**We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
**We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Nancy M. Morse
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1366 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 20 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Morse <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:50 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasijudicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Nancy M. Morse
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1367 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 21 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Larson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I urge you not to support Item 11C(2).
Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission.
This proposed increase in density is an example of poor urban planning without thought of long term consequences.
Thank you,
Cathy Larson
Sunset Park Resident
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1368 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 22 David Yakobson
From: Bob Elson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I’ve lived in R1 for 25 years, moving here to raise my children in a quiet and safe community with good schools. It’s disheartening to see the proposed zoning ordinance that threatens the very fabric of our neighborhoods. This plan, which pushes beyond state law, isn’t just unwarranted; it risks turning our beloved areas into bustling three-story developments with little regard for the implications on safety, infrastructure, and our quality of life.
Three stories are simply not necessary. We need to focus on sustainable growth that respects our community's character and needs. Density does not equal affordability, and we must not overlook this critical distinction. The rapid and unusual process behind this ordinance leaves little room for meaningful citizen input, which is unacceptable when you consider the lasting impact of such a sweeping change.
We elected you to represent us, and this isn’t what Santa Monicans voted for. I urge you to take a step back and reconsider this ordinance. Please do not advance this proposal any further. Let’s have a conversation about what our community truly needs before making decisions that could irreversibly alter our neighborhoods.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
N. Robert Elson, M.D.
뮄뮅뮆 Protected by MailProtect
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1369 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 23 David Yakobson
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:54 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Attorney Mailbox
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]; councilmtgitems Subject: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause
11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
The recent revelations of massive and blatant conflicts of interest with multiple members of this Council discredit every issue it is engaging with. This hard evidence ensure that any residual trust remaining between the Council and its constituents is gone.
This boldly unethical behavior also neatly explains the indefensible votes taken to severely compromise basic safety in new multi-family buildings by eliminating a second stairwell purely for investor profit. It is the equivalent of eliminating the requirement for seat belts and airbags in cars solely to improve corporate profits. Housing prices are not construction-cost driven, they are market price driven. There is no link between the two, which is why improving profits at the expense of people’s lives is so abhorrent.
These conflicts also explain the absolute refusal to remove Santa Monica as a homeless destination as that would cross Los Angeles County policies for which Ms. Torosis is a key employee of one of the supervisors. This one issue is the cause of the collapse of Santa Monica’s visitor economy, for which this Council has no actual plan to stabilize and re-establish permanent economic (and City revenue) growth. This Council never requests economic analyses of any issue prior to voting to ensure maximum flexibility in meeting its financial supporters’ demands and to ensure that the ineffectiveness or counter-productive outcomes of its public-relations-driven “policies” are never scrutinized.
The insane residential densification endlessly promoted by the terminally conflicted Mr. Zwick, and supported by Mr. Hall, Mr. Snell, Ms. Zernitskaya, Ms. Torosis, and Mr. Raskin, is a looming, and major, contributor to the City’s long-term financial ruin since residential development is a net cost driver to the City and the City’s ongoing revenues cannot even keep pace (due to the cratered economy) with existing operating cost challenges. Eliminating commercial infrastructure like parking lots wipes out businesses and permanently ensures that there can be no commercial recovery. But this Council clearly does not care since that will be some future Council’s (and residents’) problem.
Regarding the issue at hand, the December 8, 2025 FPPC ruling that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition requires that all votes relating to the Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A, be voided.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v. City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich
2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused
3. Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments
4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1370 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 24 This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Marc L. Verville
Sunset Park
Former Chair, Santa Monica Audit Subcommittee
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1371 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 25 David Yakobson
From: David Thomsen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I’ve lived in Sunset Park for 25 years, drawn here by the quiet, tree-lined streets and the family-friendly atmosphere. However, I am deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that threatens to change Santa Monica forever. This ordinance goes beyond the already expansive limits set by state law, SB1123, and the implications could be devastating for our neighborhoods.
Allowing three-story buildings with significantly increased floor area and reduced setbacks is unnecessary and could transform our beloved community into something unrecognizable. We should not be rushing this process—these kinds of decisions require thoughtful consideration and ample opportunity for community input, which we simply haven’t had.
The density being proposed is not synonymous with affordability, and we must carefully consider how this will impact safety, evacuation capacity, and our already strained infrastructure. This is not what we, as voters, envisioned when we elected you to represent our interests.
I urge you to hit pause on this ordinance and reconsider its implications for our neighborhoods. We need a plan that prioritizes community input and the wellbeing of our residents. Let’s ensure that Santa Monica remains a place we can cherish for generations to come.
Please do not send this ordinance forward.
David Thomsen
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1372 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 26 David Yakobson
From: LOUISE DECORDOBA <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:55 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Louise Decordoba
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1373 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 27 David Yakobson
From: LOUISE DECORDOBA <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:55 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Louise Decordoba
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1374 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 28 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Larson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:59 AM
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, due to the FPPC’s ruling that has disqualified Councilmember Zwick’s participation and vote.
Thank you,
Cathy Larson
Sunset Park Resident
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1375 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 29 David Yakobson
From: Lynda Dorf <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:00 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lynda Dorf
32nd Street Resident
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1376 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 30 David Yakobson
From: Lynda Dorf <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:01 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance— SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Lynda Dorf
32nd St. Resident
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1377 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 31 David Yakobson
From: Lynda Dorf <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:01 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Lynda Dorf
32nd Street Resident
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1378 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 32 David Yakobson
From: Shank, Jonathan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:01 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Jonathan Shank
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1379 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 33 David Yakobson
From: Aleese Orr <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:01 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to withdraw Item 11C - Full Investigation and Evaluation
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to express my deep frustration about the proposed zoning ordinance that threatens to transform my beloved North of Montana neighborhood into something unrecognizable. Having lived here for six years, I chose this area for its quiet charm and the beauty of the trees and open spaces—elements that provide a breath of fresh air amidst the chaos of Los Angeles.
The idea of allowing three-story buildings with reduced setbacks feels unnecessary and excessive. This isn't about creating affordability; density doesn’t equate to better living conditions. It’s hard to believe that such a significant change is being rushed through without meaningful input from residents like me.
We deserve a process that reflects our community's values, not one that sidesteps our voices.
We shouldn’t be going beyond state law when it comes to zoning. This isn’t what Santa Monicans voted for when they elected this Council. It’s vital that we consider the implications of increased density on safety, evacuation capacity, and our infrastructure.
I urge you to roll back this ordinance before it goes to the Planning Commission. We must take a step back and ensure that any changes truly reflect the needs and desires of our community.
Please reconsider this approach. Santa Monica deserves better.
Respectfully,
Aleese Orr
308 Alta Ave
310-729-2483
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1380 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 34 David Yakobson
From: Shank, Jonathan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:02 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Jonathan Shank
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1381 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 35 David Yakobson
From: Shank, Jonathan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:02 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasijudicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Shank
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1382 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 36 David Yakobson
From: Tuvya Zaretsky <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:03 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I write today to urge you all to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
If you simply ratify these compromised votes I assure that I and other Santa Monica residents will not be satisfied that public trust is restored.
I request that the City Council take the following reasonable actions:
• Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
• Allow items to return for consideration ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them.
• Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process.
I believe our Santa Monica community deserves decisions affecting us all be made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tuvya Zaretsky
32nd Street, Santa Monica
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1383 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 37 David Yakobson
From: lisa margolis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: 11-C
EXTERNAL
>
> I live in Sunset Park and I oppose allowing 3 stories. There is already too much congestion in the area and this will make things worse. The traffic starting at 3 o’clock makes it almost impossible to get out of the neighborhood. > Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1384 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 38 David Yakobson
From: Kathy Knight <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:15 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
We are deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in our neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Kathy Knight and Joe Faris
Sunset Park Residents for 30 years
[email protected]
(310) 450-5961
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1385 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 1 David Yakobson
From: Victor Fresco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Request to Void Conflict Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
1. Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
2. Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them
3. Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Victor Fresco
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1386 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 2 David Yakobson
From: Ellen Mark <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Request to Void Conflic-Tainted Votes and Require Clean ProcessDear Mayor and City Councilmembers, I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated. The FPPC ...
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
1. Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
2. Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them
3. Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ellen Mark
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1387 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 3 David Yakobson
From: Barbara Abrams <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:25 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Barbara Abrams
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1388 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 4 David Yakobson
From: Levin, Amy C <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:26 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Levin
*****************************************
Amy Levin, LCSW, PhD
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1389 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 5 David Yakobson
From: Victor Fresco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - Don't exceed state law
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica residents and roll back this unnecessary ordinance.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send it back to the Planning Commission. I respectfully request that you rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Victor Fresco
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1390 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 6 David Yakobson
From: LINDA KNAB <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:26 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor,
The upzoning of 2644 30th needs to be immediately rescinded until there is a very thorough investigation into the recently uncovered conflicts of interest of city council members with large developers who had a multimillion/billion interest in the council approve the upzoning for this project approved. This benefits the developers with the tremendous financial gain they will receive, not the residents of this neighborhood, whose quality of life will be forever adversely effected by this development. The council needs to vote for the residents not the developers
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasijudicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Linda Reinbold
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1391 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 7 David Yakobson
From: Victor Fresco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th St
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Councilmembers,
I to urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void.
Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Victor Fresco
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1392 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 8 David Yakobson
From: Brian ONeil <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:28 AM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v.
City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich 2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused 3.
Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments 4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds
This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Brian O’Neil
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1393 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 9 David Yakobson
From: Ellen Mark <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW Importance: High
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica residents and roll back this unnecessary ordinance.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send it back to the Planning Commission. I respectfully request that you rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerrely,
Ellen Mark
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1394 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 10 David Yakobson
From: Brendan Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I’ve lived in Sunset Park for five years, and one of the reasons I chose this neighborhood was the strong sense of community. I wanted my three young kids to grow up in a place where they could walk to school and play in the park, surrounded by friendly neighbors. However, I am deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that could forever change the fabric of our city.
Three-story buildings are simply unnecessary for our residential neighborhoods, outside of the main thoroughfares (Ocean Park, Lincoln, Pico, etc). This rushed process feels deeply unsettling and is not how significant zoning changes should be handled. It seems like the council is moving forward without fully considering the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and the increased demands on our infrastructure.
We can’t just add density without understanding the repercussions it brings. This is not what we voted for when we elected you to represent us. I urge you to reconsider this ordinance and not send it to the Planning Commission. It is essential that you listen to the voices of the residents who call Santa Monica home. Please roll this back and prioritize our community’s well-being over hasty decisions that could alter our neighborhoods irreversibly.
Let’s keep Santa Monica the vibrant, safe, and walkable place that we all cherish.
Thank you,
Brendan Kelly
2343 Ashland Avenue
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1395 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 11 David Yakobson
From: Erick Brownstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
1. Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
2. Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them
3. Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Erick Brownstein
1624 Oak Street, 90405
-----------------------------
@ErickB
M: 323 640 9690
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1396 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 12 David Yakobson
From: Gavin Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:31 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Cc: Nicola Scott
Subject: Agenda Item 11 C
EXTERNAL
Dear councilors
My wife and I wish to protest very strongly against the proposal to allow three story buildings with 50% more area.
None of this is required by the state and there are no protections against side-by-side lots which could easily become multi-lot three story complexes.
There is no evidence any of this is necessary - state law already enables streamlined subdivision and density.
It goes far beyond what is required and maybe irreversible.
Please say no to 3 stories say and any 50% increase in floor area.
The future of the city depends on you - please do the right thing by the people who elected you.
Yours sincerely,
Gavin and Nicola Scott,
1801 Marine St,
Santa Monica 90405
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1397 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 13 David Yakobson
From: Erick Brownstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica residents and roll back this unnecessary ordinance.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send it back to the Planning Commission. I respectfully request that you rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Erick Brownstein
1624 Oak St, 90405
-----------------------------
@ErickB
M: 323 640 9690
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1398 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 14 David Yakobson
From: Erick Brownstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Councilmembers,
I to urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void.
Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Erick Brownstein
1624 Oak St, 90405
-----------------------------
@ErickB
M: 323 640 9690
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1399 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 15 David Yakobson
From: Erin Donley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Jesse Zwick / Withdraw Item 11C
EXTERNAL
Hello,
As you are well aware, our City Manager, Oliver Chi, has identified five housing-related items that Council member Zwick voted on after he started his HAC job, and has put them under a single agenda item (11C) to be voted on this Tuesday.
While residents / voters agree that these votes were tainted by Zwick's conflict of interest and need to be reconsidered, there are additional items which Zwick participated in that should also be reconsidered in light of his conflict of interest. Additionally, some of the items were proposed or moved by Zwick and should not be voted on again unless a non-conflicted Councilmember motions for them to be voted on. And there also may be other Councilmember conflicts which would further call into question the validity of more housing-related items.
Further, a recent Freedom of Information request shows that Zwick was texting with a member of the housing group HCHC during a Council meeting to get advice on what position he should take in the face of public opposition (see article in the Santa Monica Daily Press: New Questions Emerge Over Councilmember Conflicts). This kind of ex parte communication is illegal under the Brown Act.
Taken together, it's clear that there is a tangled web of conflicts and housing votes which requires much more time and consideration than a cursory re-vote on the five items listed under 11C. These and other items should be investigated by the City Attorney before any re-votes are taken.
PLEASE listen to the residents / voters. We ate urging the withdrawal TONIGHT of Item 11C until the matter can be accurately investigated and evaluated.
Thank you
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1400 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 16 Erin Donley
1208 Broadway
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1401 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 17 David Yakobson
From: Sheryl Zucker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:33 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers, I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift. The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability.
It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions. We don’t need to go to three stories. We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5. We don’t need reduced setbacks. We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance. Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city. Sincerely, (Name)
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1402 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 18 David Yakobson
From: Sheryl Zucker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:34 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers, I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated. The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust. I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves. Thank you. Sincerely, [Name]
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1403 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 19 David Yakobson
From: Kathleen von Schlegell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I’m writing as a longtime resident of Sunset Park, where I've lived for 35 years and have developed a deep appreciation for our community and its walkable neighborhoods. I’m genuinely concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that threatens to transform Santa Monica in ways that go far beyond what our state law, SB1123, requires.
This rushed process raises serious red flags. The scale of these changes, allowing three-story buildings and increasing the floor area limits by 50%, seems to disregard the input and concerns of those of us who call this city home. It feels like a significant departure from what Santa Monicans voted for when they elected you. Adding density does not equate to affordability, and we can’t overlook the implications this change would have on our safety, evacuation capacity, and the demands on our infrastructure.
I urge you to reconsider this ordinance before it goes any further. It’s crucial to pause, engage in meaningful dialogue with residents, and truly assess the long-term impacts on our neighborhoods. Please don’t send this ordinance forward; let’s work together to ensure Santa Monica remains a vibrant, community-focused city.
Thank you.
Kathleen von Schlegell
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1404 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 20 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Rosenblum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:37 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Nancy Rosenblum
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1405 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 21 David Yakobson
From: karen Ginsberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
We have lived in Sunset Park for 29 years. We chose this neighborhood for its walkable, tree-lined streets and the proximity to schools within the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District. We want to express a deep concern about the proposed zoning ordinance that could irrevocably change our beloved community.
This new ordinance goes far beyond what is necessary under state law. Allowing three-story buildings and increasing floor area limits by 50% is not only excessive but risks densifying our neighborhoods to the point of being no longer recognizable. We shouldn’t rush into such significant changes without thorough community input. This isn't what we voted for when we elected you as Council members.
Moreover, we must consider the implications of increased density on safety, evacuation capacity, and our existing infrastructure.
We urge you to roll back this proposed ordinance and ensure it doesn’t move forward. The City’s residents deserve a process that is transparent and inclusive.
Thank you for considering our concerns.
Robert and Karen Ginsberg
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1406 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 22 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Rosenblum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:41 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely
NANCY ROSENBLUM
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1407 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 23 David Yakobson
From: Jeanne Eisenman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:41 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Eisenman
Get Outlook for Android
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1408 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 24 David Yakobson
From: Jeanne Eisenman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:42 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance— SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Eisenman
Get Outlook for Android
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1409 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 25 David Yakobson
From: Jeanne Eisenman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:44 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Eisenman
Get Outlook for Android
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1410 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 26 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Rosenblum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:47 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasijudicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely
NANCY ROSENBLUM
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1411 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 27 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:54 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Jaron, Ken, Kana and Mari LeBlanc
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1412 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 28 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:55 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasijudicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Jaron, Kana, Ken and Mari LeBlanc
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1413 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 29 David Yakobson
From: Wendy Yip <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:57 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Wendy Yip
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1414 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 30 David Yakobson
From: Wendy Yip <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:57 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Wendy Yip
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1415 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 31 David Yakobson
From: Patty Briggs <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:00 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Patty Briggs, Sunset Park homeowner/taxpayer
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1416 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 32 David Yakobson
From: barbanell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:00 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Heidi von Tongeln; Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Subject: OPPOSITION to 11C: Ratification of Previously Discredited Votes on the January 13, 2026, Santa Monica City Council Agenda
EXTERNAL
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Dan Hall <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: Oliver Chi <[email protected]>, Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Nina Fresco <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
From: Jerry Bass & Stephanie Barbanell/Santa Monica
Re: Subject: OPPOSITION to 11C: Ratification of Previously Discredited Votes on the January 13, 2026, Santa Monica City Council Agenda
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
“Hard proof exists of an alignment between some of our local elected officials and the development industry.”
Specifically, there is overwhelming evidence that Councilman Zwick has a gross conflict of interest and a pro developer bias, such that ALL the decisions he was involved in, as outlined by numerous neighborhood groups, are TAINTED and must be vacated.
Santa Monica’s reputation is already tarnished by rising crime and safety issues, let’s not add CORRUPTION .
ZWICK’S FAILURE TO RECUSE HIMSELF, means all decisions he was involved in must be revoted upon.
Zwick must resign or be removed from office for his violation of public trust! Sincerely,
Jerry Bass & Stephanie Barbanell, Santa Monica residents since 1983 Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1417 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 33 David Yakobson
From: Patty Briggs <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:01 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasijudicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Patty Briggs, Sunset Park homeowner/ taxpayer
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1418 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 34 David Yakobson
From: Christine Parra <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:04 AM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v.
City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich 2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused 3.
Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments 4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds
This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Christine Parra
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1419 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 35 David Yakobson
From: maritta&patrick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:06 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: No 3 Stories! No 460 Units on Ocean Park!
EXTERNAL
We are Santa Monica residents and voters. We are against 3 stories and very against the proposed 460 units on the other side of Clover Park. Ocean Park Blvd is already a traffic nightmare.
No!
Patrick Percy
Maritta Tapanainen
2452 Oak St B
Santa Monica
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1420 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 36 David Yakobson
From: dana abrams <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members, I’ve lived in Sunset Park for 50 years, and this community holds countless memories for me, especially the simple joy of walking to the beach. It’s a cherished place where families thrive, and I’m deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that could forever alter its fabric.
We shouldn't be going beyond what state law allows. The idea of three-story buildings is simply unnecessary for our neighborhoods, and it feels like a rushed decision that doesn’t allow for adequate input from those who truly know and care about this community. This isn’t just about adding density; it’s essential to consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and the infrastructure we currently have in place. This isn’t what I, or many others, voted for when we elected you. We deserve a thoughtful approach that truly reflects our community’s needs and values, not a hasty ordinance that could lead to irreversible changes. I urge you to roll back this proposal and prioritize the voices of the residents of Santa Monica. Let’s work together to ensure we build a future that respects our neighborhoods rather than reshapes them without consideration. Please do not send this ordinance forward. Dana Abrams Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1421 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 37 David Yakobson
From: Karen Melick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Agenda item 11.C Please do not adopt or approve items 2 and 3, approve item 5
EXTERNAL
While it's good that some of the items that Jesse Zwick significantly influenced and voted for while he had a conflict of interest are being reviewed, these and other housing/zoning items he voted on should not be adopted or approved without having a full review. Unfortunately, it's impossible to un-ring the bell and undo the influence that Jesse had in the discussions and votes for these items.
As the staff report says, the FPPC advice is forward-looking only and does not issue opinions on past actions. Thus the next statement in the staff report that says that the FPPC did not find that Mayor Pro Tem Zwick acted improperly, violated the law or failed to disclose his employment, is true but misleading as just previously stated, that isn't what the FPPC does. Since they determined that it is improper for him to be involved with housing production decisions in the future, it's obvious that his involvement in the past decisions since his employment involvement with HAC were also improper. It's up to the State Attorney General and the LA County District Attorney to determine if the law was violated.
Please do not approve the resolution to direct the Planning Commission to initiate the process of amending the zoning ordinance to go beyond what's required with SB1123. This does not directly help affordable housing in Santa Monica. In fact, by incentivizing developers above SB1123 standards, the modest and lower cost houses in R-1 areas will be replaced with predominantly luxury condominiums and apartments. This will decimate the availability of the lowest cost and most affordable single family homes in Santa Monica, which are already in low supply.
Please approve item 5, the repeal of the (unlawful) Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance that tried to implement these zoning changes that are above what are required by the state.
Please also rescind the upzoning at 2644 30th Street. Council member Zwick made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, after he accepted his position, and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025. Due to his conflict of interest, these quasi-judicial decisions should be invalidated and the City cannot simply re-vote on these items.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Karen Melick
Sunset Park resident
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1422 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 38 David Yakobson
From: Mindi Shank <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:15 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process. Do the right thing!!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust. It is an effort to brush this corruption all under the rug. It’s near impossible to see Councilmember Zwick’s conflict as an accident and not intentional.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mindi Shank
2525 29th Street
Santa Monica
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1423 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 39 David Yakobson
From: Robert Mickelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I've lived in Sunset Park for 30 years, and I moved here because it’s a safe, family-friendly neighborhood. My kids could walk and ride their bikes to school without worrying about heavy traffic. But now, I’m deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that threatens to change everything I love about our community.
This new ordinance goes far beyond state law and would allow three-story buildings in our residential areas. We shouldn't be pushing boundaries like this—especially when it isn't necessary. The rushed process surrounding this ordinance leaves little room for meaningful input from residents, which is simply unacceptable. We deserve a transparent conversation about the future of our neighborhoods.
Density does not equate to affordability, and adding more housing without understanding the implications on safety and infrastructure is reckless. This isn’t what we voted for when we elected you to represent us. We want to maintain the charm and safety of Santa Monica.
Please reconsider moving this ordinance forward. I urge you to roll it back and prioritize our community’s wellbeing over rushed decisions that could have irreversible consequences. Let’s work together to find solutions that truly serve our residents.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
Best,
Robert Mickelson
3204 Pearl Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1424 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 40 David Yakobson
From: Mindi Shank <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:17 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
Please save our city from over densification!
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Mindi Shank
2525 29th Street
Santa Monica
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1425 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 41 David Yakobson
From: Mindi Shank <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:18 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasijudicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Mindi Shank
2525 29th Street
Santa Monica
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1426 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 42 David Yakobson
From: rosindabow <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I have lived in Sunset Park for 28 wonderful years, drawn here by the warm, friendly neighbors and a strong sense of community. My family has grown up surrounded by local eateries, parks, and vibrant farmer’s markets, where we’ve shared countless birthdays and holidays with lifelong friends. It’s this intimacy that makes Santa Monica feel like home.
I am deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow new housing projects to escalate to three stories, with density that could overwhelm our beloved neighborhoods. This isn’t just a minor adjustment; it’s a leap beyond what state law permits, and it’s happening without the careful consideration it deserves. This process has been rushed, limiting meaningful input from residents like me, who are deeply concerned about the implications of such changes on safety and infrastructure.
Let’s be clear: it's my understanding that adding density doesn’t equate to affordability. We must prioritize the health and well-being of our community over developers’ interests. We urge you to Vote NO.
Let’s make Santa Monica better for ALL our residents. A developer's Yes vote would forever change the beauty of our wonderful city, our home, our SANTA MONICA.
Please reconsider and roll back this ordinance before it’s too late.
Respectfully,
Ross Levinson
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1427 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 1 David Yakobson
From: irena mendez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:24 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Halina Mendez
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1428 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 2 David Yakobson
From: greg chasen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:13 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for Items 10.A and 11.C
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Council, I support housing, and I support the Council members who are taking action to deliver it. I am writing to express my support for Agenda Items 10.A and 11.C and for the Council’s continued efforts to make it easier to build all kinds of housing in Santa Monica. Removing barriers to housing production is essential if our city is to meet unmet demand, welcome new neighbors, and revitalize the local economy for the future. Thank you for your leadership and commitment to Santa Monica’s long-term success.
Sincerely,
Greg Chasen
1318 10th St.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1429 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 3 David Yakobson
From: Lindsay Gibson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:14 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for Items 10.A and 11.C
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Council,
I support housing, and I support the Council members who are taking action to deliver it.
I am writing to express my support for Agenda Items 10.A and 11.C and for the Council’s continued efforts to make it easier to build all kinds of housing in Santa Monica. Removing barriers to housing production is essential if our city is to meet unmet demand, welcome new neighbors, and revitalize the local economy for the future.
Thank you for your leadership and commitment to Santa Monica’s long-term success.
Sincerely,
Lindsay Gibson
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1430 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 4 David Yakobson
From: Jacob Pierce <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:12 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems; Scott Epstein
Subject: Strong support for 10.A and 11.C (Offsite Affordable Housing Program and SB 1123 implementation)
Attachments: AHLA - Off-site Affordble, SB 1123 affirmations.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and members of the Santa Monica City Council, Abundant Housing LA writes with support for two items your body has already supported, the Offsite Affordable Housing Program and the efficacious implementation of SB 1123.
These are items from 10.A and 11.C, respectively, on tonight's agenda. Your efforts are making it easier to build all kinds of housing in Santa Monica, and these steps are essential to continuing your work to advance a more equitable, affordable and economically vibrant city. Our full letter is attached.
Thank you,
Jacob Pierce
Housing Elements & Policy Analyst
Abundant Housing LA
@jacobpierceLA
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1431 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 1/12/2026
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica CA 90401
Subject: Support for Items 10.A and 11.C
Dear Mayor Torosis and members of the Santa Monica City Council, Abundant Housing LA writes with support for two items your body has already supported, the Offsite Affordable Housing Program and the efficacious implementation of SB 1123.
Together, these items represent a critical step in addressing Santa Monica’s housing shortage, and it is imperative that you continue to lead on this issue. Abundant Housing LA strongly supports these programs, which serve invaluable and related ends in efforts to advance justice and inclusion in the community and beyond. The Off-Site Affordable Housing Program (10.A) ensures the feasibility of multifamily housing construction at multiple levels of affordability. We encourage you to, again, extend and expand the Off-site Affordable Housing Pilot Program.
The SB 1123 item (11.C) implements state law to legalize small-lot starter homes to create more for-sale missing-middle housing, with an additional provision to allow accessory dwelling units.
This program must be properly calibrated to ensure projects on vacant single-family parcels are both legally permitted and also financially and physically feasible. We respectfully urge you to adopt the staff recommendations.
These steps are essential to continuing your work to advance a more equitable and affordable Santa Monica.
Thank you,
Azeen Khanmalek
Executive Director
Abundant Housing LA
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1432 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 5 David Yakobson
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:25 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for Items 10.A and 11.C
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Council,
I support housing, and I support the Council members who are taking action to deliver it.
I am writing to express my support for Agenda Items 10.A and 11.C and for the Council’s continued efforts to make it easier to build all kinds of housing in Santa Monica. Removing barriers to housing production is essential if our city is to meet unmet demand, welcome new neighbors, and revitalize the local economy for the future.
Thank you for your leadership and commitment to Santa Monica’s long-term success.
Sincerely,
Dustin Shahan
90401
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1433 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 6 David Yakobson
From: Ali F <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:41 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for Items 10.A and 11.C
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Council, I support housing, and I support the Council members who are taking action to deliver it. I am writing to express my support for Agenda Items 10.A and 11.C and for the Council’s continued efforts to make it easier to build all kinds of housing in Santa Monica. Removing barriers to housing production is essential if our city is to meet unmet demand, welcome new neighbors, and revitalize the local economy for the future. Thank you for your leadership and commitment to Santa Monica’s long-term success. Sincerely, [Your Name] [Santa Monica Resident / Voter] Best,
Ali
Ali Fallahassady
310.591.9172
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1434 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 1 David Yakobson
From: Faustino Garza <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:00 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Faustino Garza
1351 Pacific Street
Santa Monica 90405
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1435 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 2 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Caroline Torosis
Cc: Heidi von Tongeln; Susan Cola; Oliver Chi; Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman; Rachel Kwok; Roxanne Tanemori; Cary Fukui
Subject: January 13, 2026 Council Meeting - Item 11.C. - Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Councilmembers,
I to urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void.
Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ann Bowman
Resident, 29 years
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1436 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 3 David Yakobson
From: Amanda Enclade <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I urge the City Council to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated despite a disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows substantially larger development, including housing projects up to 85 feet tall through state density bonus provisions. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick was legally disqualified from participating in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Nevertheless, he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the related limited covenant on October 14, 2025.
Because these actions were taken by a conflicted councilmember, the approvals are invalid under California law. As established in Petrovich v. City of Sacramento, participation by a disqualified official in a quasi judicial decision invalidates the entire action. The City therefore cannot cure this defect through ratification or a simple revote: the original approvals are void.
Given that this rezoning also conflicts with the City’s General Plan, raises environmental compliance concerns, and is already subject to litigation, I respectfully request that the Council rescind this invalid upzoning in full.
Sincerely,
Amanda Enclade
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1437 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 4 David Yakobson
From: LINDA KNAB <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:04 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Santa Monica Residents deserve a thorough investigation into any conflict of interest of all city employees before any housing policy is brought before the city council for a vote. SM residents deserve a transparent government.
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Linda Reinbold
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1438 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 5 David Yakobson
From: Elyse Eberstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:17 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Elyse Bennett
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1439 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 6 David Yakobson
From: Elyse Eberstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:18 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Elyse Bennett
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1440 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 7 David Yakobson
From: Elyse Eberstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:18 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasijudicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Elyse
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1441 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 8 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Agenda Item Number 11-C
From: Richard Daum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 6:26 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item Number 11-C
EXTERNAL
I'm sensing a lack of vision from our City Council.
Where is your Master Plan on how Santa Monica will look architecturally? How is development tied into upgrading of infrastructure? How is development tied into traffic patterns?
Has anyone determined how many people can be sustained by our present water supply.
Richard Daum
[email protected]
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1442 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 9 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest Honorable Mayor, City Attorn From: Gary Freedman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 5:41 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Attorney Mailbox <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: Oliver Chi <[email protected]>
Subject: Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest Honorable Mayor, City Attorn
EXTERNAL
Cc: [email protected], [email protected] We are residents writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v. City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
We request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich
2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused
3. Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments
4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna and Gary Freedman
533 9th Street
Santa Monica, CA
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1443 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 10 Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1444 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 11 David Yakobson
From: irena mendez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:24 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Halina Mendez
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1445 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 12 David Yakobson
From: Amy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:24 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
[Name]
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1446 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 1 David Yakobson
From: Jamie Grossman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 4:53 PM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v.
City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich 2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused 3.
Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments 4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds
This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1447 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 2 David Yakobson
From: Paula Goldman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 4:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Agenda item 11 C (2): NO on interim zoning ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
Please vote AGAINST the second part of Agenda Item 11C, the unnecessary and poorly thought-out interim zoning ordinance that expands on SB 1123.
NO OTHER city in California is doing this; SB 1123 is already a drastic reimagining of neighborhoods. The Planning Commission hasn’t had time to discuss this. This goes WAY beyond what the State is asking. Why would you want this? Why wouldn’t you wait to see what our town looks like post-SB 1123 before adding unnecessary and irreversible changes? How will you manage the additional infrastructure demands? Please vote NO on this ordinance that was conjured up by special interests.
Thank you.
Paula Goldman and Brian Wolf
2821 Washington Avenue
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1448 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 3 David Yakobson
From: Sheryl Zucker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 4:56 PM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council: We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law. On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA. On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v. City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation. I request that the Council: 1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich 2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused 3. Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments 4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust. Respectfully submitted,
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1449 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 4 David Yakobson
From: Ann Haggart <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 4:59 PM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause
11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v. City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich
2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused
3. Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments
4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Gilbertson Haggart
2108 Hill St
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1450 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 5 David Yakobson
From: Yollanda Ziff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to convey my significant apprehension regarding the proposed zoning ordinance, which I believe poses a profound threat to the integrity of Sunset Park. Having cherished our community for decades, I am deeply troubled by changes that would fundamentally transform its established character.
The introduction of three-story buildings across our neighborhoods, exceeding state requirements, feels both unnecessary and premature. This rapid advancement of such a consequential plan, without adequate citizen engagement, overlooks crucial considerations like our existing infrastructure, public safety, and evacuation capacities. The notion that higher density automatically equates to affordability is questionable and does not justify imposing such a dramatic redefinition on our residential areas.
This initiative appears to diverge from the community's aspirations and the mandate entrusted to this council. I implore you to reconsider this course of action, halting the ordinance's progression. Let us instead focus on collaborative solutions that genuinely serve the long-term well-being and unique appeal of Sunset Park.
Sincerely,
Yollanda Ziff
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1451 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 6 David Yakobson
From: Jill Foley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:06 PM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v.
City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich 2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused 3.
Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments 4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds
This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Jill Vasquez Foley
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1452 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 7 David Yakobson
From: Rob Ross <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I have lived in Sunset Park for thirty years, drawn here by the promise of a quiet, family-oriented neighborhood and the excellent Santa Monica Public Schools. The charm of our one- and two-story homes has been a source of pride, but I am deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that could irreversibly change everything I cherish about our community.
Allowing three-story buildings with a 50% increase in floor area and smaller setbacks is unnecessary and reckless.
We shouldn’t be going beyond state law, especially when this rushed process has left little room for meaningful public input. Density does not equate to affordability, and these changes pose serious questions about safety, evacuation capacity, and the strain on our already taxed infrastructure.
This is not what we envisioned when we elected our council. We need to take a step back, reconsider the implications of such drastic changes, and prioritize the wellbeing of our neighborhoods. I urge you to roll back this zoning ordinance and stop it from moving forward. Let’s work together to find solutions that truly serve our community without compromising its essence.
Please listen to the voices of those who call Santa Monica home.
Thank you, Rob Ross
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1453 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 8 David Yakobson
From: Raymond Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
We have lived in the Northeast for over 30 years, and cannot believe the idea of the proposed zoning ordinance. This plan to allow three-story buildings in our neighborhoods goes far beyond what state law requires. It is a complete disrespect of our community.
The process has been rushed and is not normal for such significant changes. This isn't what we voted for when we elected you. Density does not make affordability. We can’t just build, build, build without considering the strain it will place on our environment and daily lives.
We need our council to roll back this unrequired ordinance. Preserve the integrity of Santa Monica before it’s too late.
I urge you to listen to the voices of the community and stop this ordinance.
Thank you,
Raymond and Nadina Johnson
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1454 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 9 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:14 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Danielle Charney
[
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1455 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 10 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: SB1123
Attachments: 26.01.12_SB1123_Opposition_Letter_to_City Council.pdf
EXTERNAL
Please consider my letter opposing SB1123.
Thank you,
JACK HILLBRAND, ARCHITECT
PRESIDENT, STUDIO1323 Inc.
AIA | NCARB | CAB-SME | LEED
Cell: (415) 710-4702
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1456 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 1 January 12, 2026
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Opposition to SB 1123 Interim Zoning Ordinance - Request for Deferral and Reconsideration
Dear City Councilmembersl:
As an architect and a professional with decades of experience in sustainable residential design and urban planning in Santa Monica, I write to express strong opposition to the proposed SB 1123 Interim Zoning Ordinance (IZO) and to request that the Council either oppose this measure outright or, at minimum, defer consideration until the new year to allow for proper analysis and community engagement.
Exceeding State Law Requirements Without Justification
SB 1123 requires only that cities permit subdivision of certain residential parcels.
However, the proposed ordinance goes dramatically beyond this mandate by:
• Raising R1 neighborhood heights from two stories to three stories • Permitting multiple additional ADUs beyond the subdivision requirements • Significantly increasing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) allowances • Waiving affordable housing fees and production requirements None of these provisions are required by state law. As an architectural professional who regularly navigates state and local building codes, I can confirm that the base requirements of SB 1123 already represent substantial densification. There is no evidence-based rationale for exceeding these requirements before we understand their impacts.
Absence of Professional Planning Analysis
As someone who regularly prepares visual impact studies and neighborhood compatibility analyses for residential projects, I am deeply concerned that city staff has provided no:
• Visual simulations showing the cumulative impact of three-story development in R1 zones
• Shadow studies demonstrating effects on adjacent properties • Infrastructure capacity analysis for utilities and parking • Fire safety and emergency access evaluations for increased density The Commission's own members have acknowledged lacking sufficient information to understand the implications of this ordinance. This is not acceptable for changes of this magnitude.
Violation of Established Planning Process
The existing R1 development standards were created through months of careful work by this Planning Commission with extensive community engagement. This proposed ordinance effectively rewrites those standards without:
• Proper notification to affected neighborhoods (Pico, Sunset Park, NOMA, Northeast) • Community workshops or design charrettes
• Environmental review under CEQA
• Consideration of alternative approaches that might achieve housing goals with less neighborhood disruption
As Planning Commissioners have noted, these changes may be irreversible once implemented.
The permanent transformation of established neighborhoods demands thorough deliberation, not rushed adoption.
The Affordable Housing Paradox
Most troubling is the proposal to waive affordable housing fees and production requirements. If the stated goal is housing affordability, eliminating the very mechanisms that create affordable units is counterproductive. This provision benefits developers at the expense of our community's housing needs and contradicts the City's own Housing Element commitments.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1457 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning Regulations) 2 Recommendations
I respectfully urge the City Councilmembers to:
1. Oppose the current SB 1123 IZO as drafted, recommending that the City Council limit implementation to only what state law requires
2. If unable to oppose outright, defer consideration until the new year to allow for:
• Preparation of proper visual impact analyses
• Community outreach to affected neighborhoods
• Study of infrastructure and emergency service impacts • Analysis of whether base SB 1123 requirements achieve intended goals
3. Require retention of all affordable housing fees and production requirements Through the Planning Commission, the Council has both the responsibility and the authority to ensure that zoning changes undergo proper review. This ordinance represents one of the most significant rezoning efforts in recent Santa Monica history, affecting thousands of residents and property owners. It deserves the same careful consideration that created our existing standards, not a rushed process that bypasses established planning principles.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Hillbrand AIA, Architect
President, Studio1323 Inc.
Santa Monica Landmarks Commission Architect
1323 18th Street Santa Monica, CA 90404
EM: [email protected]
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1458 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning Regulations) 11 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:14 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance— SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Danielle Charney
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1459 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 12 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:14 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
[Danielle Charney
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1460 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 13 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:20 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Subject: OPPOSITION to 11C: Ratification of Previously Discredited Votes on the January 13, 2026, Santa Monica City Council Agenda
EXTERNAL
I COULD NOT SAY THIS BETTER...
SO SENDING THEIR LETTER AGAIN.. In addition - Zwick needs to resign... tonight... he should be joined by Caroline, Natalya and Dan.. enough is enough of all this entitlement and lack of transparency and out and out lies.
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
We strongly urge the City Council to OPPOSE Agenda Item 11 C “Consideration of Certain Prior Housing-Production Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning Regulations Related to Projects Utilizing State Law for Small Lot Subdivisions and Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential” scheduled for re-vote on Tuesday, January 13, 2026.
We urge you to vote NO on these “re-votes” AND come together to start over to conduct an unbiased and unconflicted process.
Our unity on this matter reflects widespread concern about both the substance and the process behind these policies.
These items tainted with conflicts of interest (COI) return to the agenda solely because the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) determined that Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated in these votes while holding a disqualifying financial conflict of interest. The COI is Mr. Zwick’s employment and role at HAC is to advocate for other cities to pass the same housing-specific zoning changes, that in many cases, he voted on as an elected Council Member of the city of Santa Monica.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1461 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 14 As confirmed by the FPPC Advice Letter (No. A-25-153) issued on December 8, 2025, Councilmember Zwick’s employment with the Housing Action Coalition (HAC) created a "nexus" conflict, rendering him ineligible to vote on housing production decisions.
However, the procedural concerns extend beyond Councilmember Zwick's vote in favor of each item. The majority of these items were proposed, motioned, or seconded by him - meaning someone with a now-confirmed conflict of interest, which disqualified him from participating, played a central role in bringing them forward and building support by participating in the discussion.
Simply “ratifying” or re-confirming these items will undermine public trust in fair governance.
Renters and homeowners alike are affected by these housing policies, and will all live with the consequences of decisions that were made by a councilmember with disqualifying financial conflict of interests. That is why the City Council should act to void the previous votes and only bring back the items if an eligible councilmember makes a motion and it is seconded. Only then, can Santa Monica housing policy be crafted without the tainted and compromised process that previously took place.
We are MOST concerned because these compromised votes steered Santa Monica away from affordability and from YOUR responsibility to uphold the Santa Monica City Charter. Specifically, the City Council must at all times, by ordinance, require that no less than 30% of all new multifamily residential housing is permanently affordable to and occupied by low- and moderate-income households. As you well know, this requirement was established by voters through the passage of Proposition R in 1990.
As an example of the tainted outcome of the process inappropriately and significantly influenced by Mr. Zwick’s disqualifying COI, the Off-site Affordable Housing Pilot Program, incentivizes market-rate housing with less than 10% affordable units being created. 10% affordable is 90% unaffordable! Not only does this violate Santa Monica City Charter, but this also elevates displacement risk for rent-controlled renters and undermines the economic diversity that has long defined Santa Monica.
In addition to our concern over violations of the City Charter, as our elected officials, you must care for and focus on the safety of the citizens of Santa Monica. Over the past year, Santa Monica has opened its doors to neighbors displaced by the Pacific Palisades wildfires. As we have reached the one-year anniversary of that disaster, this Council has a responsibility to lead - not just on affordability, but on safety, preparedness, and public trust. The fires were traumatic and devastating, and they laid bare that land-use decisions and government planning directly affect how communities withstand and recover from disasters.
Bringing these votes back without a comprehensive, unbiased and publicly vetted plan is irresponsible. Density decisions cannot be made in isolation, without addressing evacuation, infrastructure, emergency response, and quality-of-life impacts. Our community deserves a serious, Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1462 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 15 transparent discussion of how these policies fit into the Council’s and City Manager’s “realignment plan” - not piecemeal votes that ignore the very risks recent events laid bare.
A NO vote puts an end to the previous process that was promoted by a disqualified Councilmember to maximize the yield of special interests (which are the SAME personal interests disqualified him by the FPPC).
These five items account for a tiny fraction of all of the tainted items and policies. For you to fully understand the scope and the significance of the tainted items/policies, a full accounting and review must occur in order to identify all of the items that should come back before you. You should seek to have all of the available information before voting again.
For example, there is a significant number of Housing-Production items (see Exhibit A) and Housing-Related items (see Exhibit B) where Mr. Zwick either brought the item to the council for discussion, made the motion, or seconded it and we encourage you to vote to rescind ALL of the previous tainted votes and only bring back for discussion and a vote IF a non-disqualified member of Council moves to do so.
There are also many additional Housing-Production (see Exhibit C) and Housing-Related (see Exhibit D) items where Mr. Zwick voted, when he was disqualified and should have recused himself. We encourage you to rescind all of these votes and similarly bring them back for a full discussion and vote in an unbiased and unconflicted process.
Santa Monica deserves housing policies that prioritize residents, genuine affordability and safety. If you want the same, please vote NO and give Santa Monica a clean slate from which we can build from together.
If you feel that you need further clarity as to the scope, legal implications, and/or additional guidance on the recommended next steps, we encourage you to ask the City Attorney to conduct a full investigation and/or request an independent investigation. We encourage you to move forward once you have all of the information before you, so that you can exercise your fiduciary responsibility to our great City.
Sincerely,
DANIELLE CHARNEY
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1463 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 16 David Yakobson
From: Julie Christensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:21 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Pause Housing Vote Ratifications and Oppose SB 1123 Local Amendments
EXTERNAL
January 12, 2026
Santa Monica City Council
City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: January 13, 2026 City Council Meeting – Request to Pause Housing Vote Ratifications and Oppose SB 1123 Local Amendments Honorable Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, and Members of the City Council:
I am writing as a concerned Santa Monica resident to urge the Council to (1) pause all housing-related votes currently scheduled for ratification until a full assessment of Councilmember Zwick's conflict of interest can be completed, and (2) remove from consideration any local zoning amendments related to SB 1123 that exceed state requirements.
Pause on Housing Vote Ratifications
On December 8, 2025, the California Fair Political Practices Commission ruled that Councilmember Jesse Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. While the FPPC's ruling is forward-looking, it raises serious questions about the integrity of housing-related votes taken between August and September 2025.
The Council is now being asked to ratify these votes "out of an abundance of caution." However, ratifying votes that may have been tainted by a conflict of interest – without first understanding the full scope of how that conflict may have influenced Council deliberations and outcomes – does not serve the public interest.
We do not yet have a full understanding of the impact of Councilmember Zwick's conflict of interest and how it may have shaped Council decisions and votes. Rushing to ratify these items without that understanding undermines public trust in our local government.
I urge the Council to:
• Pause all housing-related votes currently scheduled for ratification • Commission an independent review to assess the full scope of the conflict and its potential impact on past Council actions • Ensure meaningful public process and transparency before any ratification votes proceed Opposition to Local SB 1123 Amendments That Exceed State Requirements State Senate Bill 1123 requires cities to ministerially approve certain housing subdivisions. Santa Monica must comply with this state law. However, the local zoning amendments currently under consideration go far beyond what state law requires.
These proposed local modifications – including increased floor area ratios up to 1.5, building heights up to three stories in single-family zones, reduced setbacks, elimination of stepback requirements, and waivers of affordable housing fees – are unnecessary changes to our Municipal Code that exceed state mandates. They should not be up for consideration.
Our Planning Commission has already raised concerns about these modifications, with commissioners noting the lack of meaningful public process and the risks of going "above and beyond" state requirements. Several commissioners expressed discomfort with waiving affordable housing fees and concerns about potential downzoning problems if these aggressive standards prove unworkable.
Santa Monica should comply with state housing law – nothing more. Local modifications that exceed state requirements should be removed from consideration entirely.
Conclusion
Residents deserve a Council they can trust to make decisions based on what is best for our city – not what benefits special interests or advances ideological agendas. The FPPC ruling has created legitimate questions about the integrity of recent housing votes. Until those questions are answered, ratification is premature.
I respectfully request that the Council:
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1464 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 17 1. Pause all housing vote ratifications pending a full independent review
2. Remove from consideration local SB 1123 amendments that exceed state requirements Thank you for your consideration and your service to our community.
Respectfully submitted,
Julie Christensen
354 23rd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
[email protected]
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1465 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 18 David Yakobson
From: Elliot Gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:27 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Elliot Gordon
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1466 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 19 David Yakobson
From: Elliot Gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:28 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Elliot Gordon
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1467 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 1 David Yakobson
From: Bill Breslo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: NO to 3 Stories
EXTERNAL
I'll keep my message simple: 3 stories in the residential areas with a current limit of two stories, such as Sunset Park, is a BAD IDEA.
Please do not support 3 stories in these areas.
Bill Breslo
2229 25th Street
90405
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1468 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 20 David Yakobson
From: John Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Nikki Kolhoff; Jeanne Laurie; Robb Curtis Brown; John Reynolds; Cathy Larson; Clare Thomas; Aliceann Grusin; Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City; [email protected]
Subject: Please do not "ratify" prior illegal actions, esp 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Greetings Councilmembers;
I am a Sunset Park resident and retired lawyer — having specialized in litigation of land use issues for decades. I am writing for myself as a taxpayer: I do not want my tax dollars wasted on the expensive litigation costs occasioned by the illegal approval of the zone change at 2644 30th street.
In addition to the fact that the action failed to comply with the municipal code requirements for a zone change, as I spelled out in detail in an earlier email, we now have the additional irregularity occasioned by councilmember Jesse Zwick's clear conflict of interest-- on a matter where he was the maker of the motion for approval.
Your prior approval of the zone change at 2644 30TH Street was in violation of the SMMC and the LUCE, not to mention CEQA. I believe that if you do not set aside the prior vote, which you now have a perfect, facesaving chance to do before a judge orders it, you will end up defending the lawsuit only to pay attorneys' fees in a losing battle-- your fees as well as the plaintiffs' fees at the conclusion. And this is all for the benefit of a private property owner who failed to participate in the public zoning process when he had a chance to cite alleged "mistakes" and ask for corrections through the appropriate public vetting process. He simply slept through that opportunity — and now gets a free pass without even complying with code requirements for a zone change? All this I find truly objectionable as a taxpayer-- and an as attorney who wants his city to do the right thing, abide by its own laws. You will only compound your mistake, and thereby increase the amount of money being wasted on legal fees, if you vote to "ratify" this ill-fated action.
I wish Jesse Zwick only the best in his new job, but he needs to make a difficult choice between that job and his seat on the Council. His heart is clearly with promoting developments to increase the housing stock, so the choice seems fairly clear to me-- as it seems to be for most of the residents of the city. He can pursue his passion for solving the housing crisis as a private lobbyist, but not as a public one. Please have a serious discussion about this in private with Mr. Zwick. He can participate fully in matters affecting the city as an informed private citizen.
John Murdock
1209 Pine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
tel. (310) 450-1859
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1469 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 21 David Yakobson
From: JORDAN ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:36 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jordan Ellis
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1470 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 22 David Yakobson
From: JORDAN ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:37 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Jordan Ellis
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1471 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 23 David Yakobson
From: JORDAN ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:37 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasijudicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Jordan Ellis
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1472 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 24 David Yakobson
From: Joanne Pittard <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a long-time resident of NOMA, where I’ve lived for over fifty years, I’m deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that aims to drastically reshape Santa Monica. I chose this neighborhood for its quiet atmosphere, single-family homes, and strong schools. But Santa Monica has changed drastically. It is being over-built and creating very dense neighborhoods. Traffic is a big issue.
Homelessness in my town is shameful.
This new ordinance goes well beyond the already-expanded limits set by SB1123. Allowing three-story buildings with significantly increased floor area and reduced setbacks is unnecessary and could forever alter our community's character. The rushed process surrounding this change is alarming, making it difficult for residents like me to voice our concerns meaningfully. We shouldn’t be expanding beyond state law without understanding the significant implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands.
Density does not equate to affordability, and this isn’t what Santa Monicans voted for when we elected you. I urge you to roll back this ordinance and not send it to the Planning Commission. Let’s prioritize the integrity of our neighborhoods and ensure that our community remains a place we can all cherish.
Thank you for considering the voices of your constituents.
Joanne D Pittard
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1473 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 25 David Yakobson
From: Louis Ssutu <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item Number 11-C
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please STOP EXCEEDING THE STATE LAWS.
NO to 3 Stories
NO to 50% Increase in Floor Area
No to Irresponsible Densification Without Public Safety and Evacuation Planning
Thank you for safeguarding all of the residents of Santa Monica....WHO VOTED FOR YOU!
Sincerely,
Louis Ssutu
Resident of Sunset Park
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1474 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 26 David Yakobson
From: Hal Bogotch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:45 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: => Urgent Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes & Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor & City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employer has been advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed motions, voted, and/or seconded proposals while he should have been completely disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I hereby request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void.
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts proposes & votes for them. Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process.
Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
-- Mr. Hal M. Bogotch
2520 Cloverfield Blvd
Santa Monica, CA 90405
* * * * * * * *
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1475 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 27 David Yakobson
From: Connor Webb <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:45 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Strong Support for Items 10.A and 11.C
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Council,
I continue to support housing and the Council members who are taking action to deliver it. I strongly support items 10.A and 11.C and Council’s continued efforts to make it easier to build all kinds of housing in Santa Monica.
Housing is foundational to Santa Monica’s values and success. More homes means fewer families pushed out by rising housing costs, more opportunities for seniors and young adults to stay in the community, and a healthier mix of residents who can actually live near their jobs, schools, and daily needs. Increasing housing supply is one of the most direct ways to ease cost pressures, reduce displacement, and support a vibrant, inclusive city.
Thank you for your leadership and commitment to ensuring Santa Monica’s long-term success by supporting new housing.
Sincerely,
Connor Webb
Mid-City Resident, 90404
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1476 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 28 David Yakobson
From: ALICE ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:45 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process Importance: High
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Alice Ellis 90405
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1477 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 29 David Yakobson
From: ALICE ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:46 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW Importance: High
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Alice Ellis 90405
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1478 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 30 David Yakobson
From: Anne Saldo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Agenda Item 11C 1/13/26: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers
We urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated. The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest. Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
We respectfulIy request that the City Council:
Declare the conflict-tainted votes null and void
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Thank you.
Anne & Gerald Saldo
1004 Wilson Pl
SM CA 90405
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1479 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 31 David Yakobson
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:47 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am a longtime resident of Sunset Park. I started off as a renter and raised a family here my husband and I both working long hours while also volunteering in the community.
We love Santa Monica, it is our home.
I passionately believe it is time for you to stand up for residents and stop bowing down to developers. Most of you are just passing through, not putting down roots. But we residents love and care about this town. We now realize many of you are simply on your way to other government positions,, city council is a stepping stone, and so your desire to scrape Bergamot arts, our civic auditorium, our neighborhoods makes more sense because there is now proof of these major conflicts of interest, several in fact. That have nothing to do with bettering the lives of Santa Monica residents.
Jesse Zwick has said the Civic Auditorium is an “encumbrance,” because he is being paid to entice developers to Santa Monica to develop housing. Zwick (and Hall I believe) want to engage in extreme council overreach by adding 3 stories and more units to SB1123 even though the residents absolutely oppose that. We are the only city requesting this. Why? What conflict of interest led to that specific language written by a developer to appear in the request?
We all know that your choice of 10 percent affordable means 90 percent market rate, and thus affordable housing is not your goal. And that you have built 300 percent of required market rate housing.
Meanwhile No one has stepped forward to demand doing safety and evacuation plans in advance of this densification because it seems the point is developer profit, not resident safety. And that is truly shameful.
There WILL be another fire and people will not be able to get out. And I’m sorry, but that’s on you.
This is truly heartbreaking.
And anyone who votes to re-ratify any of these Conflict of Interest votes should be considered complicit.
The facts and findings of unethical behavior will haunt you through your entire careers, or end them.
I know some of you are better than that. Much better. And Santa Monica deserves better.
Maybe if you actually loved the town as we do, you’d understand.
Zwick’s slate was elected by a tiny percentage of residents. They/you have no mandate.
Do the right thing.
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1480 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 32 Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them - and that council member should have to prove no conflict.
Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Karen Croner
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1481 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 33 David Yakobson
From: ALICE ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:47 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasijudicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Alice Ellis 90405
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1482 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 34 David Yakobson
From: L. S. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I’ve lived in the North of Montana neighborhood since February 2012, drawn here by the tranquility and safety it offers for my family. We enjoy walking the charming streets, visiting local shops, and soaking in the close proximity to the beach and schools. However, I am deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that could drastically alter our neighborhood.
This is not just a minor adjustment; the potential for three-story developments and increased density threatens to transform our community into something unrecognizable. We didn’t vote for this when we elected you. The rushed process surrounding this ordinance feels unacceptable, and it’s alarming that it seems to sidestep the important conversations we should be having about safety, infrastructure, and the real implications of such density.
Let’s be clear: adding density does not equate to affordability. We need to fully understand how this change will affect our neighborhood and the quality of life we cherish. I urge you to reconsider moving forward with this ordinance. We deserve a thorough public discussion on these changes before they become irreversible. Please halt this process now and roll back this unnecessary ordinance.
Sincerely,
Lori Stephan
Homeowner, North of Montana
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1483 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 35 David Yakobson
From: Anne Saldo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) 1/13/26 - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
We are deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in our neighborhood.
Increased density does not equate to affordability.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions. Santa Monica does not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law.
We respectfully urge you to rescind this unnecessary ordinance. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Anne & Gerald Saldo
1004 Wilson Pl
SM CA 90405
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1484 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 36 David Yakobson
From: Jessica Jarvis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:02 PM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v.
City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich 2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused 3.
Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments 4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds
This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1485 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 37 David Yakobson
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I’ve called Sunset Park my home for 25 years, drawn to the sense of community, the diversity, and the blue skies, low rise neighborhood we cherish. It’s a place where families thrive and children attend local schools, and it’s truly disheartening to witness the proposed zoning ordinance that threatens to drastically alter so much that we love about our neighborhood, to decimate the nature, to block the sun, to take away play areas for children? And for what? The only people who want to go beyond state requirements of SB1123 are developers and several members of SM City Council. No other city in California has asked for these egregious expansions!!! You have gone too far this time. Enough is enough. You should read the ARB requirements again, it says SM is a place of spaciousness and beauty. Your additions to SB1123 are the opposite. You rushed this change in a false emergency and that is disrespecting the residents you work for. We are not stupid. We are watching carefully.
Increasing the height of new housing projects to three stories and allowing for 50% more floor area is unnecessary and goes beyond what state law permits. This isn’t just about adding density; it’s about preserving the last coiple of low rise Santa Monica neighborhoods. We can’t rush this process without considering the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands. The current approach feels hasty, sidelining meaningful citizen input and ignoring the vision we have for our city. Many of you on council are new to Santa Monica or don’t plan to put roots down here - but you work for residents who have put down roots. So have some respect for us. We demand it. It is time for you to listen. Especially as 1123 is connected to the Zwick etc. Conflict of Interest issues.
Our city is 80 percent multi family already! We only have 20 percent single family neighborhoods. We are already dense. Again this only helps developers and those in business with those developers, and those who may have conflicts of interest. For instance, why was the Ashland project demolished with NO warning signs, endangering all the neighbors? What city council member approved that, told the developer it would be OK to go ahead…Why was it rushed so quickly neighbors had to dig out alarm systems ringing all night that hadn’t been removed? Further, choosing to overdensify without FIRST doing a safety study and evacuation plan is truly dangerous and I am terrified my neighbors and I will be stuck in their/our cars unable to flee when the next fire comes, which it will.
Figure out how we’re going to get out first. Shouldn’t that be your priority? Don’t you care about that? I applaud the Planning Commission for actually asking for resident input. Welcoming it. City Council could learn a lot from this action on the PC’s part. PC, thank you for your grace here.
Finally, this isn’t what we voted for. And only a small percentage of residents elected the housing slate. You have no mandate. We need you to roll back this unrequired ordinance. Let’s protect our neighborhoods, our families, and our community from irreversible changes. Please listen to the residents. Please stop this proposal before it reaches the Planning Commission. Our voices matter, and we must be heard now. Do the right thing.
Sincerely, Karen Croner
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1486 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 38 Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1487 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 39 David Yakobson
From: Annie Lohr <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:11 PM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v.
City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich 2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused 3.
Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments 4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds
This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Annie Lohr
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1488 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 40 David Yakobson
From: Anne Saldo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:13 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
We urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest. According to Petrovich v. City of Sacramento, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision.
Given that this invalid rezoning violates the City's General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and currently faces multiple lawsuits, we respectfully request that you rescind it.
Thank you.
Anne & Gerald Saldo
1004 Wilson Pl
SM CA 90405
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1489 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 41 David Yakobson
From: laura houston <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:13 PM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; [email protected]; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11-C
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I’ve lived in Sunset Park for 23 years, drawn to the charm of single-family homes and the tranquility of our neighborhood. It’s a place where families thrive, children grow up, and neighbors stay for years.
However, I am deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that could drastically change the nature of our beloved community.
This ordinance, allowing three-story developments and increased density, goes far beyond what is necessary and does not align with what Santa Monicans voted for when they elected you. The process has felt rushed and doesn’t reflect the careful consideration such a significant change demands. We should not be going beyond state law, especially without a thorough understanding of the impacts on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure.
Sunset Park is mainly single-family homes, and the apartments in the area are no more than three stories with less than 20 units. The city council needs to stop allowing builders to construct giant buildings. Density does not equate to affordability, and we must prioritize the quality of life in our neighborhoods.
I urge you to reconsider this ordinance and not send it to the Planning Commission. We cannot afford to make changes that could irreversibly alter the character of our community.
Please listen to residents like me and halt this process now.
Sincerely,
Laura Houston
33rd Street Santa Monica
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1490 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 42 David Yakobson
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:18 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
He was wrong about tearing down Fairview, as he admitted, and he is wrong here again. Now we understand why.
Since Zwick is financially rewarded for developing relationships with developers who will build in Santa Monica, he cannot enter into any discussions regarding housing, or related matters.
It is time to listen to residents who will not tolerate any conflicts of interest. The housing slate was elected by a tiny percentage of residents. That slate has no mandate. I am certain all possible conflicts of interest will now be investigated carefully. It is time for you all to tread very carefully. Whatever happens now will after your future career, or potentially end it. Do the right thing.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasijudicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Karen Croner
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1491 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 43 David Yakobson
From: Kachru, Rita <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:19 PM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v.
City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich 2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused 3.
Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments 4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds
This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Rita Kachru, MD
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1492 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 44 David Yakobson
From: Tracy Lewis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:26 PM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v.
City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich 2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused 3.
Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments 4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds
This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Tracy Lewis
Santa Monica Resident
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1493 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 45 David Yakobson
From: Rachel nava <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:26 PM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v.
City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich 2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused 3.
Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments 4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds
This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Rachel Martella Nava
310-463-2226
[email protected]
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1494 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 46 David Yakobson
From: Rachel nava <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:27 PM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v.
City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich 2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused 3.
Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments 4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds
This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Armando Nava
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1495 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 47 David Yakobson
From: Rose Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:28 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance— SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Rose Nelson
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1496 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 48 David Yakobson
From: Rose Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:29 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rose Nelson
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1497 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 49 David Yakobson
From: Rose Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:30 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Rose Nelson
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1498 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 50 David Yakobson
From: Holly Silvers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I’ve lived in Sunset Park for 26 years, and I adore this community. I have raised my family here. Please do not irreparably harm the community. We love the current density, and the traffic is already insufferable on 23rd & Ocean Park. I moved here to escape the verticality and overwhelming density of New York City, and the charm of Santa Monica is in its walkable neighborhoods, the ocean breezes, and the integrity of our local shops and parks.
The proposed zoning ordinance you are considering is not only unnecessary but also goes far beyond what the state law, SB1123, requires. Allowing three-story buildings and increasing floor area limits by 50% will fundamentally change the essence of our neighborhoods and create an unsustainable density that doesn’t equate to affordability. This isn’t what we voted for when we elected you; we expected thoughtful planning that respects our community.
This rushed process has denied us the opportunity for meaningful input, and that's unacceptable. Before you take this irreversible step, I urge you to reconsider. Don’t move forward with this ordinance. Instead, prioritize the safety, infrastructure, and well-being of our residents.
Please roll back this proposal before it’s too late.
The Granelli Family
Dennis, Holly, Luke and Grace
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1499 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 51 David Yakobson
From: Raquel Vallejo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:35 PM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v.
City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich 2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused 3.
Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments 4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds
This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Raquel Vallejo
1010 Wilson Place
Santa Monica, CA
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1500 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 52 David Yakobson
From: John Zemke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:35 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Zemke
3030 Paula Dr, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1501 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 53 David Yakobson
From: John Zemke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:35 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance— SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
John Zemke
3030 Paula Dr, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1502 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 54 David Yakobson
From: John Zemke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:36 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
John Zemke
3030 Paula Dr, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1503 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 55 David Yakobson
From: Jessica Jarvis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:37 PM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision.
Petrovich v. City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich
2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused
3. Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments
4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Jessica Jarvis 1315 Sunset Avenue
Jessica Jarvis
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1504 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 56 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Theile <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I’ve lived in Sunset Park for 45 years, drawn here by the strong sense of community and the ability to walk to everything I need. That sense of connection is at risk now, as I see the proposed zoning ordinance that could change our beloved neighborhoods forever. Allowing new housing projects to be three stories tall and exceeding current floor area limits by 50% isn’t necessary. This isn’t about creating more homes; it’s about destroying the fabric of our community.
Density does not equal affordability, and pushing for such drastic changes without adequate consideration of safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands is reckless. This isn’t what Santa Monicans supported when we elected this council. We want thoughtful growth that respects our neighborhoods, not a rushed process that limits our voices.
Please reconsider this unrequired ordinance before it’s too late. The decision to approve it on Tuesday could lead to irreversible consequences. I urge you to roll it back and prioritize the input of residents who care about the future of Santa Monica. Let’s ensure our city reflects the community values we cherish instead of succumbing to hasty changes that benefit neither residents nor our neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Cathy Theile
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1505 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 57 David Yakobson
From: Carly Knauf <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:46 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carly Knauf
2611 30th St.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1506 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 58 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Rowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:53 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; [email protected]; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
As fairly new residents we are shocked that you are allowing the new commercial jet service at the airport! It is bad enough already, but the huge increase in noise, traffic congestion, and reduced safety is a shocking thing for this wonderful community. And when we first heard about it, it was supposed to be 5 flights a day, now it appears that it will be ridiculous during the various events like the World Cup. The Council does not seem to be interested in the wellbeing of the community. This is before I found out about the possibility of new 3 story houses. We are already being squeezed by giant two story houses coming in amongst our charming mid century neighborhood! Please do NOT approve 3 stories!! I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance— SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Betsy Rowe
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1507 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 59 David Yakobson
From: Betsy Baker Newell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Re: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Santa Monica CIty Counci
EXTERNAL
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Opposed - Pull Back on this Initiative, it is not a good one.
Santa Monica Council Members,
We are very unhappy with the proposed alterations to SB1123, and the emergency ordinance, which threaten to unnecessarily change Santa Monica for the worse. These actions/modifications will harm our community, not improve it. And we feel that the process to date has lacked the transparency and community input we should be able to expect.
The decision to allow three-story buildings in our residential neighborhoods feels hasty. The implications for safety, evacuation capacity, and adequate infrastructure need to be considered more carefully. We urge you to prevent the alterations to SB1123 from moving forward. Please listen to the community and prioritize our safety and well-being over haste and outside interests.
Let's ensure that we preserve the Santa Monica we love.
Robert & Elizabeth Newell
818 25th St.
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1508 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 60 David Yakobson
From: Joshua Abarbanel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:01 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance— SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Joshua Abarbanel
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1509 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 1 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 8:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: For city council
Attachments: 2026-01-12 20-10.pdf
From: Mary Beth Woods <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 8:12 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: For city council
EXTERNAL
--
Sent with Genius Scan for iOS.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tglapp.com/e/scan__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!uzYRvTFJLF2efPGZ13J5XGB0gif9 Osw0E_9bX5QcWBx10hrUZbPizOHazdtfuIfb5SlEZ7uO2cCFcMFAfzXdx8KRQjZ89cYL$ Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1510 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1511 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1512 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 61 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; Dan Kolhoff; Leanna Einbinder; Chris Knauf; Mindi Shank; Jonathan Shank
Subject: 1-13-25 City Council Item 11C: OPPOSE - Missing Rescission of Rezoning 2644 30th Street Moved By Zwick
Attachments: 2026-01-09 Jesse Zwick Conflict Rescind Invalid 2644 30th St Upzoning.pdf
EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and City Council -
Below is the request we sent to the City Attorney to include the upzoning of 2644 30th Street on the Agenda, either as part of Item 11C or as a separate item. Since it was not included, despite being a housing production motion made by Jesse Zwick after commencing employment with HAC, please include it as a comment to Item 11C.
Respectfully,
Leanna Einbinder and Chris Knauf
Nikki and Dan Kolhoff
Mindi and Jonathan Shank
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
To: Heidi Von Tongeln <[email protected]> Cc: Oliver Chi <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Nicole Kolhoff <[email protected]>; Dan Kolhoff <[email protected]>; Leanna Einbinder <[email protected]>; Chris Knauf <[email protected]>; Mindi Shank <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 9, 2026 at 10:15:24 AM PST
Subject: URGENT: Request re Rescission of Rezoning 2644 30th St Resulting from Zwick’s Conflict of Interest, and Inclusion on January 13, 2025 City Council Agenda
City Attorney von Tongeln -
Please see our attached request that you declare the Santa Monica City Council’s votes on September 30, 2025 and October 14, 2025 – upzoning the office building at 2644 30th Street to Neighborhood Commercial – invalid and void as a result of Councilmember Jesse Zwick’s conflict of interest, and consequently require the City to rescind the decision upzoning the property. We request that this item be added as an additional component to Item 11C on the January 13, 2026 City Council Agenda or added as a separate Staff Item on the same agenda.
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1513 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 62 Respectfully,
Leanna Einbinder and Chris Knauf
Nikki and Dan Kolhoff
Mindi and Jonathan Shank
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1514 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning
VIA EMAIL
January 9, 2026
Heidi von Tongeln
Interim City Attorney
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: URGENT: Request for Acknowledgment of Invalidity and Rescission of Change in LUCE Designation and Zoning of 2644 30th Street Resulting from Jesse Zwick’s Conflict of Interest, and Inclusion on January 13, 2025 City Council Agenda
Dear Ms. von Tongeln:
We respectfully request that the City Attorney’s Office declare the Santa Monica City Council’s votes on September 30, 2025 and October 14, 2025 – upzoning the office building at 2644 30th Street to Neighborhood Commercial – invalid and void as a result of Councilmember Jesse Zwick’s conflict of interest, and consequently require the City to rescind the decision upzoning the property. We request that this item be added as an additional component to Item 11C on the January 13, 2026 City Council Agenda or added as a separate Staff Item on the same agenda.
BACKGROUND
On September 30, 2025, City Council approved a resolution that amends the General Plan land use designation for the office building at 2644 30th Street in Santa Monica from Single Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial, and an ordinance that amends the Zoning District boundaries for Neighborhood Commercial to include the office building, which effectively rezones it from R1 (non-conforming use) to Neighborhood Commercial (collectively, the “Rezoning”).
Neighborhood Commercial allows large mixed-use housing projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. A covenant was entered into by the City in connection with the Rezoning; however, such covenant is limited in time and uses, consequently allowing certain redevelopment to commence immediately and any redevelopment to commence at a certain point in time. In addition, the upzoning of the office building to Neighborhood Commercial makes the residentially-zoned parking lot eligible for upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial as well because it is now adjacent to a commercial parcel.
Two lawsuits have been filed against the City relating to the Rezoning, alleging failure to comply with CEQA, violation of the City’s general plan, and failure to follow the City’s process for a zoning change.
1 Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1515 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning JESSE ZWICK’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) determined, per FPPC Advice Letter No.
A-25-153 issued on December 8, 2025, that Councilmember Zwick’s employment with the Housing Action Coalition (HAC) created a "nexus" conflict, stating, “Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying interest and may not take part in these [housing production] decisions.” While FPPC regulations do not permit FPPC to provide advice on conduct that has already occurred, as a result of the FPPC Advice Letter, the City elected to reconsider certain recent housing production decisions that were made by the City Council after August 12, 2025 with Councilmember Zwick’s participation.
INVALIDITY OF VOTES - APPROVAL IS VOID
It is our understanding that, based on the Santa Monica City Council Rules of Order and the California Political Reform Act, if a councilmember who originally made a motion is later determined to have been ineligible due to a conflict of interest, the council cannot simply "revote" on that same motion because that motion and vote is void. Instead, a new hearing with proper notice must be held, and a new motion must be made and seconded by councilmembers who do not have a conflict of interest, and the conflicted member must recuse.
In Petrovich Development Co., LLC v. City of Sacramento (2020), aCalifornia appellate court ruling established that a single biased or conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial hearing is sufficient to invalidate the entire decision, requiring the city to hold a new hearing without the tainted member. This means that if the motion-maker had a disqualifying conflict at the time, their participation was prohibited. This renders the original motion legally defective or void.
APPLICABILITY TO 2644 30TH STREET
Housing Production Items Invalid
The FPPC determined that Councilmember Zwick may not take part in housing production decisions because of his disqualifying interest. The City Attorney placed Item 11C on the agenda (Consideration of Certain Prior Housing-Production Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning Regulations Related to Projects Utilizing State Law for Small Lot Subdivisions and Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential) for Council to reapprove or ratify certain items that Councilmember Zwick participated in since July 2025 relating to housing production. The Rezoning is not included in the agenda.
The City Council’s decision regarding 2644 30th Street relates to housing production and was in fact originally brought forward in a package of zoning changes intended to increase housing production. The Rezoning not only changes the land use designation and zoning to Neighborhood Commercial, it expands the boundary of the Neighborhood Commercial Zone, which enables large mixed-use housing projects, up to 85’ with state bonuses. 2 Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1516 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning Councilmember Zwick made the motion to approve the Rezoning on September 30, 2025. On October 14, 2025 City staff introduced a covenant to limit development of the property for a limited time, but which would ultimately allow significantly increased housing production, and Councilmember Zwick made the motion to accept the covenant.
Quasi-Judicial Decision is Void
Because a zoning change is a quasi-judicial decision, the original motion by Councilmember Zwick to approve the Rezoning on September 30, 2025 is invalid. Consequently, the Rezoning is invalid and should be voided. The motion to approve the covenant on October 14, 2025 was also made by Councilmember Zwick and is invalid and should be voided. Furthermore, the covenant flows from an upzoning that is invalid, and therefore it is moot.
If the City Council wants to redo the Rezoning, they would need to start the process from the beginning (including a public hearing with notice, a new motion, and new vote), rather than simply “ratify” or “reapprove” an invalid motion. However, given that the Rezoning violates the City’s land use General Plan, ignored environmental implications, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and is the subject of multiple lawsuits against the City, we believe the prudent action is to formally declare the Rezoning invalid and voided and require the City to rescind the decision Rezoning the property, and this should be done at the January 13, 2026 City Council Meeting as an additional component to Item 11C or added as a separate Staff Item on the same agenda.
Respectfully,
Leanna Einbinder and Chris Knauf
Nikki and Dan Kolhoff
Mindi and Jonathan Shank
cc: Santa Monica City Councilmembers (Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, Lana Negrete, Ellis Raskin, Barry Snell, Natalya Zernitskaya, and Dan Hall) City Manager Oliver Chi
3 Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1517 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 63 David Yakobson
From: Jessica Pirrone <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:11 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jessica Pirrone
612 17th Street
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1518 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 64 David Yakobson
From: Jessica Pirrone <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:12 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Jessica Pirrone
612 17th street
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1519 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 65 David Yakobson
From: Jessica Pirrone <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:13 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasijudicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Jessica Pirrone
612 17th street
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1520 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 66 David Yakobson
From: Elisabeth Perez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:17 PM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v.
City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich 2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused 3.
Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments 4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds
This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Elisabeth Perez
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1521 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 67 David Yakobson
From: Britt Johansson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I have lived in Sunset Park for 15 years, drawn to its charm, walkability, and the sense of community it offers. I appreciate that my neighborhood has allowed mom-and-pop shops to thrive and provided easy access to parks and libraries. However, I am deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that could transform our beloved Santa Monica into something unrecognizable.
We shouldn’t be going beyond what state law allows, especially when the proposed three-story buildings are not necessary. This isn’t just about density; it’s about maintaining the quality of life we value. Adding more density does not equate to affordability, and it ignores the critical implications on safety and infrastructure. How can we effectively manage evacuation capacity and ensure safety with such rapid changes? This process feels rushed and lacks the public input that every significant change deserves. It is essential for the Council to recognize that this isn’t what the community voted for when electing you. I urge you to roll back this unnecessary ordinance and reconsider the impact it will have on our neighborhoods. Let's prioritize thoughtful planning that respects our values and community needs.
Please stop this proposal before it’s too late.
Regards,
Britt Johansson
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1522 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 68 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Pearl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:19 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nancy Pearl
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1523 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 69 David Yakobson
From: Elisabeth Perez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:19 PM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Request to Void and Restart Hollywood Community Housing DDA - Item 11.A / Pause 11.C Due to Conflict of Interest
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, City Attorney, and Members of the City Council:
We are a coalition of Santa Monica residents and business owners writing to request that the Council void the December 17, 2025 DDAs with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and restart the process in compliance with California law.
On December 17, 2025, Item 11.A was approved via motion by Councilmember Zwick. On January 9, 2026 an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press outlined conflicts of interest and ethics violations with council members who voted for Hollywood Community Housing Corporation DDA.
On December 8, 2025, the FPPC ruled that Councilmember Zwick has a disqualifying conflict of interest on housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition.
Under FPPC Regulation 18704, making a motion constitutes participation in a governmental decision. Petrovich v.
City of Sacramento (2001) confirms that participation by a single conflicted decision-maker invalidates the entire action. The proper remedy is not a revote, it is a restart from the point of violation.
I request that the Council:
1. Pause Item 11C pending a formal City Attorney opinion on whether revote cures a defect under FPPC Regulation 18704 and Petrovich 2. Void the December 17, 2025 DDA vote and restart with conflicted members recused 3.
Require binding Good Neighbor Agreements with enforceable security commitments 4. Ensure meaningful replacement parking before development proceeds
This is not about opposing affordable housing. This is about following the law and restoring public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric Perez
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1524 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 70 David Yakobson
From: Catherine Myman-Kaplan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members, I have called Santa Monica home for 16 years, drawn here by its strong community and exceptional schools. Over the years, I have cherished the stability and connection with my neighbors, which feels at risk with the proposed zoning ordinance. The idea of allowing three-story buildings and significantly increasing density without a thorough understanding of the implications is concerning. This rushed process is far from what we expect regarding such a significant change, and it doesn’t reflect what we voted for when we elected this Council. We should not go beyond the state law, SB1123, and adding density without addressing safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands is reckless. We need to pause and reconsider this ordinance. It is essential to include meaningful citizen input before moving forward. This change could redefine our neighborhoods in ways we might not be able to reverse. I strongly urge you to roll back this proposal and ensure that our voices are heard before any decisions are made. Let's protect the Santa Monica we love.
Thank you for listening,
Catherine Kaplan
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1525 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 71 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Pearl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:20 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance— SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Nancy Pearl
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1526 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 72 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Pearl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:21 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Nancy Pearl
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1527 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 73 David Yakobson
From: Darlene Vogel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:21 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Darlene Vogel
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1528 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 74 David Yakobson
From: Laura Park <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:23 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laura Park
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1529 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 75 David Yakobson
From: Laura Park <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:24 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Laura Park
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1530 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 76 David Yakobson
From: Laura Park <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:25 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasijudicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Laura Park
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1531 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 77 David Yakobson
From: Tina K <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda item # 11-C
EXTERNAL
Hello all,
I voted for many of you this past election and I am alarmed that you are voting for the allowances of 3-story complexes in Santa Monica.
I am a 20-year Santa Monica resident since college and do not want further sub division and densification in our neighborhoods. These buildings are an eyesore and not necessary and do not provide the promise of new rentals.
The promise of low cost housing rentals is a sham and fraud since those required 2 or 3 rentals in the busking have income requirements that are not practical and so they stay empty and the landlord just increases the rent on the other units, making it unaffordable but the very rich to live there.
I am opposed to this measure and hope you will vote no since it’s not a state law.
Thank you,
Tina Schreiber
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1532 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 78 David Yakobson
From: Taylor Ferguson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:30 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict - Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Taylor Ferguson
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1533 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 79 David Yakobson
From: Dan Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:31 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasi-judicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Dan Kolhoff
29th Street Resident
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1534 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 80 David Yakobson
From: Dan Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose- STOP EXCEEDING STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I’ve lived in Sunset Park for 18 years, drawn here by the affordability and the sense of community. I love my friendly neighbors, the parks that are walkable, and the convenience of shops and restaurants on Pico and Ocean Park. However, I am extremely concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that threatens to forever change our beloved neighborhood.
We shouldn't be going beyond state law, especially when it’s unnecessary to allow three-story buildings in areas like the residential streets of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood. The speed at which this ordinance is moving through this Council is alarming. Such significant change to our zoning laws deserve thorough consideration and community input from the citizens who live here—not a rushed process that feels more like an afterthought.
This isn’t what Santa Monicans voted for when we elected you. We need to be cautious about adding density without fully understanding the impacts on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands it will create. Density does not equate to affordability, and we risk losing the essence of our neighborhoods.
I urge you to roll back this ordinance and ensure it doesn’t move forward. Our community deserves better.
Please, take a stand for Sunset Park and our shared future.
Dan Kolhoff
29th Street Resident
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1535 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 81 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:32 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance— SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions. We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Taylor Ferguson
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1536 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 82 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:33 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasijudicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Taylor Ferguson
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1537 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 83 David Yakobson
From: Robin OConnell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:34 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robin O’Connell
3044 Paula Drive
Santa Monica 90405
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1538 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 84 David Yakobson
From: Robin OConnell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:35 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Robin O’Connell
3044 Paula Drive
Santa Monica 90405
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1539 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 85 David Yakobson
From: Robin OConnell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:35 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasijudicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Sincerely,
Robin O’Connell
3044 Paula Drive
Santa Monica 90405
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1540 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 86 David Yakobson
From: Jennifer Shiri <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:41 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Shiri
858-922-5693
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1541 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 87 David Yakobson
From: Jennifer Shiri <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:42 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Shiri
858-922-5693
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1542 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 88 David Yakobson
From: Jennifer Shiri <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:43 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Rescind Upzoning at 2644 30th Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you to rescind the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, which was approved through votes made by Councilmember Zwick despite his disqualifying conflict of interest.
The rezoning from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial allows large projects, including housing developments up to 85’ tall with state bonuses. The FPPC has determined that Councilmember Zwick could not legally participate in housing production decisions due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition. Since he made the motions to approve both the rezoning on September 30, 2025 and the limited covenant on October 14, 2025, these votes are invalid under California law.
According to the Petrovich v. City of Sacramento ruling, a conflicted councilmember's participation in a quasijudicial decision invalidates the entire decision. The City cannot simply "re-vote"—the original approval is void. Given that this rezoning violates the City’s General Plan and environmental law, failed to follow the required procedure to change zoning, and already faces multiple lawsuits, I respectfully request that you rescind this invalid upzoning.
Regards,
Jennifer Shiri
858-922-5693
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1543 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 89 David Yakobson
From: Leanna Einbinder <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:43 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Vote NO on Agenda Item 11C
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void
Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Leanna Einbinder
Sunset Park resident
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1544 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 90 David Yakobson
From: Tracy Lewis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:44 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to Void Conflict-Tainted Votes and Require Clean Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11C and take similar action on all housing policy votes in which Councilmember Jesse Zwick participated.
The FPPC confirmed that Mr. Zwick held a disqualifying conflict of interest—his employment advocating for the exact policies he voted on. He proposed, motioned, and seconded these items while disqualified from participating.
Simply ratifying these compromised votes does not restore public trust.
I request that the City Council:
Declare these conflict-tainted votes null and void Allow items to return ONLY if a councilmember without conflicts chooses to motion for them Require new motions, seconds, and votes through a clean process Our community deserves decisions made with integrity, regardless of where we stand on the policies themselves.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tracy Lewis
Santa Monica Resident
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1545 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 91 David Yakobson
From: Jennifer Lynch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:44 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Council members,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in my neighborhood. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.
We don’t need to go to three stories.
We don’t need to increase FAR to 1.5.
We don’t need reduced setbacks.
We do not need to do anything more than the original SB1123 law. Please do not send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Please listen to the voices of Santa Monica Residents and rescind this unnecessary ordinance.
Thank you for considering the future of our beloved city.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Lynch
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
Item 11-C
January 13, 2026
11.C.b
Packet Pg. 1546 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7470 : Consideration of Certain Prior Housing Related Votes and Repeal of Interim Zoning 92 David Yakobson
From: Leanna Einbinder <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:45 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Agenda Item 11C(2) - Oppose - DON'T EXCEED STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I'm deeply concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance that would allow three-story buildings and increased density in Sunset Park and throughout Santa Monica. We shouldn’t be going beyond state law with this ordinance—SB1123 was already a significant shift.
The rapid push for this change feels rushed for such a substantial rezoning. Increased density does not equate to affordability. It’s critical that we consider the implications on safety, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure demands before making such irreversible decisions.