XSǧ
[IIOWHITIRHMRKSRMWWYIWXLEXQE]FIIRGSYRXIVIH[MXLHEXEJIIHWERH[LIXLIVSVRSXXLIVIMW ERI\MWXMRKQIWWEKIERHZSMGIRYQFIVSVMJERI[SRIQYWXFIGVIEXIH 'SQTPIXMRKXVERWJIVSJ
PIEWMRKERHGSRRIGXMZMX]JSVERI\MWXMRKRYQFIVQE]XEOIEHHMXMSREPXMQI ǧǧ
7XITǧ ;LSMW6IWTSRWMFPIǧ 8MQIPMRIǧ
7XIT3RI
6IZMI[+8*7ERH+47HEXE
7[MJXP]WXEJJVIZMI[WGYVVIRXHEXEERHǧ
RSXMƻIWEKIRG]MJGLERKIWEVIRIIHIHXSǧ
GVIEXIEVIEPXMQIJIIHǧ
7[MJXP]8IEQ[MPPVIZMI[+8*7ǧ
ERH+47HEXEǧǧ
7XEVXMRKJVSQSYV2SXMGIǧ
XS4VSGIIHXLMWTVSGIWWǧ
QE]XEOIYTXS
[IIOWǧ
XSJYPP]GSQTPIXIǧ
HITIRHMRKSRMWWYIWǧ
IRGSYRXIVIHMRXLIJIIHWǧ
7XIT 8[S
(EXE -RXIKVEXMSR
-RXIKVEXIW [MXL ]SYV I\MWXMRK %:0 ERH +8*7
MRJSVQEXMSR
7[MJXP] 8IEQ [MPP GSQTPIXI
HEXE MRXIKVEXMSRERH
ZEPMHEXMSR
[IIOW
7XIT8LVII
4IVJSVQ-RMXMEP8IWXMRKǧ
7[MJXP]EREP]^IWERHTVSZMHIWHSGYQIRXIHǧ
VIGSVHWSJ%:0VITSVXWVIEPXMQITVIHMGXMSRǧ
EGGYVEG]ERHW]WXIQSRXMQITIVJSVQERGIǧ
7[MJXP]ERHEKIRG]XIWXWGYWXSQIVǧ
MRXIVJEGIWǧ
7[MJXP]8IEQ&&&ǧ [IIOWǧ
7XIT*SYV
0EYRGL+8*7+8*7VX[IFERHǧ
QSFMPIETTWǧ
7[MJXP][SVOW[MXL&&&XSPEYRGLRI[ǧ
TEWWIRKIV[IFERHQSFMPIETTWERHǧ
MRXIKVEXMSRMRXSQIWWEKIERHZSMGIWIVZMGIWǧ
0EYRGLMRGPYHIWETVIWWVIPIEWIWSGMEPǧ
QIHMEEWWIXWZILMGPIERHFYWWXSTǧ
EHZIVXMWIQIRXWIXGǧ
7[MJXP]8IEQ&&&ǧ
[IIOWǧ
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCǧ 5VSTSWEPJSV7IEP8MQI&VVMZEP5VIHMGXMSR&PIVXMRKERH&REP]XMGW]WXIQcc
(MX]SJERXE2SRMGE'MK'PYI'YW '''5VSNIGX.)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 62420B8C-E7F5-4120-AAAB-B0569A11EB9B
4.C.c
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: 2020-05-18_Swiftly_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival
;.+81=.3(
.'.,7495
(SWX5VSTSWEPcc
8LIJSPPS[MRKXEFPIWWYQQEVM^ISYVXIEQWƅGSWXTVSTSWEPJSV% 7SPYXMSRJSVVIEPXMQIFYWEVVMZEP
TVIHMGXMSRWXSGYWXSQIVW &
3TXMSREPWSPYXMSRXSTYWLSYVWIVZMGIEPIVXWXSGYWXSQIVWZMEIQEMP XI\XWSGMEPQIHMEERHSXLIVGLERRIPW ERH'
7SPYXMSRJSVEREP]XMGWXSEWWMWXWXEJJMRMQTVSZMRKǧ WIVZMGIUYEPMX]ERHVIPMEFMPMX]ǧǧ
%7SPYXMSRJSV6IEP8MQI&YW%VVMZEP4VIHMGXMSRWXS'YWXSQIVW 7[MJXP]8VERWMXMQI
ǧ
0MRIǧ (IWGVMTXMSRǧ 9RMXǧ 5YERXMX]ǧ 9RMX4VMGIǧ )\XIRHIH4VMGIǧ 3RI8MQISV'ETMXEP'SWXWǧ
ǧ 4VSNIGXQEREKIQIRXWIVZMGIWǧ
-RGPYHIHMR0MRIǧ
ǧ ǧ
ǧ
7]WXIQWIXYTGSRƻKYVEXMSRERHǧ
HSGYQIRXEXMSRǧ ǧ ǧ
ǧ
'YWXSQIVERHSVEKIRG][IFWMXIWIXYTERHǧ
QEVOIXMRKWIVZMGIWǧ ǧ ǧ
ǧ 8VEMRMRK
WXEJJ
ǧ ǧ ǧ
ǧ %TTPMGEXMSRERHWSJX[EVIPMGIRWIWǧ ǧ ǧ
ǧ 8IWXMRKSJGYWXSQJIEXYVIWERHJYRGXMSRWǧ ǧ ǧ ǧ 7[MJXP]TPEXJSVQMRMXMEPWIXYTERHGSRƻKYVEXMSRǧ 6SYXIǧ ǧ ǧ ǧ 838%032)8-1)'3787ǧ ǧ
1SRXLP]7IVZMGI*IIWǧ
ǧ
7[MJXP]8VERWMXMQI6IEP8MQI4EWWIRKIVǧ
-RJSVQEXMSR :ILMGPIǧ
9TXSǧ
ǧ
ǧ
ZILMGPIǧ
QSRXLǧ
ǧ
QSRXLǧ
ǧ 7[MJXP]0MZI1ET1SHYPIǧ :ILMGPIǧ
9TXSǧ
ǧ 2%ǧ ǧ
ǧ ,SWXMRKGSQTYXIVERHRIX[SVOWIVZMGIWǧ -RGPYHIHMR0MRI ǧ ǧ ǧ
ǧ 717
-:67IVZMGIWǧ
ǧ
717ǧ
-:6ǧ
ǧ
ǧ
ǧ
QSRXLǧ
(-7'3928
(MWGSYRXSR7[MJXP]8VERWMXMQI[LIRTYVGLEWIH[MXL7[MJXP]-RWMKLXWǧ ǧ
QSRXLǧ
838%01328,0='378ǧ
ǧ
838%0%229%0'378ǧ ǧ
2SXIWJSV8EFPI%
ǧǧ
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCǧ 5VSTSWEPJSV7IEP8MQI&VVMZEP5VIHMGXMSR&PIVXMRKERH&REP]XMGW]WXIQ (MX]SJERXE2SRMGE'MK'PYI'YW
'''5VSNIGX.) c
DocuSign Envelope ID: 62420B8C-E7F5-4120-AAAB-B0569A11EB9B
4.C.c
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: 2020-05-18_Swiftly_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival
717
:SMGI0MQMXW
9TXSEGSQFMRIH717ERHZSMGIGEPPWEVIMRGPYHIHTIVQSRXLJSV97ǧ GYWXSQIVWSRP])EGLEHHMXMSREPGSQFMRIH717ERHZSMGIGEPPWTIVQSRXLGSWXWYTXSǧ (ITIRHMRKSRI\TIGXIHQIWWEKIZSPYQIWXLMWQSRXLP]GSWXQE]FIVIHYGIH8LIIWXMQEXIHGSWX SJTIVQSRXL[SYPHFIJSVYTXSEGSQFMRIH717ERHZSMGIGEPPWTIVQSRXL XLIǧ
ƻVWXEXRSEHHMXMSREPGSWXERHIEGLEHHMXMSREPEXEGSWXSJTIVQSRXL 8LMWGSWXǧ
[MPPZEV]HITIRHMRKSRXLIEGXYEPRYQFIVSJQIWWEKIWERHGEPPWǧǧ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCǧ 5VSTSWEPJSV7IEP8MQI&VVMZEP5VIHMGXMSR&PIVXMRKERH&REP]XMGW]WXIQcc
(MX]SJERXE2SRMGE'MK'PYI'YW '''5VSNIGX.)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 62420B8C-E7F5-4120-AAAB-B0569A11EB9B
4.C.c
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: 2020-05-18_Swiftly_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival
;.+81=.3(
.'.,7495
&3TXMSREP7SPYXMSRJSV'YWXSQIV-RJSVQEXMSR%PIVX7]WXIQ -&-+VSYT
ǧ
0MRIǧ (IWGVMTXMSRǧ 9RMXǧ 5YERXMX]ǧ 9RMX4VMGIǧ )\XIRHIH4VMGIǧ 3RI8MQISV'ETMXEP'SWXWǧ
ǧ 4VSNIGXQEREKIQIRXWIVZMGIWǧ 0YQT7YQǧ ǧ ǧ ǧ ǧ
7]WXIQWIXYTGSRƻKYVEXMSRERHǧ
HSGYQIRXEXMSRǧ 0YQT7YQǧ ǧ ǧ ǧ
ǧ
'YWXSQIVERHSVEKIRG][IFWMXIWIXYTERHǧ
QEVOIXMRKWIVZMGIWǧ 0YQT7YQǧ ǧ ǧ ǧ
ǧ 8VEMRMRK
WXEJJ
ǧ 0YQT7YQǧ ǧ ǧ ǧ
ǧ %TTPMGEXMSRERHWSJX[EVIPMGIRWIWǧ 0YQT7YQǧ ǧ ǧ ǧ 838%032)8-1)'3787 ǧ
1SRXLP]7IVZMGI*IIW
ǧ
7]WXIQSTIVEXMSREHQMRMWXVEXMSRERHǧ
VITSVXMRK
MRGPYHIWPMGIRWMRK
ǧ 1SRXLP]ǧ ǧ ǧ
ǧ
ǧ ,SWXMRKGSQTYXIVERHRIX[SVOWIVZMGIWǧ 1SRXLP]ǧ ǧ ǧ ǧ
ǧ 3XLIV
EXXEGLI\TPEREXMSR
ǧ 1SRXLP]ǧ ǧ ǧ ǧ
838%0%229%0'378 ǧ
2SXIWJSV8EFPI&
ǧ
3TXMSREP*YXYVI'YWXSQM^EXMSRWǧ
&&&QE]HIWMVIEHHMXMSREPJIEXYVIWXLEXEVIFI]SRHXLSWIPMWXIHMRXLI6*46IUYMVIQIRXWERHǧ GYVVIRXP]EVIRSXQIXF]I\MWXMRKW]WXIQJIEXYVIW-RWYGLGEWIW-&-+VSYT[MPP[SVO[MXL&&&XSǧ YRHIVWXERH&&&ƅWRIIHWXVERWPEXIXLIWIRIIHWMRXSW]WXIQVIUYMVIQIRXWERHIWXEFPMWLEWGSTIǧ FYHKIXERHWGLIHYPIJSVXLIMQTPIQIRXEXMSRSJXLIWIGYWXSQM^EXMSRW;MXLEREKVIIHWGSTIǧ FYHKIXERHWGLIHYPI-&-+VSYT[MPPMQTPIQIRXXLIGYWXSQM^EXMSRWXSXLIW]WXIQXSQIIX&&&ƅWǧ WTIGMƻIHVIUYMVIQIRXWǧ
8LIXSXEPTVMGIPMWXIHMR8EFPI&HSIWRSXMRGPYHIER]FYHKIXJSVEHHMXMSREPGYWXSQM^EXMSRW;I VIGSQQIRHMRGPYHMRKERERRYEPEQSYRXJSVSTXMSREPGYWXSQM^EXMSRW JSVI\EQTPI]IEV
ǧ
8LISTXMSREPGYWXSQM^EXMSRW[SYPHFIGSQQMWWMSRIHEXXLIHMWGVIXMSRSJ&&&ǧ -&-+VSYT[MPPVIXEMRGSQQIVGMEPHMWXVMFYXMSRVMKLXWJSVER]GYWXSQM^EXMSRWQEHI4IVXLI7EE7ǧ QSHIPEPPJYRGXMSREPMX]YTKVEHIWQEHIJSV&&&[MPPFIEZEMPEFPIXSSYVSXLIVGPMIRXW7MQMPEVP]&&&ǧ ERHMXWTEVXRIVEKIRGMIW[MPPFIRIƻXJVSQYTKVEHIWQEHIJSVERHJYRHIHF]SXLIVGPMIRXWǧǧ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCǧ 5VSTSWEPJSV7IEP8MQI&VVMZEP5VIHMGXMSR&PIVXMRKERH&REP]XMGW]WXIQ (MX]SJERXE2SRMGE'MK'PYI'YW
'''5VSNIGX.) c
DocuSign Envelope ID: 62420B8C-E7F5-4120-AAAB-B0569A11EB9B
4.C.c
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: 2020-05-18_Swiftly_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival
'8VERWMX%REP]XMGW(EWLFSEVH
7[MJXP]-RWMKLXW
ǧ
0MRIǧ (IWGVMTXMSRǧ 9RMXǧ 5YERXMX]ǧ 9RMX4VMGIǧ )\XIRHIH4VMGIǧ 3RI8MQISJ'ETMXEP'SWXWǧ
4VSNIGX QEREKIQIRX WIVZMGIW
-RGPYHIH MR 8EFPI %
0MRIǧ
ǧ
7]WXIQWIXYTGSRƻKYVEXMSRERHǧ
HSGYQIRXEXMSRǧ ǧ ǧ
ǧ
'YWXSQIV ERHSV EKIRG] [IFWMXI WIXYT ERH
QEVOIXMRKWIVZMGIWǧ ǧ ǧ
ǧ 8VEMRMRK
WXEJJ
ǧ ǧ ǧ
%TTPMGEXMSR ERH WSJX[EVI PMGIRWIW
ǧ 8IWXMRKSJGYWXSQJIEXYVIWERHJYRGXMSRWǧ ǧ ǧ ǧ 7[MJXP]TPEXJSVQMRMXMEPWIXYTERHGSRƻKYVEXMSRǧ ǧ ǧ 838%032)8-1)'3787 ǧ
1SRXLP] 7IVZMGI *IIW
ǧ 7[MJXP]+474PE]FEGO1SHYPIǧ :ILMGPIǧ
9TXSǧ
ǧ
ǧ
ZILMGPIǧ
QSRXLǧ
ǧ
QSRXLǧ
ǧ 7[MJXP]3R8MQI4IVJSVQERGI1SHYPIǧ :ILMGPIǧ
9T XS
ǧ
ǧ
ZILMGPI
QSRXLǧ
QSRXLǧ
ǧ 7[MJXP],IEH[E]W1SHYPIǧ :ILMGPIǧ
9TXSǧ
ǧ
ǧ
ZILMGPIǧ
QSRXLǧ
ǧ
QSRXLǧ
7[MJXP] :ILMGPI 7TIIH 1SHYPI :ILMGPI
9TXSǧ
ZILMGPIǧ
QSRXL
ǧ
QSRXL
ǧ 7[MJXP]6YR8MQIW1SHYPIǧ :ILMGPIǧ
9TXSǧ
ǧ
ǧ
ZILMGPIǧ
QSRXLǧ
ǧ
QSRXLǧ
,SWXMRK GSQTYXIV ERH RIX[SVO WIVZMGIW
-RGPYHIHMR0MRIWǧ
(-7'3928
&YPOTVMGMRKHMWGSYRXIUYMZEPIRXXSX[SQSHYPIW QSRXLP]GSWX
ǧ
ǧ
QSRXLǧ
838%0 1328,0= '378
838%0%229%0'378ǧ ǧ
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCǧ 5VSTSWEPJSV7IEP8MQI&VVMZEP5VIHMGXMSR&PIVXMRKERH&REP]XMGW]WXIQcc (MX]SJERXE2SRMGE'MK'PYI'YW '''5VSNIGX.)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 62420B8C-E7F5-4120-AAAB-B0569A11EB9B
4.C.c
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: 2020-05-18_Swiftly_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival
uõùŐşşķêÅşşùĔšÅĔšùğĔĈĈƍşşĈÅÛšşş¨ĈĔąļşŶ
cc
DocuSign Envelope ID: 62420B8C-E7F5-4120-AAAB-B0569A11EB9B
4.C.c
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: 2020-05-18_Swiftly_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival June 2019
Exhibit C
Project Schedule
DocuSign Envelope ID: 62420B8C-E7F5-4120-AAAB-B0569A11EB9B
4.C.c
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: 2020-05-18_Swiftly_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival June 2019
Implementation Plan for Real-Time Bus Arrival Predictions and Analytics to Improve Service Quality and Reliability
The following table provides an overview of the process and timeline for set-up and configuration. From start to finish, the entire set-up and configuration process can take between eight (8) to 12 weeks depending on issues that may be encountered with data feeds and whether or not there is an existing message and voice number or if a new one must be created. (Completing transfer of leasing and connectivity for an existing number may take additional time.)
Step Who is Responsible Timeline
Step One: Review GTFS and GPS
data
Swiftly staff reviews current data and
notifies agency if changes are needed
to create a real-time feed.
Swiftly Team will review
GTFS and GPS data.
Starting from our
Notice to Proceed,
this process may take
up to 8 weeks to fully
complete, depending
on issues
encountered in the
feeds
Step Two: Data Integration
Integrates with your existing AVL and
GTFS information.
Swiftly Team will
complete data integration
and validation
2 weeks
Step Three: Perform Initial Testing
Swiftly analyzes and provides
documented records of AVL reports,
real-time prediction accuracy, and
system on-time performance. Swiftly
and agency tests customer interfaces.
Swiftly Team + BBB 4-6 weeks
Step Four: Launch GTFS, GTFS-rt,
web and mobile apps
Swiftly works with BBB to launch new
passenger web and mobile apps and
integration into message and voice
services. Launch includes a press
release, social
media assets, vehicle and bus stop
advertisements, etc..
Swiftly Team + BBB 8-12 weeks
DocuSign Envelope ID: 62420B8C-E7F5-4120-AAAB-B0569A11EB9B
4.C.c
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: 2020-05-18_Swiftly_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival June 2019
Exhibit D
Fee, Budget, and Compensation Schedule
DocuSign Envelope ID: 62420B8C-E7F5-4120-AAAB-B0569A11EB9B
4.C.c
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: 2020-05-18_Swiftly_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival June 2019
Fee Schedules
Solution for Real-Time Bus Arrival Predictions to Customers (Swiftly Transitime) Line Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Extended Price One-Time or Capital Costs
1 Project management services
Included in Line 7.
$0 $0
2 System set-up, configuration, and documentation $0 $0 3 Customer and/or agency website set-up and
marketing services $0 $0
4 Training (staff) $0 $0
5 Application and software licenses $0 $0
6 Testing of custom features and functions $0 $0
7 Swiftly platform initial setup and configuration Route 20 $500.00 $10,000.00 TOTAL ONE-TIME COSTS $10,000
Monthly Service Fees
8 Swiftly Transitime Real-Time Passenger
Information Vehicle Up to 199
$33.50 /
vehicle / month
$6,666.67 /
month
9 Swiftly Live Map Module Vehicle Up to 199 N/A $0
10 Hosting, computer and network services Included in Line 8 $0 $0 11 SMS & IVR Services1
5,000
SMS / IVR 5 $125 $625.00 / month
DISCOUNT: 20% Discount on Swiftly Transitime when purchased with Swiftly Insights -$1,333.33 /
month
TOTAL MONTHLY COST $6,083.33
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $71,500
Notes for Table A:
1 SMS & Voice Limits: Up to a combined 5,000 SMS and voice calls are included per month for US customers only. Each additional 5,000 combined SMS and voice calls per month costs up to $125. Depending on expected message volumes, this monthly cost may be reduced. The estimated cost of $625.00 per month would be for up to a combined 30,000 SMS and voice calls per month (the first 5,000 at no additional cost and each additional 5,000 at a cost of $125 per month). This cost will vary depending on the actual number of messages and calls.
2 SMS and Voice Charges contingency: $1,500 is added to the annual budget as a contingency to cover an estimated 5,000 SMS or IVR calls per month should they exceed 30,000 calls/texts, making the annual total cost per year not to exceed $73,000 estimated.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 62420B8C-E7F5-4120-AAAB-B0569A11EB9B
4.C.c
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: 2020-05-18_Swiftly_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival June 2019
Milestone Payment Schedule – Onetime Costs for Real-Time Customer Predictions (Swiftly Transitime)
Milestone Description Payment
1. Lines 1-3 x System set-up, configuration, and documentation completed x Customer and/or agency website set-up and marketing services $5,000
2. Lines 4-7 x Training, licensing, and testing of custom features and functions x Swiftly platform initial set-up and configuration for 20 routes completed x 30-day test period completed
x Acceptance of system by BBB
$5,000
Transit Analytics Dashboard (Swiftly Insights)
Line Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Extended Price One-Time of Capital Costs
1 Project management services
Included in Table A,
Line 7.
$0 $0
2 System set-up, configuration, and documentation $0 $0 3 Customer and/or agency website set-up and
marketing services $0 $0
4 Training (staff) $0 $0
5 Application and software licenses $0 $0
6 Testing of custom features and functions $0 $0
7 Swiftly platform initial setup and configuration $0 $0 TOTAL ONE-TIME COSTS $0
Monthly Service Fees
8 Swiftly GPS Playback Module Vehicle Up to 199
$20.10 /
vehicle / month
$4,000.00 /
month
9 Swiftly On-Time Performance Module Vehicle Up to 199
$20.10 /
vehicle / month
$4,000.00 /
month
10 Swiftly Headways Module Vehicle Up to 199
$20.10 /
vehicle / month
$4,000.00 /
month
11 Swiftly Vehicle Speed Module Vehicle Up to 199
$20.10 /
vehicle / month
$4,000.00 /
month
12 Swiftly Run-Times Module Vehicle Up to 199
$20.10 /
vehicle / month
$4,000.00 /
month
13 Hosting, computer and network services Included in Lines 8-12 $0 $0 DISCOUNT: Bulk pricing discount equivalent to two modules (monthly cost) -$8,000.00 /
month
TOTAL MONTHLY COST $12,000.00
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $144,000.00
DocuSign Envelope ID: 62420B8C-E7F5-4120-AAAB-B0569A11EB9B
4.C.c
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: 2020-05-18_Swiftly_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival June 2019
The total amount paid by the City under this Agreement during the Term and Option Term shall not exceed $878,000.
Compensation to City if Uptime Minimum Requirements are Not Met Swiftly, Inc. commits to a minimum uptime percentage of 99.9%, calculated monthly.
The following service credits to the City apply should the monthly uptime percentage drop below 99.5% for any month of service.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 62420B8C-E7F5-4120-AAAB-B0569A11EB9B
4.C.c
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: 2020-05-18_Swiftly_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival June 2019
Exhibit E
Insurance Requirements
DocuSign Envelope ID: 62420B8C-E7F5-4120-AAAB-B0569A11EB9B
4.C.c
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: 2020-05-18_Swiftly_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival June 2019
Exhibit E
Insurance Requirements
Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal and advertising injury, with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (Insurance Services Office Form CG 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form CA 00 01 covering Code 1 (any auto), or if Consultant has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and Code 9 (non-owned), with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation: Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits and Employers’ Liability Insurance with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease (see footnote #1).
4. Technology Professional Errors and Omissions/Cyber Liability: Insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim/$2,000,000 in the annual aggregate. Coverage shall be sufficiently broad to respond to the duties and obligations undertaken by Consultant in this Agreement and shall include, but not be limited to, claims involving infringement of intellectual property, including but not limited to infringement of copyright, trademark, invasion of privacy violations, information theft, release of private information, alteration of electronic information, extortion, and network security. The policy shall also provide coverage for breach response costs, regulatory fines and penalties, and credit monitoring expenses with limits sufficient to respond to these obligations. Further, the policy shall include, or be endorsed to include property damage liability coverage for damage to, alteration of, loss of, or destruction of electronic data or information “property” of the City of Santa Monica in the care, custody, and control of the Consultant.
If the Consultant maintains broader coverage or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City of Santa Monica requires and shall be entitled to any broader coverage and DocuSign Envelope ID: 62420B8C-E7F5-4120-AAAB-B0569A11EB9B
4.C.c
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: 2020-05-18_Swiftly_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival June 2019
higher limits maintained by the Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City of Santa Monica.
Other Insurance Provisions
1. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
a. Additional Insured Status: The City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of Consultant including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. CGL coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance (at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form CG 20 10 11 85, or if not available, through the addition of a combination of (1) CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38 and (2) CG 20 37).
b. Primary Coverage: For any claims related to this Agreement, the Consultant’s insurance shall be primary coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Offices Form CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be in excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. c. Notice of Cancellation: Each insurance policy required herein shall state that coverage shall not be cancelled except after notice has been given to the City of Santa Monica.
d. Waiver of Subrogation: Consultant hereby grants to the City of Santa Monica a waiver of any right of subrogation which any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the City of Santa Monica by virtue of payment of any loss. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City of Santa Monica has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
Self-Insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City of Santa Monica. The City of Santa Monica may require the Consultant to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide satisfactory proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City of Santa Monica.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 62420B8C-E7F5-4120-AAAB-B0569A11EB9B
4.C.c
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: 2020-05-18_Swiftly_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival June 2019
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in California with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City of Santa Monica.
Claims Made Policies
1. If the Professional Liability policy provides “claims made” coverage:
a. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of this Agreement or the start of work.
b. The insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least 5 years after completion of work.
c. If the policy is cancelled or not renewed, and not replaced with another “claims made” policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the effective Agreement date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of 5 years after completion of work.
Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the City of Santa Monica with original certificates and amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage provided by this clause). All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City of Santa Monica before work commences. However, failure to obtain required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them.
The City of Santa Monica reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including the endorsements required herein, at any time.
Failure to Maintain Insurance Coverage
If Consultant, for any reason, fails to maintain insurance coverage which is required pursuant to this Agreement, the same shall be deemed a material breach of contract. The City of Santa Monica, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from the Consultant resulting from said breach. Alternatively, the City of Santa Monica may purchase such coverage (but has no special obligation to do so), and without further notice to the Consultant, the City may deduct from sums due to the Consultant any premium costs advanced by the City for such insurance.
Subcontractors
DocuSign Envelope ID: 62420B8C-E7F5-4120-AAAB-B0569A11EB9B
4.C.c
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: 2020-05-18_Swiftly_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival June 2019
Consultant shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein. All exceptions must be approved in writing by the Risk Manager.
Footnotes
# 1: Workers’ Compensation insurance coverage is not required if the Consultant does not have employees. The Consultant must, however, execute the City’s Workers’ Compensation Coverage Exemption Declaration Form.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 62420B8C-E7F5-4120-AAAB-B0569A11EB9B
4.C.c
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: 2020-05-18_Swiftly_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival 1 FIRST MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT NO. 11000 (CCS)
This First Modification of Agreement Number 11000 (CCS) (“First Modification”), entered into as of _________________ (“Execution Date”), by and between the City of Santa Monica, a municipal corporation (“City” or “BBB”), and Swiftly, Inc. (“SWIFTLY” or “SaaS Provider”) is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS
A. On or about^^May 21, 2020, the City and SWIFTLY entered into Agreement Number 11000 (CCS) to provide a Software as a Service (“SaaS”) solution to provide real-time individual bus locations and predicted arrival times to end users including customers as well as BBB staff; an optional service alerts engine; and, to collect and analyze automatic vehicle location data, both in realtime and to build and use a historical archive of performance data for staff (“Original Agreement”).
B. The City and SWIFTLY desire to modify the Original Agreement to extend the agreement term by one additional option year plus 41 days through June 30, 2025; include additional services to be performed by SWIFTLY; and to increase the agreement price to pay for those additional services.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Now, therefore, the undersigned parties do hereby mutually agree to modify the Original Agreement as follows:
1. Section 2 of the Original Agreement entitled “Term” shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following paragraph:
2. Term. This Agreement begins on the Execution Date and terminates on June 30, 2025, unless terminated earlier as set forth in the Original Agreement or extended by the parties in writing.
2.1 Option to Extend. City, in its sole and complete discretion, shall have three (3) separate options to extend the Term for one-year periods (each, an “Option Term”) on the same terms and conditions as set forth in this Agreement and the Original Agreement. The City may exercise its option in writing by letter by the Director of the Department of Transportation or designee, provided to SaaS Provider pursuant to the notice provisions in Section 13 of the Original Agreement.
1. Section 3 of the Original Agreement entitled “System” shall be modified by adding the following paragraph:
Additional Services. SWIFTLY will perform all the additional services (“Additional Services”) described in Exhibit A-1, Scope of Services.
SWIFTLY will complete the Additional Services in accordance with Exhibit B-1, Budget.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FA13746B-3F2C-4DBB-8996-786B714D0D3D 4/16/2022
4.C.d
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Swiftly_1st_Modification_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival 2 2. Section 7 of the Original Agreement entitled “Compensation” shall be modified by adding the following paragraph:
Compensation. The City will compensate SWIFTLY for the Additional Services in an amount not to exceed $459,304, as set forth in Exhibit B-1. The total agreement price for Services and Additional Services pursuant to the Original Agreement and this First Modification shall not exceed $1,373,304.
3. Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit B-1 are attached hereto incorporated herein by this reference.
4. Execution in Counterparts. This First Modification may be executed in counterparts with the same effect as if both parties hereto had executed the same document. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute a single modification. Any signature to this First Modification transmitted electronically through DocuSign or PDF shall be deemed an original signature and be binding upon the parties hereto (it being agreed that such electronic signature shall have the same force and effect as an original signature).
5. Except as expressly modified by this First Modification, all other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall be and remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Modification as of the date and year first written above.
ATTEST:
______________________________
DENISE ANDERSON-WARREN
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
LANE DILG
City Attorney
CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
a municipal corporation
By: ______________________________
RICK COLE
City Manager
SWIFTLY, INC.
Swiftly, Inc.
#VENDOR
By: _______________________________
Rob Gaffney
Chief Financial Officer
DocuSign Envelope ID: FA13746B-3F2C-4DBB-8996-786B714D0D3D Susan Cola
4/13/2022
Interim City Attorney
4/13/2022
City Manager
4/16/2022
David White
City Clerk
Denise Anderson-Warren
4/18/2022
4.C.d
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Swiftly_1st_Modification_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival 3 Exhibit A1
Scope of Services
DocuSign Envelope ID: FA13746B-3F2C-4DBB-8996-786B714D0D3D
4.C.d
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Swiftly_1st_Modification_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival 4 Scope of Services
Swiftly, Inc. shall deliver two additional SaaS modules, Service Adjustments and Rider Alerts, effective March 11, 2022, through the end of the contract term June 30, 2025, with functionality as described in the following overview.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FA13746B-3F2C-4DBB-8996-786B714D0D3D
4.C.d
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Swiftly_1st_Modification_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: FA13746B-3F2C-4DBB-8996-786B714D0D3D
4.C.d
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Swiftly_1st_Modification_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival 6 Exhibit B-1
Budget
DocuSign Envelope ID: FA13746B-3F2C-4DBB-8996-786B714D0D3D
4.C.d
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Swiftly_1st_Modification_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival 7 DocuSign Envelope ID: FA13746B-3F2C-4DBB-8996-786B714D0D3D
4.C.d
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Swiftly_1st_Modification_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival 8 Total Due for Services3/11/2022 through 6/3/2025$903,303 Total Paid to Date (Original Contract) $447,977
Contingency through 6/30/2025 $22,024
Total Not-To-Exceed Budget $1,373,304
Not-to-Exceed Budget of Original Contract 878,000
Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of this 1
st Modification $495,304
Total Not-To-Exceed Budget $1,373,304
DocuSign Envelope ID: FA13746B-3F2C-4DBB-8996-786B714D0D3D
4.C.d
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Swiftly_1st_Modification_Executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival 1 SECOND MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT NO. 11000 (CCS)
This Second Modification of Agreement Number 11000 (CCS) (“Second Modification”), entered into as of _________________ (“Execution Date”), by and between the City of Santa Monica, a municipal corporation (“City” or “BBB”), and Swiftly, Inc. (“SWIFTLY” or “SaaS Provider”) is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS
A. On or about May 21, 2020, the City and SWIFTLY entered into Agreement Number 11000 (CCS) to provide a Software as a Service (“SaaS”) solution to provide real-time individual bus locations and predicted arrival times to end users including customers as well as BBB staff; an optional service alerts engine; and, to collect and analyze automatic vehicle location data, both in real-time and to build and use a historical archive of performance data for staff (“Original Agreement”).
B. On or about April 16, 2022, the City and SWIFTLY entered into a First Modification of Agreement Number 11000 (CCS) to modify the Original Agreement to extend the agreement term by three additional option years plus 41 days through June 30, 2025; include additional services to be performed by SWIFTLY; and to increase the agreement price to pay for those additional services. The Original Agreement and First Modification may be referred to collectively herein as “the Agreement.” C. The City and SWIFTLY desire to modify the Agreement to extend the agreement term by one additional year through June 30, 2026; and to increase the agreement price to pay for services provided during the additional contract period.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Now, therefore, the undersigned parties do hereby mutually agree to modify the Original Agreement as follows:
1. Section 2 of the Original Agreement entitled “Term” shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following paragraph:
2. Term. This Agreement begins on the Execution Date and terminates on June 30, 2026, unless terminated earlier as set forth in the Original Agreement or extended by the parties in writing.
2. Section 7 of the Original Agreement entitled “Compensation” shall be modified by adding the following paragraph:
7. Compensation. The City will compensate SWIFTLY for the Additional Services in an amount not to exceed three hundred Docusign Envelope ID: 9FA53C0E-364F-4B2E-92EF-42819C47EE00 3/24/2025
4.C.e
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Swiftly_2nd_Modification_executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival 2 eleven thousand one hundred fifty dollars ($311,150), as set forth in Exhibit A-2. The total agreement price for Services and Additional Services pursuant to the Original Agreement, the First Modification, and this Second Modification shall not exceed one million six hundred eighty-four thousand four hundred fifty-four dollars ($1,684,454).
3. Exhibit A-2 is attached hereto incorporated herein by this reference.
4. Execution in Counterparts. This Second Modification may be executed in counterparts with the same effect as if both parties hereto had executed the same document. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute a single modification. Any signature to this Second Modification transmitted electronically through DocuSign or PDF shall be deemed an original signature and be binding upon the parties hereto (it being agreed that such electronic signature shall have the same force and effect as an original signature).
5. Except as expressly modified by this Second Modification, all other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall be and remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Second Modification as of the date and year first written above.
ATTEST:
______________________________
DENISE ANDERSON-WARREN
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
LANE DILG
City Attorney
CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
a municipal corporation
By:
______________________________
RICK COLE
City Manager
SWIFTLY, INC.
Swiftly, Inc.
#VENDOR
By:
_______________________________
Docusign Envelope ID: 9FA53C0E-364F-4B2E-92EF-42819C47EE00 3/22/2025
City Attorney
DOUGLAS SLOAN
CFO
Rob Gaffney
Swiftly Inc
3/22/2025
Elaine Polachek
3/24/2025
Interim City Manager
Nikima Newsome
3/25/2025
City Clerk
4.C.e
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Swiftly_2nd_Modification_executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival 3 Exhibit A-2
Budget
Docusign Envelope ID: 9FA53C0E-364F-4B2E-92EF-42819C47EE00
4.C.e
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Swiftly_2nd_Modification_executed (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
OAKS INITIATIVE NOTICE
NOTICE TO APPLICANTS, BIDDERS, PROPOSERS
AND OTHERS SEEKING DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, CONTRACTS,
OR OTHER BENEFITS FROM THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Santa Monica’s voters adopted a City Charter amendment commonly known as the Oaks Initiative. The Oaks Initiative requires the City to provide this notice and information about the Initiative’s requirements. You may obtain a full copy of the Initiative’s text from the City Clerk.
This information is required by City Charter Article XXII—Taxpayer Protection.
It prohibits a public official from receiving, and a person or entity from conferring, specified personal benefits or campaign advantages from a person or entity after the official votes, or otherwise takes official action, to award a “public benefit” to that person or entity. The prohibition applies within and outside of the geographical boundaries of Santa Monica.
All persons or entities applying or receiving public benefits from the City of Santa Monica shall provide the names of trustees, directors, partners, and officers, and names of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation or revenue interest. An exception exists for persons serving in those capacities as volunteers, without compensation, for organizations exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3), (4), or (6), of the Internal Revenue Code. However, this exception does not apply if the organization is a political committee or controls political committees.
Examples of a “public benefit” include public contracts to provide goods or services worth more than $25,000 or a land use approval worth more than $25,000 over a 12- month period.
In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, the City compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any person or persons who is seeking a “public benefit.” If the “public benefit” is sought by an entity, rather than an individual person, the information includes the name of every person who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity. Therefore, if you are seeking a “public benefit” covered by the Oaks Initiative, you must supply that information on the Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form. This information must be updated and supplied every 12 months.
4.C.f
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Oaks_Swiftly_062725 (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival Predictions)
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
OAKS INITIATIVE DISCLOSURE FORM
In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, the City compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any person or persons who is seeking a “public benefit.” If the “public benefit” is sought by an entity, rather than an individual person, the information includes the name of every person who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity.
Public benefits include:
1. Personal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12-month period;
2. Sale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;
3. Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;
4. Non-competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more inany 12-month period;
5. Land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to an established land use plan, where the decision has a value in excess of $25,000;
6. Tax “abatement, exception, or benefit” of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12- month period; or
7. Payment of “cash or specie” of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12- month period.
Name(s) of persons or entities receiving public benefit:
Name(s) of trustees, directors, partners, and officers:
Name(s) of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest:
Prepared by: Title:
Signature: Date:
Email: Phone:
Permit #
FOR CITY USE ONLY:
Bid/PO/Contract #
4.C.f
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Oaks_Swiftly_062725 (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival Predictions) City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CALIFORNIA LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURE
The Levine Act prohibits City Officers from participating in any action related to a contract, license, permit, or entitlement if such Officer received campaign contributions totaling more than $500 within the previous twelve months, and for twelve months following the date of a final decision, from a party or participant to the proceeding, or their agent.
Section 84308(a)(4) of the Levine Act defines an "Officer" as follows: “Officer” means any elected or appointed officer of an agency, any alternate to an elected or appointed officer of an agency, and any candidate for elective office in an agency. The term “Officer” is further defined 2 Cal.
Code Regs. Section 18438.1, which states:
An officer of an agency includes only those persons who make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use their official position to influence a decision in the license, permit, or entitlement for use proceeding, or who exercise authority or budgetary control over the agency or officers who may do so, and:
(1) Serve in an elected position, including an official appointed to an elected position due to an interim vacancy or an election otherwise canceled because the official was the sole candidate for the position;
(2) Serve as a member of a board or commission;
(3) Serve as the chief executive of a state agency, or county, city or district of any kind; or (4) Have decision making authority with respect to the proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use and is also a candidate for elected office or has been a candidate for elective office in the 12 months prior to the proceeding.
A list of Santa Monica Elected Officials and members of boards and commissions can be found at the following links. The party making this certification is responsible for determining whether a recipient of a political contribution is a City Officer prior to completing this form. https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/ https://www.santamonica.gov/departments/rent-control https://www.smgov.net/boards/ Have you, your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made any political contributions of more than $500 to any City Officer in the twelve months preceding the date of the submission of your application or proposal? ____YES ____ NO
Name of Councilmember or City Officer: _________________________________ Name of Contributor: _________________________________________________ Date(s) of Contribution(s): ____________________________________________ Amount(s) ________________________________________________________ Please specify below and/or add additional sheet(s) to identify additional Councilmembers or City Officers to whom you and/or your agents made campaign contributions.
4.C.g
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: LEVINE_Swiftly_062725 (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival Predictions) City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form
Answering YES does not preclude the City of Santa Monica from awarding a contract, license, permit, or entitlement or taking any subsequent action related to the item. It does, however, preclude the identified City Officer from participating in any actions related to such item.
By signing below, you certify you also agree to disclose to the City any future contributions made to Councilmembers or other City Officers by you or your agent(s) after the date of signing this disclosure form, and within 12 months following the approval, renewal, or extension of the requested contract, license, permit, or entitlement.
I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
Signed: ____________________________ Date: ____________________ Print Name: _________________________ Title: _____________________ Company: __________________________
Additional Disclosures:
Please note this form is a public record and subject to a California Public Records Act request.
4.C.g
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: LEVINE_Swiftly_062725 (7424 : Approve Third Modification of Contract with Swiftly, Ltd. for Real Time Bus Arrival Predictions) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.D
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Darrick Jacob, Interim Police Chief, Police Department Subject: Approval of First Modification of Agreement #11424 with The Salvation Army for Homeless Outreach Efforts
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3)(Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to agreement #11424 in the amount of $433,365 with The Salvation Army to provide homeless outreach efforts, including supporting the City’s 311 Outreach effort and assisting the City’s Homeless Liaison Program for the Police Department. This will result in a 3-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $879,615, and with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
Summary
The Santa Monica Police Department (“SMPD”) seeks to leverage new Measure A funds from Los Angeles County by extending the City’s existing agreement with The Salvation Army. The resulting extended agreement will enhance the Department’s existing homeless outreach services. The proposed modification to the City’s agreement will support expanded outreach, case management, jail in-reach services, and financial assistance for individuals experiencing homelessness. The proposed modification aligns with the City’s Homeless Liaison Program (“HLP”) goals to reduce unsheltered homelessness and connect individuals to housing and services. Staff recommend that the Council approve the proposed modification to ensure the City’s
4.D
Packet Pg. 313
2 of 4
continued partnership with The Salvation Army and operational flexibility in addressing homelessness in Santa Monica.
Discussion
The City of Santa Monica has a longstanding partnership with The Salvation Army to deliver homeless outreach services. The City’s existing Agreement (No. 11424) with The Salvation Army was originally executed on February 6, 2024 for $446,250 over two years. This agreement has supported targeted engagements, integration with the City’s 311 system and HLP, and linkages to housing, behavioral health, and other services.
Recent performance data from full-year aggregates (February 2024 – September 2025) shows strong outcomes in engagements (projected ~1,284) and case management (~324), but has opportunities for improvement in areas like interim housing and jail transition.
To build on this success, the City has been allocated $1,221,616 from Los Angeles County under Measure A (Affordable Housing, Homelessness Solutions, and Prevention Now Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance, approved November 4, 2024) via Los Angeles County Contract HI-25-028 for Fiscal Year 2025-2026. The proposed modification directs $433,365 of these funds to The Salvation Army for the period February 1, 2026–June 30, 2026, resulting in a new contract number HI-25-029 for administrative purposes. This funding will enable the deployment of 4 full-time Salvation Army staff (3 outreach workers and 1 outreach case manager), with the case manager performing supervisory duties and being responsible for HLP co-deployment, caseload management, and jail in-reach responsibilities (e.g., in-custody assessments, release planning, and post-release follow-up for 90 days). Staff will have full operational flexibility, including 7-day/week co-deployment with HLP, response to requests within 2 hours, and participation in daily briefings and enforcement operations.
Key performance indicators (“KPI”) align with the County-approved Measure A template, focusing on two primary outcomes: 1) 80 unduplicated persons placed in interim housing; and 2) 40 unduplicated persons placed in permanent housing. Additional Citymonitored operational metrics (prorated for the contract term) include ≥600 outreach engagements, ≥50 jail assessments, ≥10 successful jail housing outcomes, ≥25
4.D
Packet Pg. 314
3 of 4
referrals to SaMo Bridge, ≥20 referrals to CLARE|Matrix, ≥40 311 requests handled, and ≥90% Clarity/HMIS compliance. Up to $12,000 is allocated for direct financial assistance (e.g., security deposits, utilities) to support housing transitions.
The Salvation Army was awarded the original agreement as an exception to the competitive process pursuant to SMMC § 2.24.250(i), and under the authority granted by the Council’s Local Emergency Order on Homelessness. To date The Salvation Army has demonstrated effective performance under its agreement with the City. The proposed modification of the agreement extends the partnership without a new RFP, as it aligns with Measure A eligible uses and builds on proven results. Staff evaluated alternatives, including in-house expansion or other vendors, however it was determined that continuing with The Salvation Army maximizes efficiency due to the organization’s established integration with HLP, its expertise in outreach, and access to additional resources like SAMOSHEL. The budget reflects exact Measure A allocations: $284,726 for staffing (2A), $12,000 for financial assistance (3E), $40,914 for 0.5 FTE Administrator (4A), and $95,725 for admin/operational costs (4B at 25.5% overhead).
Staff wishes to continue use the exception to the competitive process under the Local Emergency Order on Homelessness to extend the agreement.
Environmental Review
The proposed agreement is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (common sense exemption), 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 agreement would not result in any adverse physical environmental effects as it would continue the existing homeless outreach services.
Therefore, the agreement is exempt from CEQA and no further environmental review under CEQA is required.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
06/27/23 (attachment
A)
Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with The Salvation Army as an Exception to the Competitive
Bidding Process Under the Local Emergency Order on
Homelessness.
4.D
Packet Pg. 315
4 of 4
06/24/25 (attachment
B)
Authorize the city Manager to accept FY 2025-26 Measure A Local Solution Funds in the amount of $1,221,616 from the County of Los Angeles Homeless Initiative.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve available funding from the Miscellaneous Grant Fund to increase the amount of agreement #11424 with The Salvation Army for Homeless outreach services.
Contract Modification Request
Agreement #
Current Authorized
Amount
FY 2025-26
Modified Request
Amount
Dept Account # Total Revised
Contract Amount
11424 $446,250 $0 20420001.556480.21037 $446,250
$0 $433,365 20420001.556750.21066 $433,365
Total $879,615
Future year funding is contingent on Council budget approval.
Prepared By: Robert D'andrea, Police Lieutenant
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Staff Report 6.27.23 - FY23-25 Budget Adoption (Salvation Army) (Web Link) B. Staff Report 6/24/25 - FY2025-27 Biennial Budget (Measure A) - Web Link C. Salvation Army Contract-Signed
D. Oaks Initiative
E. LEVINE ACT
4.D
Packet Pg. 316
- 1 -
Agreement No. 11424 (CCS)
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Contractual Services Agreement (“Agreement”), entered into as of _________________ (“Execution Date”), by and between the CITY OF SANTA MONICA (“City”), a California municipal corporation, and THE SALVATION ARMY (“Salvation Army”), is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS
A. The City is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the Constitution of the State and the Charter of the City.
B. Salvation Army is a California nonprofit religious corporation and represents to the City that it is qualified to do business, and is lawfully doing business, in the State of California. Salvation Army further represents that it has the background, knowledge, experience, and expertise necessary to provide the contractual services set forth in this Agreement.
C. On June 27, 2023, the Santa Monica City Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with the Salvation Army for contractual services that include supporting the City’s 311 Outreach effort and providing assistance to the City’s Homeless Liaison Program (“HLP”). This award was made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to SMMC Section
2.24.250(i), under the Local Emergency Order on Homelessness. Salvation Army was selected based on its past working relationship with the Police Department’s HLP team and its ability to respond in real-time, throughout the City, to assist with outreach and with direct transport to mental health and substance abuse programs.
D. The City and Salvation Army desire to enter into this Agreement for the Salvation Army to provide targeted outreach services to people experiencing homelessness within the City of Santa Monica that cannot be properly addressed by the HLP Team. Salvation Army will also provide immediate support and follow-up to 311 requests related to the homeless individuals it assists. Salvation Army will also assess individuals’ eligibility to become a Santa Monica Program Parctipiant (SMPP), and will connect individuals to resources that are appropriate for them.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6 2/6/2024
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) - 2 -
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Term. This Agreement shall commence on the Execution Date and shall continue for a period of two (2) years, unless terminated earlier in accordance with Section
14. 2. Salvation Army Services. Salvation Army shall perform and provide to City all of the services (“Services”) described in Exhibit A, Scope of Services. Salvation Army will complete the Services in accordance with Exhibit B, Budget.
3. City Responsibilities. The City agrees that it will:
3.1 Make available to Salvation Army any materials or information reasonably required for its performance of the Services.
3.2 Designate a representative authorized to act on behalf of City.
3.3 Promptly review all correspondence submitted by Salvation Army and provide a response within a reasonably prompt period of time.
4. Compensation. The City shall compensate Salvation Army for the Services performed by it and provided to City in accordance with Exhibit B (Budget). The total amount of compensation paid to Salvation Army under this Agreement shall at no time exceed $446,250.
5. Invoices. Salvation Army shall invoice the City for the Services in accordance with the budget set forth in Exhibit B and the City shall pay any undisputed amount within 30 days of receipt.
6. Notices. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement, must be in writing and will be deemed served when delivered personally, by email, or on the third business day after deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as follows:
6.1 All notices, demands, requests or approvals to the City:
Santa Monica Police Department
City of Santa Monica
333 Olympic Dr.
Santa Monica, California 90401
Attention: Lowell Watson
Re: Agreement No. 11424
with a copy to:
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) - 3 -
Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office
1685 Main Street, Third Floor
Santa Monica, California 90401
Attention: Ivan Campbell, Deputy City Attorney
Re: Agreement No. 11424
6.2 All notices, demands, requests or approvals to Salvation Army:
The Salvation Army
1533 4th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Attention: Katrina Fleming
[email protected]
Re: Agreement No. <11424>
7. Independent Parties. Both parties to this Agreement will be acting in an independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint venturers of one another. Neither the City nor its officers or employees will have any control over the conduct of Salvation Army or any of Salvation Army’s agents, employees, or subcontractors, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement.
8. Integrated Agreement. This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties. Any preliminary negotiations and agreements of any kind or nature are merged into this Agreement. No oral agreement or implied covenant may be held to vary the provisions of this Agreement. This Agreement may be modified only by written agreement signed by City and Salvation Army, and approved as to form by the City Attorney.
9. Insurance. Prior to commencing work, Salvation Army must procure, maintain and pay for insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services by Salvation Army or Salvation Army’s agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants for the duration of this Agreement. Salvation Army must obtain insurance that, at a minimum, meets the requirements for insurance set forth in Exhibit F (Insurance Requirements and Verifications).
10. Defense and Indemnification.
10.1 Salvation Army agrees to defend, indemnify, protect, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, boards and commissions, and employees (collectively, “City”) from and against any and all liability, claims, demands, damages, or costs, including but not limited to attorney’s fees, or payments for injury to any person or property (collectively, “Losses”) caused or claimed to be caused by the act, errors, and/or omissions of Salvation DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) - 4 -
Army, or Salvation Army’s employees, agents, officers, and subcontractors.
Salvation Army’s responsibilities under this Section 10.1 include liability arising from, connected with, caused by, or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the City, which may be in combination with the acts or omissions of Salvation Army, its employees, agents or officers, or subcontracors; provided, however, that Salvation Army’s duty to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless shall not include any Losses arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Notwithstanding Salvation Army’s obligation to defend City hereunder, City has the right to conduct its own defense and seek reimbursement for reasonable costs of defense from Salvation Army, if City chooses to do so.
10.2 Enforcement Costs. Salvation Army agrees to pay any and all costs the City incurs enforcing the indemnity, defense and hold harmless provisions set forth in Section 10.1.
11. Prohibition Against Transfers.
11.1 Salvation Army may not assign, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without the City’s consent will be null and void, and any assignee, hypothecatee or transferee acquires no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer.
11.2 The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Salvation Army or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Salvation Army, if a partnership or joint venture or syndicate exists, which results in changing the control of Salvation Army, will be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means 50% or more of the voting power of the corporation.
12. Permits and Licenses. Salvation Army, at its sole expense, must obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement all required business and professional permits, licenses and certificates.
13. Waiver. A waiver of any breach of this Agreement may not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement.
14. Default and Termination.
14.1 If Salvation Army fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement, and if the default is not cured within a period of five days after the City’s written notice of default specifying the nature of the default, City DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) - 5 -
may immediately terminate this Agreement by written notice to Salvation Army.
14.2 The City has the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving ten days written notice to Salvation Army. Upon termination of this Agreement, City shall pay Salvation Army any compensation earned and unpaid up to the effective date of termination.
15. Compliance with Law. Salvation Army must comply with all laws of the State of California and the United States, and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City.
16. Discrimination. Salvation Army may not discriminate in the provision of services hereunder because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, sexual orientation, marital status, AIDS or disability.
17. Nuisance. Salvation Army may not maintain, commit, or permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement.
18. Records.
18.1 Salvation Army must maintain complete and accurate records with respect to costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by the City for any services provided where compensation is on the basis of hourly rates, subcontractor costs, or other direct costs. Salvation Army must keep the records, together with supporting documents, separate from other documents and records and maintain them for a period of three years after receipt of final payment.
18.2 Salvation Army must maintain records in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of the Services and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Salvation Army must clearly identify all records and make them readily accessible to the City. At the City’s request, Salvation Army must provide records in an electronic format and, if necessary, access to any proprietary software to view such electronic records.
18.3 Salvation Army must allow the City to inspect all work, data, documents, related to this Agreement. The City has the right to examine or audit Salvation Army’s records, and Salvation Army agrees to cooperate with any examination or audit of its records. If a City audit discloses an error of 5% or more in information reported by Salvation Army, Salvation Army agrees to pay the cost of the City’s audit computed on the basis of four times the direct payroll of the audit staff completing the audit and audit report.
19. Work Product; Reports.
19.1 Any work product prepared or caused to be prepared by Salvation Army or any subcontractor for this Agreement will be the exclusive property of City.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) - 6 -
No work product given to or prepared by Salvation Army or any subcontractor pursuant to this Agreement may be made available to any individual or organization by Salvation Army without prior written approval by City.
19.2 At the City’s request, Salvation Army must furnish reports concerning the status of the Services.
20. Standard of Care. Salvation Army agrees to provide all Services, including services performed by any subconsultant, in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of Salvation Army’s profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions.
21. Subcontractors.
21.1 If Salvation Army proposes to have any subcontractor perform any part of the Services, Salvation Army must submit a request for approval in writing, describing the scope of work to be subcontracted, the name of the proposed subcontractor, and the total price or hourly rates used in preparing an estimated cost for the subconsultant’s services. The City, in its sole discretion, may grant or deny the request.
21.2 Salvation Army will be responsible for the quality of any subcontractor’s work. Every subcontract or agreement of any kind entered into between Salvation Army and any subcontractor (or between any subcontractor and others) must contain the following provision:
This agreement is consistent with all terms and conditions of the Agreement No. 11424 (CCS) entered into between the
City of Santa Monica and Salvation Army
on^^____________________.
22. Governing Law. The laws of the State of California, without regard to any choice of law provisions, will govern this Agreement.
23. Venue and Jurisdiction. The City and Salvation Army agree that the Services will take place in Los Angeles County. Any litigation arising out of this Agreement may only be brought in either the United States District Court, Central District of California, or the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, West District, as appropriate. The parties agree that venue exists in either court, and each party expressly waives any right to transfer to another venue. The parties further agree that either court will have personal jurisdiction over the parties to this Agreement.
24. Survival of Provisions and Obligations. Any provision of this Agreement, which by its nature must be exercised after termination of this Agreement, will survive termination and remain effective for a reasonable time. Any obligation that DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6 2/6/2024
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) - 7 -
accrued prior to termination of this Agreement will survive termination of this Agreement.
25. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts with the same effect as if both parties hereto had executed the same document. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute a single agreement.
Any signature to this Agreement transmitted electronically through DocuSign or PDF shall be deemed an original signature and be binding upon the parties hereto (it being agreed that such electronic signature shall have the same force and effect as an original signature).
26. Exhibits. The following exhibits are incorporated by reference into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.
Exhibit A Scope of Services
Exhibit B Budget
Exhibit C Client Tracker
Exhibit D Grievance Policy & Form
Exhibit E Indirect Cost Rate Agreement
Exhibit F Insurance Requirements
In witness whereof, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
______________________________
NISMoE ANDERSON-WARREN
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
LANE DILG
City Attorney
CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
a municipal corporation
By: ______________________________
RICK COLE
City Manager
Salva
#VENDOR
By:
________________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6 City Attorney
DOUGLAS SLOAN
J. Koebel; Captain
Divisional Secretary for Business
City Manager
David White
Interim City Clerk
Nikima Newsome
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) Exhibit A
Scope of Services
The Salvation Army’s Hope Team will provide immediate support and follow-up to 311 requests that are related to providing services to people experiencing homelessness. These requests will be directed to Salvation Army staff from the Santa Monica Police Department’s (SMPD) Homeless Liaison Program (HLP) team. In the absence of 311 requests, the program will still conduct street outreach operations at the direction of SMPD. The Salvation Army’s Hope Team will provide a critical community need by providing targeted outreach services to people experiencing homelessness within the City of Santa Monica that cannot be addressed by the HLP team. When conducting outreach, The Salvation Army will assess participants, determine if the individuals are Santa Monica Program Participant (SMPP) eligible, and connect them to resources that are most appropriate for them.
The Program will work alongside HLP officer’s in conducting monthly outreach, livability operations as directed and planned by the HLP team, and conduct any other targeted outreach as directed by SMPD. When conducting these operations, Salvation Army staff will work to engage clients, collect demographic information, determine what services are most appropriate for those engaged, and conduct the appropriate follow-up as necessary.
Services will be delivered to people on the street, or wherever the person experiencing homelessness is staying. Participants will be asked a series of questions to determine their origins of homelessness, basic demographic information, and other project intake forms as needed dependent on the needs of the client. The primary population that will be served are people experiencing homelessness that have been identified as needing homelessness services via 311 requests.
Contractual Services provided under this Agreement by the Salvation Army shall Include:
• Peer Support
• Case Management
• Substance Use Disorders intervention
• 311 Responsiveness
• Homeless Liaison Program Operations Assistance
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) • Motivational Interviewing
• Trauma-Informed Care
• Referral /transportation to Interim Housing beds*
• Referral /transportation to Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation* • Document Readiness services
• Skills Training referral services
• Transportation Assistance
• Mental Health Assessment referral
*Based on eligibility and availability
The Hope Team will aim to provide a same day response to 311 and HLP team requests and will communicate expected response time to HLP team within 24 hours when same day response is not possible.
Programmatic data will be tracked utilizing the City of Santa Monica’s HMIS database. Service Point Data collected by the program is intended to document evidence-based practices that measure outcomes such as the number of clients engaged, clients who are enrolled in Salvation Army services, clients who are connected to supportive medical or behavioral health services, and clients who enter an interim or permanent housing opportunity.
Every client who is engaged in the field will be documented by program staff using a client tracker form (Exhibit C) that details the delivery of services provided. This tracker form will be submitted monthly to the City of Santa Monica for the ongoing evaluation of how the program is performing.
Every program participant, volunteer, or staff person will follow the Grievance Procedures listed in Exhibit D – Grievance Policy and Form.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) Basic Staffing Plan
* Schedule is flexible with prior notification for occasional 311/HLP Team operations
** Schedule is flexible for 311/HLP Team operations
All other staff available during office hours for
supportive services.
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Administration- James and
Katrina Fleming 9-1pm 8am430pm
8am430pm8am430pm8am430pm
Pantry Staff 6am9am
8am430pm8am430pm8am430pm8am430pm
Noah Weiner TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Outreach Coordinator
Sandra Gutierrez* 9-1pm 8am430pm
8am430pm8am430pm8am430pm
Outreach Administrative
Assistant
Jean Barahona*
8am430pm8am430pm8am430pm8am430pm8am430pm
311 Case Manager -
Jesus Flores**
8am430pm 1-9pm 8am430pm 1-9pm 8am430pm
311 Team x2 ** 5am-2pm 1pm-9pm 5am-2pm 1pm-9pm 8am430pm Intervention Strategist
Micayla Burnes
9am1pm 2pm-5pm 5pm-9pm
Volunteer Support
6am -
9am
(On-site
11am-1pm
(On-site
5pm - 9pm
(Onsite
11am-1pm
(On-site
5pm - 9pm
(Onsite
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) Meal
Support)
Meal
Support)
Meal
Support)
Meal
Support)
Meal
Support)
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) Exhibit B
Budget
The total amount of compensation paid to Salvation Army under this Agreement shall at no time exceed $446,250. Annual City expenditures are shown under the “SM Grant Budget” column.
TOTAL
PROGRAM
BUDGET
SM GRANT
BUDGET
NON-CITY
PROGRAM
BUDGET
1A. Staff Salaries
$
468,594
$
125,632
$
342,962
1B. Staff Fringe Benefits
$
128,477
$
54,405
$
3,280
2. Consultant Services
$
-
$
-
$
-
3. Operating Expenses
$
17,450
$
985
$
9,465
4. Direct Client Support
$
79,152
$
6,000
$
73,152
5. Other
$
-
$
-
$
-
6. Indirect Administrative
Costs
$
103,938
$
29,103
$
74,835
7. TOTAL BUDGET
$
797,611
$
223,125
$
573,694
Salvation Army shall invoice the City for the services monthly. Each invoice must include itemized receipts for item purchases, payroll data, and payroll summary. The City shall pay any undisputed amount within 30 days of receipt.
Indirect Costs must comply with the Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (Exhibit E) that details the rates approved by the Federal Government in this agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) Exhibit C
Program Tracker
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army)
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
FY 2023-24 Program Evaluation Chart
Output Total client engagements 1,500 engagements HMIS/Monthly Reports
Output Total number of 311 requests assigned to
outreach team 450 requests HMIS/Monthly
Reports
Output Total number of HLP directed
enforcement/outreach operations 50 operations HMIS/Monthly Reports
Outcome Assigned 311 requests that did not require
HLP team intervention 90% HMIS/Monthly
Reports
Outcome Total number of participants who receive
case management services 360 individuals HMIS/Monthly
Reports
Outcome Unhoused participants placed in permanent
housing 80 individuals HMIS/Monthly
Reports
Outcome Total permanent housing Project
Homecoming placements. 80 individuals HMIS/Monthly
Reports
Outcome Unhoused participants placed in interim
housing 120 individuals HMIS/Monthly
Reports
Output
Total assessments for medical, mental
health/psychiatric, substance use disorder
services
360 individuals HMIS/Monthly
Reports
Outcome Participants will receive mental health
services 40 individuals HMIS/Monthly
Reports
Outcome Participants will receive substance use
disorder services 40 individuals HMIS/Monthly
Reports
Please complete the Program Evaluation Chart with the information below:
1. List the output indicators produced by the program. Outputs are defined as numbers or amounts served and are quantitative in nature.
2. List the outcome indicators that will measure attainment of the program goals. Outcomes should demonstrate program impact on meeting the priorities and/or needs stated in your Program Plan (Exhibit A) and how effectively the program will meet its identified goals. The strongest outcomes are based on measurable data sets, not anecdotal or casual self-reports of behavior change.
3. Documentation Method. Describe the tools and methods used to measure the achievement of outputs and outcomes specified below. Examples of strong indicators include report cards, pre- and post-tests, clinical assessments, and databases. Programs should utilize objective, standardized measurement tools, databases, and methodologically sound measurement techniques in comparison to anecdotal or highly subjective methods.
Service Category/
Program Goal Indicator Type Indicator Description Annual Target Documentation Method
3 Access Medical and
Behavioral Health
Services
Obtain
Interim/Permanent
Housing
2 1 Homeless Liaision
Program Support
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) Last Name First Name Where did client first become homeless? Where was client's last permanent housing? Where is client currently living or staying? When did current stay in city begin? Where did client live before coming to Santa Monica? Santa Monica History of Homelessness ‐ All HMST Clients DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6 4.D.c Packet Pg. 331
Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) Date Client Name (First, Last)
Length of
Session
(Minutes)
Activity Status
(Engaged,
Enrolled)
How was client
identified? (311, HLP
op, street outrach)
Linkage to
Medical
Specialist
Linkage to
Substance
Abuse
Service
Mental
Health
Service
Provided
Document
Assistance
Benefits
Assistance
Case
Management
Service
Provided
Housing Case
Management
Service
Outreach search
without contact
Interim
Housing
Placement
Permanent
Housing
Placement
Step Court
Referral
Client Interaction Log (When you meet with the client, what is happening ? Document all services as they apply) Service Provided
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6 4.D.c Packet Pg. 332
Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) Exhibit D
Grievance Policy & Form
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) Grievance Procedures
If you have a concern with a program participant, volunteer, or staff person that you feel you cannot resolve you should feel free to tell someone about it.
1. Discuss the full issue with that person, seeking a fair resolution.
2. If unresolved, request and fill out a Grievance Form or submit it in writing, to be turned into the front desk or Corps Officer. We encourage Participants to submit written grievance as soon as possible after the concern has been identified. However, grievances are accepted at any time.
3. Grievances can be submitted in the following ways
a. A Participant can turn in a grievance form to a staff member and ask that the staff sign the grievance form to show it has been turned in, give a copy to the participant, seal the form in an envelope and give the Corps Officer. a. A completed grievance form can be emailed to
[email protected].
b. In all cases these can be put into a sealed envelope and seen only by the Corps Officer. If a there is further legal action the filled out form can be used in a court of law.
4. Staff can help the Participant fill out the form if reading and writing creates a barrier to the grievance process. Any staff member may help fill out the form, or a Participant can ask to do so with a supervisor.
5. The Corps Officer will review grievance and take any necessary action within 3 working days of submittal and notify aggrieved of outcome.
6. Participants will be told, in writing, about the procedures they should follow if they wish to appeal the result of the grievance.
7. If a Participant asks for an appeal, the Corps Officer will involve their leadership team at divisional headquarters.
8. If the complainant wishes to withdraw a complaint or that no action be taken, that wish must be formalized in writing by the complainant.
THE SALVATION ARMY
Santa Monica Homeless Outreach
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army)
PARTICIPANT GRIEVANCE FORM
To: Corps Officer
From: __________________________________________________Date:_______________ Please list in detail all the reasons for your grievance in response to Salvation Army Santa Monica’s policies or staff. What is the problem? When did it happen? Please use specific dates, times, places, names etc. Attach copies of any documents or any material that support your grievance.
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Participant Signature: __________________________________Date: ___________ You may return your form to a any staff or the Corps Officers. You may email your completed form to [email protected] or You may mail your completed form to 1533 4th St. Santa Monica CA 90405 Attn: Corps Officer DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) Exhibit E
Indirect Cost Rate Agreement
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6 4.D.c Packet Pg. 337
Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6 4.D.c Packet Pg. 338
Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6 4.D.c Packet Pg. 339
Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) Exhibit F
Insurance Requirements
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal and advertising injury, with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (Insurance Services Office Form CG 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form CA 00 01 covering Code 1 (any auto), or if Contractor has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and Code 9 (nonowned), with limits of no less than $2,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation: Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits and Employers’ Liability Insurance with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease (see footnote #1).
4. Professional Liability: Insurance appropriate to the Contractor’s profession with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim/$2,000,000 in the annual aggregate.
If the Contractor maintains broader coverage or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City of Santa Monica requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage or higher limits maintained by the Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City of Santa Monica.
Other Insurance Provisions
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army)
1. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
a. Additional Insured Status: The City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of Contractor including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. CGL coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form CG 20 10 11 85, or if not available, through the addition of both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38 and CG 20 37). b. Primary Coverage: For any claims related to this Agreement, the Contractor’s insurance shall be primary coverage as least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be in excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. c. Notice of Cancellation: Each insurance policy required herein shall state that coverage shall not be cancelled except after notice has been given to the City of Santa Monica.
d. Waiver of Subrogation: Contractor hereby grants to the City of Santa Monica a waiver of any right of subrogation which any insurer of said Contractor may acquire against the City of Santa Monica by virtue of payment of any loss.
Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City of Santa Monica has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City of Santa Monica for all work performed by the Contractor, its employees, agents and subcontractors.
Self-Insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City of Santa Monica.
The City of Santa Monica may require the Contractor to purchase coverage with a lower retention or provide satisfactory proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the name insured or the City of Santa Monica.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in California with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City of Santa Monica.
Claims Made Policies
1. If the Professional Liability policy provides “claims made” coverage:
a. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of this Agreement or the start of work.
b. The insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least 5 years after completion of work.
c. If the policy is cancelled or not renewed, and not replaced with another “claims made” policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the effective Agreement date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of 5 years after completion of work.
Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City of Santa Monica with original certificates and amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage provided by this clause). All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City of Santa Monica before work commences. However, failure to obtain required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide them. The City of Santa Monica reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including the endorsements required herein, at any time.
Failure to Maintain Insurance Coverage
If Contractor, for any reason, fails to maintain insurance coverage which is required pursuant to this Agreement, the same shall be deemed a material breach of contract.
The City of Santa Monica, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from the Contractor resulting from said breach.
Subcontractors
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) Contractor shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein. All exceptions must be approved in writing by the Risk Manager.
Footnotes
# 1: Workers’ Compensation insurance coverage is not required if the Contractor does not have employees. The Contractor must, however, execute the City’s Workers’ Compensation Coverage Exemption Declaration Form.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D2CF857A-D68A-4CFD-9E8C-7FAFAEAEAAE6
4.D.c
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Salvation Army Contract-Signed (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) The Salvation Army, A California Coporation
N/A
4.D.d
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Oaks Initiative (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army)
THE SALVATION ARMY
(a California corporation)
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
KENNETH G. HODDER
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD/DIRECTOR
615 SLATERS LANE
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313
DOUGLAS RILEY
PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR
30840 HAWTHORNE BLVD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
EDDIE VINCENT
VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR
30840 HAWTHORNE BLVD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
KELLY PONTSLER
TREASURER/DIRECTOR
30840 HAWTHORNE BLVD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
STEPHEN C. SMITH
DIRECTOR
30840 HAWTHORNE BLVD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
PHILIP LUM
DIRECTOR
30840 HAWTHORNE BLVD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
COLLEEN RILEY
DIRECTOR
30840 HAWTHORNE BLVD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
DEBBIE LUM
DIRECTOR
30840 HAWTHORNE BLVD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
GENEVERA VINCENT
DIRECTOR
30840 HAWTHORNE BLVD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
MARCIA SMITH
DIRECTOR
30840 HAWTHORNE BLVD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
4.D.d
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Oaks Initiative (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army)
4.D.e
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: LEVINE ACT (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army)
4.D.e
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: LEVINE ACT (7446 : 1st Mod Salvation Army) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.E
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jing Yeo, Director, Administration
Subject: Approval of First Modification to Agreement with Cotton, Shires & Associates for Geotechnical Engineering Services
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of signification effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to agreement #11275 (CCS) in the amount of $180,000 with Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. for geotechnical engineering services for the Community Development Department. This will result in a five-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $405,000, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
Summary
The Building and Safety Division contracts Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (CSA) to provide the City of Santa Monica with review of geotechnical investigation reports which are required by both California Building and Residential Codes. The geotechnical investigation reports are prepared by licensed geotechnical engineers, and they need to be reviewed by a licensed geotechnical engineer. The City does not have these engineers on staff and relies on CSA to provide their review service. The volume of work performed by CSA has increased significantly over the past two years, which has depleted the contract authority for this agreement faster than anticipated. Staff recommends increasing the funding for this agreement by $180,000, for a total not to exceed amount of $405,000.
4.E
Packet Pg. 348
2 of 4
Discussion
CSA has provided geotechnical engineering services to the Building and Safety division since 2012, when a formal RFP was issued for these services and CSA was selected as the winning proposal. Since 2012, these services have gone through the RFP process every five years: once in 2017, and again in 2022. All three times, CSA was selected as the best qualified firm for these services. The most recent RFP resulted in a five-year professional services agreement, at $45,000 per year, for a total contract amount of $225,000.
This original agreement was budgeted at $45,000 per fiscal year because, historically, that was adequate funding to cover the volume of work performed by CSA. However, several changes have occurred over the past two years which have caused the demand for CSA’s services to exceed expectations, such as an increase in the number of multistory mixed-use projects with multiple of subterranean levels. CSA also performs fault study reviews, which are reviews of reports submitted to the City regarding the potential location of fault lines under construction sites. These reviews have increased in volume over recent years.
In FY 2024-25, the City spent nearly $80,000 for CSA’s services. In the first five months of FY 2025-26, CSA’s invoices totaled nearly $40,000. These costs have depleted almost all of the contract authority for this agreement, even though the agreement expires in June of 2027. The 2025 California Building Codes also went into effect on January 1, 2026, and several large projects were submitted in December 2025, prior to this code change, that will require CSA review. Given this increased volume, staff recommends increasing the agreement by $180,000 over the next 1.5 years. This will increase the not-to-exceed amount of the agreement from $225,000 to $405,000.
All costs associated with CSA reviews are covered by plan check fees. Building and Safety charges specific fees for every geotechnical review performed by CSA staff. As the volume of work performed by CSA increases, the plan check revenues collected by Building and Safety also increases to offset these expenditures. Therefore, there is no net effect to the General Fund for supporting CSA’s services. Additionally, because the agreement expires on June 30, 2027, there is no need for a term extension as part of this proposed modification.
Environmental Review
4.E
Packet Pg. 349
3 of 4
Staff have performed a preliminary environmental assessment of this project and, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15061(b)(3), has determined with certainty that there is no possibility that this project may have a significant effect on the environment.
This is because CSA reviews digital plans assigned to them online, so their work has no physical impact on the environment. Therefore, this project is not subject to CEQA.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
06/28/22 (attachment A) Original bid and award of agreement with vendor for geotechnical engineering services
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve available funding from the General Fund to increase the amount of agreement #11275 with Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. for geotechnical engineering services.
Agreement Modification Request
Agreement #
Current
Authorized
Amount
FY 2025-26
Modified
Request
Amount
Future
Years
Amount Dept Account #
Total
Revised
Contract
Amount
11275 (CCS) $225,000 $80,000 $100,000 01700004.552010 $405,000 Future year funding is contingent on Council budget approval.
Prepared By: Kevin Purcell, Principal Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council
4.E
Packet Pg. 350
4 of 4
Attachments:
A. Web Link - June 28, 2022 Staff Report
(https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&Mee tingID=1316&MediaPosition=&ID=5131&CssClass=)
B. Oaks Disclosure
C. Levine Act
4.E
Packet Pg. 351
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
OAKS INITIATIVE NOTICE
NOTICE TO APPLICANTS, BIDDERS, PROPOSERS
AND OTHERS SEEKING DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, CONTRACTS,
OR OTHER BENEFITS FROM THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Santa Monica’s voters adopted a City Charter amendment commonly known as the Oaks Initiative. The Oaks Initiative requires the City to provide this notice and information about the Initiative’s requirements. You may obtain a full copy of the Initiative’s text from the City Clerk.
This information is required by City Charter Article XXII—Taxpayer Protection.
It prohibits a public official from receiving, and a person or entity from conferring, specified personal benefits or campaign advantages from a person or entity after theofficial votes, or otherwise takes official action, to award a “public benefit” to that person or entity. The prohibition applies within and outside of the geographical boundaries of SantaMonica.
All persons or entities applying or receiving public benefits from the City of Santa Monica shall provide the names of trustees, directors, partners, and officers, and names of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation or revenue interest. An exception exists for persons serving in those capacities as volunteers, without compensation, for organizations exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3), (4), or (6), of the Internal Revenue Code. However, this exception does not apply if the organization is a political committee or controls political committees.
Examples of a “public benefit” include public contracts to provide goods or services worth more than $25,000 or a land use approval worth more than $25,000 over a 12- month period.
In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, theCity compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any personorpersons whois seeking a “publicbenefit.” If the“public benefit” is sought by an entity, ratherthan an individual person, the information includes the nameof everyperson who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity. Therefore, if you are seeking a “public benefit” covered by the Oaks Initiative, you must supply that information on the Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form. This information must be updated and supplied every 12 months.
4.E.b
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Oaks Disclosure (7462 : 1st Modification to Agreement with Cotton, Shires & Associates for Geotechnical Engineering Services)
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
OAKS INITIATIVE DISCLOSURE FORM
In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, the City compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any person or persons who is seeking a “public benefit.” If the “public benefit” is sought by an entity, rather than an individual person, the information includes the name of every person who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity.
Public benefits include:
1. Personal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12-monthperiod;
2. Sale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;
3. Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;
4. Non-competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more inany 12-month period;
5. Land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to an established land use plan, where the decision has a value in excess of $25,000;
6. Tax “abatement, exception, or benefit” of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12- month period; or
7. Payment of “cash or specie” of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12- month period.
Name(s) of persons or entities receiving public benefit:
Name(s) of trustees, directors, partners, and officers:
Name(s) of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest:
Prepared by: Title:
Signature: Date:
Email: Phone:
Permit #
FOR CITY USE ONLY:
Bid/PO/Contract #
Patrick Shires President
January 16, 2026
[email protected] 408-354-5542
Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc.
Patrick Shires (60%), David Schrier (15%), John Wallace (15%) Patrick Shires, David Schrier, John Wallace, Andrew Mead, Samual Nolan
4.E.b
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Oaks Disclosure (7462 : 1st Modification to Agreement with Cotton, Shires & Associates for Geotechnical Engineering Services) City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CALIFORNIA LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURE
The Levine Act prohibits City Officers from participating in any action related to a contract, license, permit, or entitlement if such Officer received campaign contributions totaling more than $500 within the previous twelve months, and for twelve months following the date of a final decision, from a party or participant to the proceeding, or their agent.
Section 84308(a)(4) of the Levine Act defines an "Officer" as follows: “Officer” means any elected or appointed officer of an agency, any alternate to an elected or appointed officer of an agency, and any candidate for elective office in an agency. The term “Officer” is further defined 2 Cal.
Code Regs. Section 18438.1, which states:
An officer of an agency includes only those persons who make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use their official position to influence a decision in the license, permit, or entitlement for use proceeding, or who exercise authority or budgetary control over the agency or officers who may do so, and:
(1) Serve in an elected position, including an official appointed to an elected position due to an interim vacancy or an election otherwise canceled because the official was the sole candidate for the position;
(2) Serve as a member of a board or commission;
(3) Serve as the chief executive of a state agency, or county, city or district of any kind; or (4) Have decision making authority with respect to the proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use and is also a candidate for elected office or has been a candidate for elective office in the 12 months prior to the proceeding.
A list of Santa Monica Elected Officials and members of boards and commissions can be found at the following links. The party making this certification is responsible for determining whether a recipient of a political contribution is a City Officer prior to completing this form. https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/
https://www.santamonica.gov/departments/rent-control
https://www.smgov.net/boards/
Have you, your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made any political contributions of more than $500 to any City Officer in the twelve months preceding the date of the submission of your application or proposal? ____YES ____ NO
Name of Councilmember or City Officer: _________________________________ Name of Contributor: _________________________________________________ Date(s) of Contribution(s): ____________________________________________ Amount(s) ________________________________________________________ Please specify below and/or add additional sheet(s) to identify additional Councilmembers or City Officers to whom you and/or your agents made campaign contributions.
4.E.c
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Levine Act (7462 : 1st Modification to Agreement with Cotton, Shires & Associates for Geotechnical Engineering Services) City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form
Answering YES does not preclude the City of Santa Monica from awarding a contract, license, permit, or entitlement or taking any subsequent action related to the item. It does, however, preclude the identified City Officer from participating in any actions related to such item.
By signing below, you certify you also agree to disclose to the City any future contributions made to Councilmembers or other City Officers by you or your agent(s) after the date of signing this disclosure form, and within 12 months following the approval, renewal, or extension of the requested contract, license, permit, or entitlement.
I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIATHAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUEAND CORRECT.
Signed: ____________________________ Date: ____________________ Print Name: _________________________ Title: _____________________ Company: __________________________
Additional Disclosures:
Please note this form is a public record and subject to a California Public Records Act request.
4.E.c
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Levine Act (7462 : 1st Modification to Agreement with Cotton, Shires & Associates for Geotechnical Engineering Services) SANTA MONICA CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
TO: Public
FROM: City Attorney’s Office
RE: Levine Act Disclosure Form
The Levine Act (Government Code 84308) is a California law aimed at preventing “pay to play” practices by prohibiting parties, participants, and their agents in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement from contributing more than $500 to an officer of the City during a 12-month period. The prohibition applies to any 12-month period while the proceeding is pending and for 12 months following the date a final decision is rendered in the proceeding.
State law requires a party to a proceeding to disclose any contributions exceeding an aggregate $500 that the party and their agents have made to an officer of the City within the preceding 12 months. The Disclosure Form is intended to assist City officials with recognizing when they have an obligation to disclose and recuse themselves, and to aid parties with their disclosure obligations.
1. To what sort of proceedings is the disclosure form applicable? The Levine Act applies to all discretionary entitlements and contracts, with the exception of labor contracts, personal employment contracts, and contracts that must be awarded to the lowest responsive/responsible bidder. It does not apply to ministerial approvals.
For instance, the Levine Act applies to the following:
• Building and development permits
• Conditional use permits
• Contracts generally (unless an exception applies):
o Real property contracts for purchase, sale, lease
o Contract amendments
o Settlement agreements
o Contracts for goods, services, professional services that are not awarded pursuant to a competitive process
• Public street abandonments
• Private development plans
• Professional license revocations
• Rezoning of specific real estate parcels
• Event permits
• Rulemaking procedures affecting a particular industry where only a small number of businesses are affected
• Special district formation proceedings involving the creation of a special use or benefit to the person in the district
• Tentative subdivision and parcel maps
4.E.c
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Levine Act (7462 : 1st Modification to Agreement with Cotton, Shires & Associates for Geotechnical Engineering Services)
• Zoning variances
• Vacation of a public easement across private property • Pre-applications, such as for General Plan Amendment, considered by the legislative body prior to filing of formal application
• Contracts entered under the City Manager’s Authority
• Closed session items that may result in a contract/settlement agreement approved by Council (real estate or litigation)
It does not apply to:
• Contracts under $50,000
• Contracts where no party receives financial compensation • Contracts between two or more public agencies
• Competitively bid contracts that are required by law, agency policy, or agency rule to be awarded pursuant to a competitive process
• Purely ministerial decisions
• General policy decisions or rules where the interests affected are many and diverse
• Ordinances and resolutions (except items like development agreements adopted by ordinance)
• Ballot measures
• Departmental policies
• Council rules
• Labor contracts and project labor agreements
• Personal employment contracts
• Allocation of resources in the City budget
2. Who is required to disclose?
A “party” to a proceeding is any person who files an application for, or is the subject of, a proceeding. In general, a person or company who applies for a permit, license, or right to use property in a particular way, which requires the City’s discretionary approval, will qualify as a party.
Parties are also required to disclose contributions by their agents. An “agent” is someone who (1) represents a party to a proceeding for compensation; and (2) appears before or otherwise communicates with the City for the purpose of influencing the pending proceeding. This can include law firms, architects, engineers, consultants, and similar entities. Both the individual and their employer or firm are considered “agents.” A party should also disclose contributions of other entities majority owned by the party, as well as contributions of any other entity whose contributions it directs or controls.
3. What must be disclosed?
A party must disclose campaign contributions over $500 made in the prior twelve months.
A “contribution” is anything of value for which the party has not received full consideration, including money, nonmonetary items, payments made for advertising or
4.E.c
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Levine Act (7462 : 1st Modification to Agreement with Cotton, Shires & Associates for Geotechnical Engineering Services)
other expenses coordinated with a candidate or committee, loans, tickets to political fundraisers, etc.
4. Who is considered an officer of the City?
An “officer” is anyone who may make, participate in making, or attempt to influence a decision in the proceeding or who exercises authority over officers who may do so. This includes elected officials, members of appointed boards and commissions, the City Manager, and any individual who is a candidate for elected office or who has been a candidate in the twelve months prior to the decision. This definition is included on the Disclosure Form.
5. When should the disclosure occur?
The Disclosure Form must be completed (1) by a party to a contract with the City (or that party’s agent) at the time the party submits a response to a Request for Proposal or other competitive solicitation, enters into contract negotiations with the City, or executes a contract with the City, whichever is earliest; or (2) by a party to a license, permit, or other entitlement proceeding before the City at the time the party (or their agent) submits the license, permit, or entitlement application to the City. The party (or their agent) must submit a supplemental form if they make any new reportable contributions while the same contract, license, permit, or other entitlement is being considered. The party (or their agent) must also use the form if they need to correct any previously submitted form.
Parties are solely responsible for completing the form accurately, and could face penalties for failure to do so. The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is the body who enforces violations of the Levine Act. If a party is uncertain about whether they are required to report or combine a contribution, they should consult with their attorney.
Nothing herein constitutes legal advice and individuals are urged to consult with their own attorney regarding the requirements of the law. To the extent there is any inconsistency, the language of the Levine Act and FPPC Regulations govern over this notice. Resources for officers, parties, participants, and agents, are available on the FPPC’s website at https://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to-play-limits-and-prohibitions.html
4.E.c
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Levine Act (7462 : 1st Modification to Agreement with Cotton, Shires & Associates for Geotechnical Engineering Services) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.F
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Darrick Jacob, Interim Police Chief, Police Department Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of a Grant from the California Department of Justice for the Tobacco Grant Program Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding that the Tobacco Grant Program is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15321 (Class 21, Enforcement Actions) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;
2. Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the acceptance of a grant awarded in the amount of $138,138 from the California Department of Justice Tobacco Grant Program for the Tobacco Enforcement program at the Police Department, and to accept all grant renewals;
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to accept the grant and all grant renewals; and
4. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report (requires 5 votes).
Summary
The Santa Monica Police Department (“SMPD”) has been awarded a California Department of Justice (“CA DOJ”) Tobacco Grant in the amount of $138,138. SMPD was awarded the grant for the enforcement of tobacco-related state laws and local ordinances, specifically those pertaining to the illegal sales and marketing of tobacco products to minors, and for investigative activities and compliance checks to prevent illegal sales of tobacco products to minors. The 2025-26 Tobacco Grant program would use a combination of education and enforcement strategies, with the goal of stemming the access of tobacco products to youth in Santa Monica. Funds must be used by the end of the grant period, June 30, 2029, and no local match is required.
4.F
Packet Pg. 359
2 of 3
Discussion
The CA DOJ Tobacco Grant is funded and authorized under the California Healthcare Research and Prevention Tobacco Act of 2016. SMPD aims to curb the illegal sales of tobacco to minors and keep youth tobacco free. The Tobacco Grant Program would help SMPD to accomplish this goal by supporting a comprehensive program of enforcement and education strategies. The grant will fund overtime over a 36-month period for officers to implement tobacco enforcement operations and retailer education meetings. SMPD was previously awarded the 2022 Tobacco Grant.
Santa Monica is home to 84 tobacco retailers. The City has received complaints from parents of violations by retailers near schools. In addition, the use of e-cigarettes is a known problem with youth as young as middle school through college-aged youth in Santa Monica. The combination of education and enforcement that this grant program would support would allow Santa Monica PD to gain a better understanding of tobacco usage rates and patterns to better address the problem of youth access to tobacco.
These grant funds would allow SMPD to begin work immediately tackling problematic tobacco retailers, focusing efforts on locations where minors are likely to be present, as well as pushing forward retailers’ education sessions.
Environmental Review
The Tobacco Grant program is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15321 (Class 21 Enforcement Actions) of the CEQA Guidelines. Class 21 consists of actions by regulatory agencies to enforce or revoke a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement or enforcement of a law, general rule, standard, or objective. The Tobacco Grant program would provide for enforcement of tobacco-related state laws and local ordinances, and therefore, is categorically exempt as set forth in Section 15321 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Past Council Actions
4.F
Packet Pg. 360
3 of 3
Meeting Date Description
02/14/2023
(attachment A)
Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of a Grant from the Tobacco Grant Program
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to accept $138,138 from the California Department of Justice for the FY 2025-26 Law Enforcement Tobacco Grant Program.
Approval of the recommended action requires the following budget amendment.
FY 2025-26 Grant Budget Amendment
Establish Revenue Budget Appropriate Funds
Account Number Amount Account Number Amount
20180002.405592 $138,138 20180002.556442.80108 $138,138 Total $138,138 Total $138,138
If modifications or renewals are awarded, budget adjustments will be included in subsequent year budgets, contingent on Council Budget approval.
Prepared By: Kiajett Charles, Administrative Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Staff Report - February 14, 2023 (Web Link)
B. Resolution - Tobacco Grant - 2025
4.F
Packet Pg. 361
1 City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $138,138 FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, TOBACCO LAW
ENFORCEMENT GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica (the “City) desires to participate in the Tobacco Law Enforcement Grant Program, which is authorized under the California Healthcare Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016 (Prop. 56) and administered by the California Department of Justice to support the reduction of the illegal sale of tobacco products to minors in the City, and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2025, the City submitted its proposal for the Program, and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2025, the California Department of Justice notified the City that it will be awarded $138,138 in grant funds for its participation in the Program for three years, and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Justice requires that the Santa Monica City Council expressly authorize, by way of resolution, the City’s participation in the Program and receipt of the grant funds through the execution of an agreement with the State of California.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
4.F.b
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Resolution - Tobacco Grant - 2025 (7467 : TOBACCO GRANT 2025) 2 SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Monica authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and execute any agreements and amendments thereto with the State of California to accept a grant from the California Department of Justice, in the amount of $138,138, for the City’s participation in the Tobacco Law Enforcement Grant Program.
SECTION 2. The grant funds received hereunder shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by the City Council.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Heidi von Tongeln, Interim City Attorney
4.F.b
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Resolution - Tobacco Grant - 2025 (7467 : TOBACCO GRANT 2025) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.G
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Anuj Gupta, Director of Transportation, Department of Transportation, Finance & Administrative Services
Subject: Receive and File Short Range Transit Plan and Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to File the FY 2026–2028 Short Range Transit Plan with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and Execute Related Grant Agreements.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15262 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
2. Authorize the City Manager to file the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-2028 Short Range Transportation Plan (SRTP) with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro);
3. Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to: (a) apply for and execute grant agreements and execute related certifications and assurances with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Metro, and other Federal, State, Regional or Local agencies; and (b) enter into agreements for transportation funds for the pass-through of funds and agreements for planning, programming, and implementing transportation services and capital projects during FY2025-26 through FY2027-28.
Summary
The Santa Monica Department of Transportation (DOT) staff requests City Council authorization to file the FY2026-2028 Short Range Transportation Plan (SRTP) with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency. Filing the report ensures DOT remains eligible to receive Federal, State and Local transit funds. The SRTP is a planning document that summarizes recent accomplishments and provides a three-year action plan for service and capital improvements, and the corresponding estimated values for planning
4.G
Packet Pg. 364
2 of 4
purposes. Priorities for this period include funding and implementation of pedestrian and bikeway safety improvements, Big Blue Bus fleet electrification, bus lanes, and increasing ridership by improving service quality and customer experience. Staff also requests that Council adopt the attached resolution providing the necessary authorization to file grant applications, execute grant agreements, and enter into agreements associated with funding, planning, programming, and implementing transportation services and capital projects.
Discussion
Short-Range Transportation Plan (SRTP)
DOT is required by the Transportation Development Act (TDA) of 1971 to file a SRTP to remain eligible for Federal, State, and Regional transit funding. The proposed SRTP financial forecast is based on a combination of the share of Metro’s county-wide formula-based allocation of transit funds and Big Blue Bus’s (BBB) projected operational needs. For FY 2025-26, the estimated formula allocation of operating funds (TDA, STA, SB1, Prop. A 40%, Measure R 20%, Measure M 20%, Prop. C-Security, Foothill Mitigation, and BSIP) is $70.2 million, and non-formula allocation (Prop. A Local Return) is $600,000. Local operating revenues (passenger fares, advertising, interest, lease, and special transit services revenues) are estimated at $12.6 million.
Grant Authorization
Staff requests that Council authorize the City Manager to file grant applications as transportation-related funding opportunities become available. If funds are approved, the City Manager would have the authority to execute grant agreements with Federal, State, regional and local transit, or transportation-related funds, as approved or programmed. Authority would also be given to the City Manager to execute and file certifications and assurances as they related to grant programs, compliance, and project implementation. The authorization would designate the Director of the Department of Transportation as an authorized agent to file, execute, and certify grant agreements as necessary. These authorities would allow the City to expedite its annual grant applications and participate in unanticipated one-time grant opportunities.
Potential funding agencies include, but are not limited to, FTA and other federal agencies, Metro, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the
4.G
Packet Pg. 365
3 of 4
Department of Homeland Security, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other state and regional agencies.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
1/10/2023
(attachment A)
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for and Execute Related Grant Agreements, and
Receive and File Short Range Transit Plan
Environmental Review
The SRTP is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15262 exempts feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the City has not approved, adopted, or funded. The SRTP will provide planning guidance for the next three years for transit operations, and any future capital improvements identified in the plan would be subject to environmental review (as applicable) when they are proposed. Therefore, the SRTP is categorically exempt from CEQA.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.
Prepared By: Enny Chung, Principal Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for and Execute Related Grant Agreements, and Receive and File Short Range Transit Plan (Web Link)
4.G
Packet Pg. 366
4 of 4
B. BBB Grant Resolution_FY26_final
C. FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final
4.G
Packet Pg. 367
1 City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO FILE THE FY 2025-26 THROUGH FY 2027-28 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE CLAIM; TO SUBMIT GRANT APPLICATIONS
AND TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE GRANT AGREEMENTS AND OTHER
TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE SHORT RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR FY 2025-26 THROUGH FY 2027-28.
WHEREAS, Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 65080) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code authorizes the City Council to file a Short Range Transportation Plan with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Resolution Number 11491 (CCS), the City filed its Short Range Transit Plan for FY 2022-23 through FY 2024-25 (formerly known as Short Range Transit Plan) with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority on or about January 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to apply for grants in furtherance of the Short Range Transportation Plan and to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and to enter into grant agreements and other transportation agreements in furtherance of its Short Range Transportation Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
4.G.b
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: BBB Grant Resolution_FY26_final [Revision 4] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short Range Transportation Plan) 2 SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Monica is authorized to file the FY 2025-26 through FY 2027-28 Transportation Development Act and State Transit Assistance claim with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority in furtherance of its Short Range Transportation Plan.
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Santa Monica authorizes the City Manager to file grant applications in furtherance of the Short Range Transportation Plan and to negotiate and execute grant agreements to accept federal, state, regional, and local transportation related funds, and to execute and to file related certifications and assurances for grant programs, compliance and project implementation consistent with the Short Range Transportation Plan. The funding agencies may include the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the State Department of Homeland Security, the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES), and the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), among others.
SECTION 3. The City Manager is also authorized to negotiate and to execute agreements for transportation funds for planning, programming and implementing transportation services and capital projects for Fiscal Year 2025-26 through FY 2027-28 in accordance with the Short Range Transportation Plan, and for subgrantee agreements for the pass-through of such funds in accordance with said Short Range Transportation Plan. The agreements may include, but are not limited to, agreements with Metro, SCAQMD, FTA, CalTrans, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Access Services, Providence St. John's Hospital, UCLA, Santa Monica College, nonprofit institutions, and other federal, state, local and regional entities for the purpose of planning,
4.G.b
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: BBB Grant Resolution_FY26_final [Revision 4] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short Range Transportation Plan) 3 programming funds, and implementing transportation services and capital projects for the residents of the City of Santa Monica and the greater Los Angeles area.
SECTION 4. The City Manager is also authorized to negotiate and to execute transportation program revenue agreements with institutions, local agencies, and businesses for funds generated during FY 2025-26 through FY 2027-28 in furtherance of the Short Range Transportation Plan.
SECTION 5. The City Manager is also authorized to designate the Department Head of Department of Transportation to file grant applications in furtherance of the Short Range Transportation Plan and to negotiate and execute grant agreements to accept federal, state, regional, and local transportation related funds, and to execute and to file related certifications and assurances for grant programs, compliance and project implementation as deemed appropriate. The funding agencies may include the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the State Department of Homeland Security, the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES), and the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), among others.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Heidi von Tongeln
Interim City Attorney
4.G.b
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: BBB Grant Resolution_FY26_final [Revision 4] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short Range Transportation Plan) lan
Santa Monica Department
of Transportation
Short Range
Transportation P
FY 2025-27
Packet P
This Short Range
Transportation Plan (SRTP)
update is prepared in
accordance with the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority
(Metro) and Federal Transit
Administration (FTA)
planning requirements.
2 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short Table of Contents
MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR...................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 5 SECTION I: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(MOBILITY, PARKING, TRANSIT)...................................................................................... 7 MOBILITY DIVISION ............................................................................................................... 8 Recent Projects .............................................................................................................9 Planned Technology Improvements .................................................................9 PARKING DIVISION............................................................................................................... 10 Recent Projects .............................................................................................................11 Upcoming Initiatives ...................................................................................................11 TRANSIT DIVISION ............................................................................................................... 12 ROUTE INFORMATION........................................................................................................ 13 SERVICE AREA, MAPS & SCHEDULES .......................................................................... 13 SERVICE CHANGES SINCE LAST SRTP........................................................................ 14 PLANNED SERVICE CHANGES........................................................................................ 15 Brighter Blue Five-Year Service Plan ............................................................... 16 Transit Service Guidelines ..................................................................................... 18 FIFA World Cup 26 and LA28 Olympic and Paralympic Games ...... 19 FLEET AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS....................................................................... 20 Bus Purchases.............................................................................................................. 21 SB1 State of Good Repair........................................................................................ 21 Zero Emissions Infrastructure Master Plan.................................................. 22 IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES ......................................................... 23 Automated Bus Lane Enforcement................................................................. 24 Computer Aided Dispatch/Automatic Vehicle Locator ...................... 24 Modernized Onboard Safety and Video Recording System ............. 25 Vehicle and Operator Scheduling System................................................... 26 Optimizing Resource Management ............................................................... 26 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT......................................................................... 28 REGIONAL COORDINATION .......................................................................................... 29 REDUCING PASSENGER TRAVEL TIME ....................................................................... 30 IMPROVING CUSTOMER INFORMATION SERVICES ............................................. 32 IMPROVING PASSENGER TRAVEL EXPERIENCE & SAFETY............................... 34 Fare Programs and Payment Innovations................................................... 35 Better Blue Bus Stops Program.......................................................................... 36 Safety and Security.................................................................................................. 37 Community Engagement .................................................................................... 39 SECTION II: TRANSIT FINANCIAL & OPERATIONAL TABLES ............................. 41 TABLE L-1: CURRENT FARE STRUCTURE FY2026 ................................................... 42 TABLE L-2: FLEET INVENTORY ........................................................................................ 43 TABLE L-3: HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED FLEET CHARACTERISTICS........ 44 TABLE L-4: HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED FINANCIAL STATUS ..................... 45 TABLE L-5: TRANSIT PERFORMANCE MEASURES REPORT............................... 47 TABLE L-6: PERFOMANCE AUDIT FOLLOW-UP...................................................... 48 TABLE L-7: FY2025-27 SUMMARY OF CAPITAL PROJECTS ............................ 49 3 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
MESSAGE FROM
THE DIRECTOR
The Santa Monica Department of Transportation is redefining mobility across the region by promoting safe, reliable, convenient, sustainable, and accessible travel options for all.
We are committed to building a transportation network that advances community needs and values, guided by innovation and excellence in planning, design, user experience,
sustainability, and safety.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, we have reimagined our Big Blue Bus system to make every journey seamless and
welcoming, ensuring our services can support major events such as the 2026 FIFA World Cup, 2027 Super Bowl, and the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games. We are strengthening our operations to meet today’s demands and future
challenges—increasing service frequency and connections, improving systemwide safety, electrifying our fleet, and enhancing rider amenities like seating, shading, and onboard Wi-Fi.
Looking ahead, we will focus on protecting and empowering all who rely on our system to access opportunities—and we
encourage you to join us in shaping a transit experience that works better for everyone.
Anuj Gupta | Director
Santa Monica
Department of Transportation
4 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short
INTRODUCTION
The Santa Monica Department of Transportation (SMDOT) is a department of the City of Santa Monica, governed by the City’s seven-member City Council. Established in 2020, SMDOT combines Big Blue Bus with the City’s Mobility and Parking Divisions to provide a more coordinated and comprehensive approach to transportation.
Transit Division
Santa Monica’s public transit service began in 1928 with a twelve-mile route linking the Civic Center and beach area to Central Los Angeles via Pico Boulevard. Originally known as the Santa Monica Municipal Bus Lines and later adopting the official name of Big Blue Bus in 1997, the system now operates 17 routes and delivers more than 10 million passenger trips annually.
5 Mobility Division
The Mobility Division leads citywide
transportation planning, policies and
programs in collaboration with the
public to support a multi-modal
community. The Division works to
ensure a safe transportation
network for people of all ages,
abilities, and incomes while
advancing healthier, more
sustainable travel. Its efforts include
roadway safety enhancements,
traffic signal operations, demand
management, innovative mobility
programs, and private property
development review.
DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short Together, Big Blue Bus, Mobility
and Parking deliver an integrated
transportation system that
expands travel choices,
manages demand, and
enhances quality of life for Santa
Monica and the Westside region.
6 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
Parking Division
The Parking Division oversees 5,800
on-street parking meters and 42 facilities,
ensuring efficient operations, financial
accountability, and customer service
while supporting broader mobility goals.
The Parking Division also administers
citation processing, merchant and
employee validation programs, and
special event parking. Through innovative
technology, data analytics, and
regulatory compliance, the Division
safeguards parking assets and enhances
access for the community.
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short Department of Transportation
MOBILITY, PARKING, TRANSIT
SECTION I
7 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short
MOBILITY
DIVISION
SMDOT continually evaluates opportunities to
enhance city streets so people walking, biking,
riding transit, driving or scooting can travel safely
and comfortably. These investments provide
meaningful quality-of-life benefits with
protected bike lanes shown to reduce rider
injuries by up to 90%.
For all major projects, the Mobility Division
conducts robust community outreach to
incorporate local perspectives alongside
empirical data such as collision statistics, traffic
volumes, and speeds. Designed to be inclusive
and lower barriers to participation, our outreach
efforts have included bilingual meetings, open
houses with snacks and childcare, pop-ups at
neighborhood events, focus groups, walk audits,
and in-street project demonstrations. Feedback
is collected in person and online through
map-based surveys and email.
8 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short Recent Mobility Projects Planned Technology Improvements Pedestrian Improvements at Six
Schools
Enhanced safety near six elementary
schools with curb extensions,
ADA-compliant ramps, a flashing
beacon, landscaping, and refreshed
crosswalk striping
Michigan Avenue and 20th Street
Bike and Pedestrian Connection
Extended the Michigan Avenue
Neighborhood Greenway east from
19th Court to 21st Street, including a
new mixed-use pathway,
enhancements over the 20th Street
Bridge with a separate pedestrian path
and a two-way protected bike lane,
pedestrian-scale lighting, fencing, and
landscaping
Bike lane enforcement cameras will be installed on up to seven parking enforcement vehicles, with deployment planned in FY2026. An automated curb management system is also in the planning stage via a Request for Information. The system will integrate video and sensor technologies, data collection, and payment or enforcement tools to support smart curbs and loading zones, improve curbside access, and reduce unsafe blockages of red curbs, bike lanes, and center left-turn lanes.
The Division aims to identify, procure, and deploy this technology by FY2027.
9 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short
PARKING
DIVISION
SMDOT’s Parking Division continues to modernize
Santa Monica’s parking system to improve
customer convenience, safeguard revenues, and
support the City’s broader transportation and
mobility goals. Through targeted investments in
technology, infrastructure, and customer
focused strategies, the Division is enhancing the
overall parking experience while aligning parking
policies with the City’s evolving mobility priorities.
The Parking Division manages a citywide parking
system that includes approximately 5,800 on
street parking meters and 42 off street public
parking facilities located in Downtown Santa
Monica, beach areas, and other key destinations.
The division focuses on providing safe,
accessible, and well-maintained facilities,
supporting efficient circulation and ensuring
compliance with regulatory requirements,
including coordination with the California
Coastal Commission on beach access and
parking.
10 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short License Plate Recognition (LPR)
Implementation
Deployment of LPR systems in 10
City-owned downtown structures will
streamline entry and exit, reduce
congestion, and improve payment
compliance. The system also
enhances public safety by enabling the
Santa Monica Police Department to
identify stolen vehicles, stolen plates,
and missing persons.
Parking Rate Study
Beginning in Summer 2024, staff and a
consultant evaluated all City-owned lots,
structures, meters, and permits. The
proposed updates, presented to City
Council in August 2025, simplify parking
rates to ensure consistency and fairness
while incorporating new meter
technology to improve management
and efficiency.
Recent Parking Projects Upcoming Initiatives
Parking Facility Tax (Measure K)
Approved by voters in November 2024, this measure raised the City’s Parking Facility Tax on privately operated lots and structures by 8%, for a total rate of 18%. The increase is projected to generate approximately $6.7 million annually to support vital City services and projects.
Facility Improvements
The stairways and landing areas in Parking Structures 4 and 5 are being resurfaced with durable, waterproof resin to improve safety, functionality, and overall appearance.
User-friendly Payment Options
Modern solutions such as text-to-pay and scan-to-pay are being introduced at facilities and meters to expand customer choice, increase accessibility, and reduce operational costs associated with equipment and supplies.
11 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short
TRANSIT DIVISION
Big Blue Bus (BBB) is the primary provider of local
fixed-route transit service for the City of Santa Monica and surrounding Los Angeles communities including
Pacific Palisades, West Los Angeles, Brentwood,
Westwood, Palms, Mar Vista, Cheviot Hills, Mid-City,
Westchester, Marina del Rey, Venice, and Playa Vista.
BBB also provides regional connections to the Los
Angeles International Airport (LAX), Metro Rail's A, C, D, E, and K lines, as well as Metrolink and Amtrak intercity services.
In addition to serving key employment and residential
centers, BBB plays a vital role in supporting major
educational institutions, including the University of
California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Santa Monica College
(SMC), and Santa Monica High School, by providing
students, faculty, and staff with safe, reliable, and
sustainable access to campus.
Since its inception, BBB has continuously adapted its
services to meet changing travel patterns across the
Mobility On Demand Every Day
SMDOT also operates the Mobility On Demand
Every Day (MODE) program, an on-demand,
supplemental paratransit service for Santa
Monica residents aged 65 or older, or 18 and
over with a disability. MODE offers greater
flexibility and convenience than traditional
dial-a-ride services, by leveraging
transportation network companies such as Lyft
to provide on-demand trips for both ambulatory
and non-ambulatory riders. Customers can
request rides directly through a mobile app or
by calling the call center.
DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
region. Today, the agency operates 17 routes across
approximately 58 square miles, providing more than 10
million rides annually.
12 4.G.c
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short
ROUTE INFORMATION
BBB operates 17 fixed routes serving the Westside of Los Angeles County. These routes are organized into three main service categories:
Category Network Role Routes
LOCAL Provides fixed route service along major and secondary corridors and serves larger local destinations and intermodal connections.
1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 41,
43, 44
RAPID Provides limited-stop fixed route service between destinations of strong regional importance.
R12
COMMUTER Augments the local network with additional peak-hour fixed route service to key destinations.
R10
SERVICE AREA, MAPS & SCHEDULES
See Routes & Schedules for a complete detailed description of the current schedules of BBB routes. 13 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short The following table summarizes recent changes to all routes as of August 2025:
SERVICE
CHANGES
SINCE
LAST SRTP
Since the last SRTP, several route
adjustments have been made to
restore service to pre-COVID levels
and advance the Brighter Blue
Five-Year Service Plan, a
comprehensive initiative focused
on enhancing frequency,
expanding hours, and improving
regional connections.
See “Planned Service Changes”
section for additional details.
Route Change since last SRTP
1 No changes
2 Minor re-route
3 Route 3 was rerouted in June 2025 to serve the new LAX/Metro Transit Center, which provides connections to Metro Rail's C and K lines as well as several other buses. The new route results in discontinued service south of Century Blvd. and to Metro Rail's Aviation/Imperial C Line Station.
R3 Service discontinued in August 2025 and replaced with increased Route 3 service
5 No changes
7 Service frequency increased to every 7.5-10 minutes on weekdays R7 Service discontinued in August 2025 and replaced with increased Route 7 service
8 Minor re-route
9 Service was temporarily suspended due to Palisades Fire in January 2025 and reinstated at reduced service levels in August 2025 R10 No changes
R12 Increased frequency to 10-11 minutes all day on weekdays 14 Weekday frequency changed to every 15 minutes, and southern terminus re-routed from Metro Rail's Westchester/Veterans K Line Station to the Culver City Transit Center
15 No changes
16 Extended to Playa Del Rey
17 Weekday frequency increased to every 15 minutes, with earlier and later operating hours
18 No changes
41 No changes
42 Service discontinued in July 2024
43 Service span was increased on weekdays and weekends during midday and evenings, and service was extended to Downtown Santa Monica via 4th Street in August 2025
44 Service was reduced to every 20 minutes and re-routed to serve Santa Monica College’s Performing Arts Center
14 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short
PLANNED SERVICE
CHANGES
Brighter Blue Five-Year Service Plan
Transit Service Guidelines
FIFA World Cup 26 and LA28 Olympic and
Paralympic Games
15 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short beginning to experience the following enhancements:
More frequent service
on most routes,
including a high
frequency network with
weekday service every
10 minutes or better on
select corridors during
peak hours
Brighter Blue Five-Year Service Plan
In July 2024, the City Council adopted BBB's
Brighter Blue Five-Year Service Plan. The plan aims
to provide riders with fast, sustainable, and reliable
access to jobs, healthcare, education and other
essential services, while delivering a world-class
transit experience for major events, including the
2026 FIFA World Cup and 2028 Summer Olympics.
Brighter Blue responds to post-pandemic travel behavior and a rapidly growing regional rail network. Based on a comprehensive analysis of current services and an 18-month community and stakeholder outreach effort, riders are Expanded operating Improved connectivity
hours, with most routes to key destinations, such
starting earlier, ending as the LAX/Metro
later, and running on Transit Center, Culver
weekends City Transit Center and
the Metro Rail D Line
extension
16 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short Brighter Blue Five-Year Service Plan
Implementation of Brighter Blue is occurring over a five-year period and depends on continued hiring and training of motor coach operators, developing timetables, installing new bus stops, and public communication. Some changes also rely on the timely opening of new Metro Rail stations. All enhancements are tentatively scheduled for completion by 2027, coinciding with the extension of the Metro Rail D Line to Westwood/VA Hospital Station.
A tentative implementation plan is outlined below:
Implemented
Change(s):
Changes
impacted by the
opening of the
LAX/Transit
Center
Routes:
3, R3, 14
Implemented
Change(s):
Changes to SMC
serving routes
Routes:
5, 7, R7, E7, 9, 16,
41, 42, 43, 44
Proposed
Change(s):
Changes to
UCLA serving
routes
Routes:
1, 2, 8, R12, 17, 18
Proposed
Change(s):
Changes
impacted by the
opening of the
Westwood/VA
Hospital D Line
Station
Routes:
2, 14, 15, 16
Proposed
Change(s):
Remaining
frequency and
expanded
service hour
changes (if any)
Routes:
TBD
December
2024
August
2025
August
2026
August
2027 2028
See the Brighter Blue Five-Year Service Plan for additional information. 17 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short In March 2025, the Santa Monica City Council approved
updated Transit Service Guidelines, formerly known as
the “Big Blue Bus Service, Design, Performance and
Evaluation Guidelines.” The revisions include updated
service frequency, span of service, bus stop amenity
placement standards and a route-by-route analysis to
identify Title VI routes.
The updated guidelines specify start and end times for
local, commuter and rapid routes, with recommended
service spans tailored to high- and low- ridership
corridors. Standardized frequencies were replaced with
frequency ranges that set minimums, maximums, and
goals, enabling service to better respond to passenger
demand.
Transit Service Guidelines
DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
These guidelines are consistent
with the goals of the Brighter Blue
Five-Year Service Plan.
18 See the Transit Service Guidelines
for additional information
4.G.c
Attachment: FY26
FY28 SRTP
digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short FIFA World Cup 26 and LA28
Olympic and Paralympic Games
Many service improvements under the Brighter Blue
Five-Year Service Plan are designed to support regional transit needs as Los Angeles welcomes the world for
both the FIFA World Cup 26 and the LA28 Olympic and
Paralympic Games. Enhancements include increased
frequency and extended service spans, particularly on
key routes that provide access to venues and new rail
stations.
BBB is also participating in regional coordination with Metro and other stakeholders to align resources and
operations during these events. These megaevents
present opportunities to further enhance service
through funding or transit improvements, such as
dedicated bus lanes, to better serve the region’s
transportation needs.
19 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
Packet P
FLEET AND
FACILITY
IMPROVEMENTS
Bus Purchases
SB1 State of Good Repair
Zero-Emission Infrastructure Master Plan
20 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short 21 Fleet & Facility
Improvements
Bus Purchases
BBB continues to advance capital improvements in
line with its Fleet Management Plan and long-term
sustainability goals, with bus replacements ongoing
as funding allows. Fifteen Gillig 35-foot battery
electric buses were recently accepted and placed
into service, increasing the battery electric fleet to
34 buses or 18% of the total fleet. In May 2025, BBB
executed a contract modification with Gillig to
purchase an additional thirty 40-foot battery
electric buses, scheduled for delivery in early 2027.
SB1 State of Good Repair
Senate Bill (SB) 1, the Road Repair and
Accountability Act of 2017, provides formula funds
through two programs: State of Good Repair (SGR)
and State Transit Assistance. SGR funds support
transit capital projects, including bus replacements
and related improvements. BBB anticipates
receiving approximately $1.6 million annually from
SB1 SGR for these projects.
DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short Zero-Emission Infrastructure Master Plan
In October 2019, BBB launched
development of its Zero-Emission
Infrastructure Master Plan to guide the
transition of its operations and facilities
to a fully zero-emission fleet by 2030.
The Plan outlines key milestones and
infrastructure upgrades over the next
decade.
Final design for Phases 2 through 5 were
completed in March 2025, and as of
November 2025, BBB has awarded the
contract for construction of new electric
bus charging infrastructure.
Groundbreaking is anticipated in Spring
2026, with planned upgrades including
gantry structures, charging dispensers,
and electrical switchgear.
BBB is also rehabilitating its
Administration Building, which includes
seismic retrofitting to enhance
structural safety and resilience.
22 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short
IMPLEMENTATION OF
NEW TECHNOLOGIES
Automated Bus Lane Enforcement (ABLE)
Computer Aided Dispatch/Automatic Vehicle Locator
Modernized Onboard Safety and Video Recording
System
Vehicle and Operator Scheduling System
Optimizing Resource Management
23 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short Automated Bus Lane Enforcement (ABLE)
In 2025, SMDOT, in coordination with the Santa Monica Police Department, officially launched the Automated Bus Lane and Bus Stop Enforcement (ABLE) program, authorized under California Assembly Bill 917 (AB 917, 2021). This legislation permits transit agencies to use forward-facing cameras on buses to enforce parking violations in bus lanes and at bus stops.
The ABLE program utilizes two front-facing cameras mounted inside BBB vehicles, equipped with license plate recognition technology, to automatically detect and record illegally parked vehicles. To date, ten buses have been outfitted with the system.
ABLE improves reliability and on-time performance by keeping buses unimpeded, enhances safety by reducing lane merging and allows passengers to board directly at the curb. By discouraging illegal use of bus lanes and stops, the program advances BBB’s commitment to an efficient, equitable, and sustainable transit system while supporting the City’s broader goals for clean streets and safe neighborhoods through investment in a high-quality, multimodal transportation network.
24 Computer Aided Dispatch/
Automatic Vehicle Locator
(CAD/AVL) System
A new CAD/AVL system, deployed in phases
since early 2022, provides real-time bus
tracking, dispatch, communication, and
reporting tools. Operations fully transitioned
to the new vendor by late 2024, including
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
communications, eliminating radio tower
maintenance and leasing, and consolidating
NTD reporting and schedule adherence. Full
adoption and contract sign-off is expected
in 2026.
DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short Modernized Onboard Safety and Video Recording System
BBB is piloting a next-generation onboard video
recording and network management system
on two buses to assess performance, reliability,
and operational benefits prior to a fleet rollout.
The system introduces several advancements,
including high-definition cameras with
continuous recording, integrated audio capture,
and secure wireless data transfer. Network
connectivity enables authorized safety and
operations staff to remotely access and
download video footage, eliminating the need
to physically retrieve storage devices.
In emergencies, the system also supports live
video and audio streaming, enhancing
situational awareness and improving
coordination with law enforcement and first
responders. This capability strengthens BBB’s
commitment to passenger and operator safety
while improving incident response and
investigative efficiency.
Based on the results of the pilot, BBB plans to
competitively procure and implement such a
system fleetwide, replacing legacy onboard
video equipment and ensuring modern,
scalable, and consistent safety infrastructure
across all buses.
25 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
Packet P
BBB plans to issue a Request for Proposals in
2026 to procure a new vehicle and operator
scheduling system. The current system, last
procured in 2011 and only minimally updated
since, no longer meets evolving operational
needs. Replacing it with modern technology
will provide planning and operations staff
with improved tools to design and manage
service more efficiently and effectively.
Vehicle and Operator
Scheduling System
Optimizing Resource Management
BBB leverages technology to improve efficiency, track assets, and reduce lifecycle costs across its operations. The CAD/AVL system provides real-time vehicle location data, while the Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) software monitors
maintenance and fueling for all City of Santa Monica vehicles, enabling staff to calculate the total cost per mile of operation.
BBB continues to integrate and enhance these tools to
strengthen asset tracking and bus stop management.
26 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short 27 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
BBB plans to upgrade the Trapeze EMS system
in 2026 to strengthen preventative
maintenance, streamline repairs and fueling,
and reduce lifecycle costs.
BBB upgraded the Genfare system with new hardware
and software, including the Cashlink cloud-hosted
revenue reporting platform to improve data accuracy,
security, and reliability. Fareboxes were also programmed to accept QR-coded mobile tickets, expediting boarding
and improving mobile ticketing data quality.
EAM Software Upgrades Fare Collection System
Enhancements
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short
AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT
Following its FY2024 FTA Triennial Review, BBB
was found to be in full compliance with all
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements. The entire fleet is equipped with
low-floor kneeling capability, ramps,
wheelchair securement areas, clear signage,
and automated voice annunciators to assist
riders with visual impairments. Stop
announcements are made both inside the bus
and externally for waiting passengers. All new
and replacement vehicles will continue to be
fully ADA-compliant.
BBB is also a member agency of Access
Services, Inc., the county-wide
ADA-mandated complementary paratransit
service for Los Angeles County. BBB staff
actively contributes to Access Services’ Transit
Professionals Advisory Committee and
currently serves as Chair.
28 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short
REGIONAL
COORDINATION
BBB collaborates closely with Los Angeles Metro and
other municipal transit agencies to ensure seamless and efficient transit service across the region. Through these partnerships, BBB advances shared goals such as
reducing passenger travel times, improving access to
real-time information, optimizing resource
management, and exploring joint procurements.
BBB supports these efforts through active participation in the following regional programs and working groups:
Bus Rapid Transit Service Metro Transit Security
Working Group
Metro Bus Operations
Subcommittee
Metro Technical Advisory
Committee
Metro Westside Central
Service Sector Council
Transit Access Pass (TAP)
Operating Group
Westside Cities Council of
Governments
Coordinated Real-Time
Transit Information
Program
29 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short 30 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
REDUCING PASSENGER TRAVEL TIME
Through the Brighter Blue initiative and ongoing analyses, BBB has identified several key corridors for targeted travel time improvements. Most efforts require coordination with regional partners and present unique challenges:
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short 4th Street
(Downtown Santa Monica)
Seven BBB routes operate along
portions of 4th Street, all connecting to
Metro Rail’s Downtown Santa Monica E
Line Station. Adding bus-only lanes
would significantly improve reliability
and travel times for riders in this
corridor.
Lincoln Boulevard
(Venice and Marina del Rey)
In coordination with Caltrans, BBB is
advancing peak-hour bus-only lanes
in Venice, scheduled for installation in
2026. These will add one mile to the
existing bus-only lanes on Lincoln
Boulevard in Santa Monica.
Pico Boulevard
(Santa Monica and Los Angeles)
BBB’s busiest corridor faces design
tradeoffs. In Santa Monica, bus-only
lanes would require removing a travel
lane or the median. However, in Los
Angeles, Pico’s designation as part of
the High Injury Network under Measure
HLA creates opportunities for transit
enhancements, which BBB continues to
pursue in coordination with the Los
Angeles Department of Transportation
(LADOT) and other partners.
Santa Monica Boulevard
(West Los Angeles to Westwood)
BBB is working with Caltrans to
implement peak-hour bus-only lanes
between Centinela Avenue and
Sepulveda Boulevard, targeted for
completion in 2026. The project also
includes bus stop re-spacing and
safety upgrades. A separate study is
exploring the feasibility of extending
lanes west to 26th Street within the
City of Santa Monica.
Westwood Boulevard
(Westwood/Rancho Park Metro
E-Line Station to UCLA)
This heavily used corridor serves
multiple transit agencies in addition to
five BBB routes. With Metro Rail's D
Line extension expected to open in
2027, BBB is advocating for 24-hour
bus lanes between Wilshire Boulevard
and LeConte Avenue, along with
additional enhancements south to the
Westwood/Rancho Park E Line
Station.
Wilshire Boulevard
(West Los Angeles to Westwood)
While bus-only lanes already exist
along this corridor, enforcement has
historically been inconsistent. Since AB
917 (2021) authorized camera-based
enforcement, Metro has increased
roadway monitoring, leading to
reduced unauthorized parking and
improved reliability for BBB’s Route 2.
BBB is also coordinating with LADOT to
expand its ABLE program into Los
Angeles, which would further
strengthen compliance and travel
time reliability.
31 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short
IMPROVING
CUSTOMER
INFORMATION
SERVICES
BBB has significantly expanded its communication
channels to make transit information more accurate,
accessible, and sustainable.
Digital Platforms
BBB offers a
mobile-responsive website
with trip-planning tools that
integrate with real-time
partners such as Swiftly and
Google Maps. Real-time
arrival predictions also feed
into third-party apps,
voice/text systems, and bus
stop displays, ensuring
consistency across channels.
Onboard and Stop-Based Information
High-definition onboard screens provide
next-stop announcements, route details, and
weather updates. Free Wi-Fi is also available
on all buses. In 2023, SMDOT partnered with
stakeholders to integrate transit location and
arrival predictions into a new network of
interactive digital kiosks throughout
Downtown Santa Monica, further expanding
access to real-time information.
32 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short Real-Time Alerts
Service disruptions such
as detours or
added/cancelled trips
are now communicated
more efficiently through
the new CAD/AVL
platform, which pushes
consistent updates
across the BBB website,
third-party apps, and bus
stop displays.
Rider Guide and System Map
Since 2015, BBB has consolidated its
route schedules into the award-winning
Little Blue Book Transit Guide (LBB). The
guide is updated two to three times
annually and includes maps, fare
information, and rider resources.
Large-format system maps also
highlight current routes and future
regional rail connections.
Language Access Services
BBB has refined the tone, design, and formatting of its customer materials to improve readability,
accessibility, and consistency. Efforts include the use of clear language, consistent fonts and colors, bilingual English and Spanish materials, and inclusive outreach
strategies that help customers easily understand
service information and policy updates.
In support of its Limited English Proficiency Plan, BBB also provides translation and interpretation services in more than 200 languages. Information about these
services, along with Title VI protections, is displayed onboard vehicles and online, ensuring riders are aware
of available language assistance and can access
transit information equitably.
33 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short
IMPROVING
PASSENGER TRAVEL
EXPERIENCE & SAFETY
Fare Programs and Payment Innovations
Better Blue Bus Stops Program
Safety and Security
Community Engagement
34 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
Fare Programs and Payment Innovations
BBB also continues to expand fare payment options. The agency participates in the regional TAP system, offers mobile ticketing through apps such as Transit and Google, and plans to introduce open payment technology in 2026, enabling customers to pay directly with credit or debit cards at fare validators.
Affordability remains a cornerstone of BBB’s customer experience strategy. The agency participates in several regional programs, including:
Low-Income Fare is Easy (LIFE)
Free or discounted fares for low-income residents in Los Angeles County
GoPass U-Pass/BruinGO
Free rides for K-12 and Free or reduced fares for college community college students students, including UCLA
E-Pass Any Line Any Time
Employer-sponsored free rides Free transit for Santa Monica for workers College staff and faculty
35 4.G.c
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short
Better Blue Bus Stops Program
Improving customer experience at the bus stop level is a key priority for BBB. Following a comprehensive review of all 935 stops to assess ADA compliance, safety, lighting, shade, seating, and real time information, BBB has begun targeted upgrades to address identified needs and rider feedback. These improvements include:
compact
“Simme seats”
to add seating
at smaller
stops
solar-powered
lights at bus
stops
40 real-time
digital signs,
with 125 more
solar-powered
signs planned
226
new small
shelters with
shade and
solar-powered
lighting
10 70
Complementing these investments, BBB has
also launched an Adopt-A-Stop volunteer
program that engages community members,
businesses, and organizations to help maintain
bus stops through light cleaning, condition
monitoring, and issue reporting. The program
strengthens community stewardship, enhances
stop cleanliness and safety, and offers
participants incentives such as free transit rides
and branded merchandise. Together, these
efforts reinforce BBB’s commitment to a safe,
accessible, and welcoming transit system while
fostering shared responsibility between the
agency and the community it serves.
See the Better Blue Bus Stops Program for additional information. 36 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short The Department of Homeland Security has
designated BBB as a Tier 1 Agency, qualifying
the agency for federal funding to strengthen
safety at facilities, transit hubs, and transfer
points such as the Downtown Santa Monica
Transit Mall. A series of assessments,
including a Threat and Vulnerability
Assessment (2017) and Targeted Baseline
Assessments (2018-2019), identified
opportunities to enhance preparedness and
response. BBB continues to work closely with
the Santa Monica Police Department and
transit operators across Los Angeles County
to align security strategies and best
practices.
In recent years, BBB has modernized its
security systems by installing automated
gates with cameras, expanding solar lighting
at bus stops, and planning fleetwide
replacement of onboard video and recording
systems. Building on these investments, the
Transit Safety Officer (TSO) Program was
launched in March 2024, deploying unarmed
guards to ride buses and patrol stops. TSOs
serve as visible deterrents to crime, support
operators and assist during incidents.
Safety and Security
37 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
Packet P
38 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
BBB also maintains strong partnerships with local law
enforcement and first responder agencies to ensure
passenger and employee safety. These collaborations
include joint de-escalation and situational awareness
training for Motor Coach Operators, targeted
enforcement in areas of concern, and coordinated
emergency preparedness exercises. Specialized
training scenarios with units such as SWAT allow law
enforcement to practice response protocols for
critical incidents, including hijackings and bomb
threats. Through these proactive efforts, BBB
strengthens its ability to prevent, respond to, and
recover from security-related events while promoting
a safe and resilient transit environment.
In August 2025, BBB implemented the Prohibition
Order Program under SB 1417, granting the agency
authority to temporarily bar individuals arrested for
acts of violence, threats, or other serious offences
committed on buses or at transit facilities. Orders can last from 30 days to one year, with staff trained in
implementation and an advisory committee providing
oversight to ensure fairness. This program
complements broader customer experience
initiatives, including the Brighter Blue Five-Year Service Plan and the Better Blue Bus Stops Program. Together
with the TSO Program, these efforts reinforce BBB’s
commitment to a safer, more accessible, and
enjoyable transit system for all riders.
Safety & Security
4.G.c
Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short BBB designs its
engagement activities to
ensure inclusive
participation, transparent
communication, and
equitable access across
the diverse populations it
serves. These efforts
support BBB’s goals of
maintaining accessibility,
safety, reliability,
convenience, and
sustainability.
BBB uses a mix of in-person and
online engagement through
community workshops, pop-up
events, hearings, surveys, contests,
and creative submissions,
complemented by partnerships
with community-based
organizations and advocacy
groups. Materials are provided in
English and Spanish, with translation
and interpretation in over 200
languages, ensuring participation
from underrepresented and
limited-English-proficient riders.
Community Engagement
39 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short 40 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
Public education is a central focus. BBB
provides clear information on reduced-fare
programs, youth and senior discounts,
income-based fare options, and
employer-sponsored benefits. Materials and
direct assistance help residents understand
eligibility, enrollment, and the benefits of
affordable transit.
Engagement also raises awareness of
systemwide improvements, such as ABLE,
fleet electrification, new safety measures,
and upgraded customer amenities.
Coordinated campaigns and presentations
build community understanding of safety
protocols, service reliability, and
environmental goals.
Feedback gathered through these efforts
directly informs service design, operations,
and policy development. By institutionalizing
inclusive engagement practices, BBB fosters
transparency, responsiveness, and trust,
ensuring decisions reflect community needs
and priorities.
Community Engagement4.G.c
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short Transit Financial & Operational
Tables
SECTION II
41 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short TABLE L-1
SANTA MONICA BIG BLUE BUS
FARE STRUCTURE FY 2026
FARE CATEGORIES TYPES OF FIXED ROUTE SERVICE
LOCAL
Individual Fares
Regular/Student4 $1.50 cash
Senior (62 yrs. +)/Disabled/Medicare $0.75 cash
Day Pass
Regular/Student $4.50
Senior (62 yrs. +)/Disabled/Medicare $1.75
7-Day Pass
Regular $16.00
10 Rides
Regular/Student $10.00
Senior (62 yrs. +)/Disabled/Medicare $5.00
30 Day Pass
Regular $55.00
Senior (62 yrs. +)/Disabled/Medicare $27.00
NOTES:
1. There is no fare differential between peak and off-peak periods.
2. Children age 5 and under ride free with a paying adult (up to two children per adult)
3. The Big Blue Bus particioates in the inter-agency EZ Transit Pass Program. The monthly cost for an EZ transit pass for local service is $110 (regular) and $42 (senior/disabled/Medicare).
4. Regular Fares $1.25/Reduced Fares $0.60 for TAP or mobile ticket only 42 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short TABLE L-2
SANTA MONICA BIG BLUE BUS
FLEET INVENTORY AS OF JUNE 30, 2025
Year
Built
Make Model Seats Length Width Fuel Number Of Vehicles Eligible Year Of
Replacement Owned/
Leased
Fixed-Route
Service
Paratransit
Service
Active
Service
With Major
Rehab
Emergency
Contingency
Pre
ADA
ADA
2025 Gillig G28B 30 35 102 Battery 2 2 2 2 2037
2021 Gillig G28D 39 40 102 Battery 18 18 18 18 2033
2019 Gillig G28D 39 40 102 Battery 1 1 1 1 2033
2018 Gillig G31D 39 40 102 CNG 19 19 19 19 2030
2018 Gillig G31D102N4 26 30 102 CNG 7 7 7 7 2028
2017 Gillig G31D102N4 39 40 102 CNG 19 19 19 19 2029
2017 Gillig G27D102N4 39 40 102 CNG 6 6 6 6 2029
2015 New Flyer XN60 56 60 102 CNG 7 7 7 7 2027
2015 Gillig G27E102N2 26 30 102 CNG 4 4 4 4 2025
2015 Gillig G27D102N4 39 40 102 CNG 11 11 11 11 2027
2013 Gillig G27D102N4 39 40 102 CNG 57 57 57 57 2025
2011 El Dorado EZ Rider 29 30 102 CNG 9 9 9 9 2021
2011 NABI 40LFW 38 40 102 CNG 9 9 9 9 2023
2011 NABI 60BRT 53 60 102 CNG 20 20 20 20 2023
2010 El Dorado EZ Rider 29 30 102 CNG 4 4 4 4 2020
Total Vehicles 193 193 193 193
43 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short TABLE L-3
SANTA MONICA BIG BLUE BUS
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED FLEET CHARACTERISTICS
FLEET CHARACTERISTICS SYSTEM TOTAL
FY 2025 Audited FY 2026 Audited FY 2027 Audited
Peak hour fleet 123 134 161
Spare for maintenance 70 59 32
Spare Ratio* (Line 2 divided by Line 1) 57% 44% 20%
Emergency Contingency Reserve
Inactive Fleet: Vehicles Not Serviceable 0 0 0
Total Vehicles (Sum Lines 1,2,4, & 5) 193 193 193
*Received FTA approval for spare ratio deviation
44 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
TABLE L-4(A)
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED FINANCIAL STATUS SOURCES AND APPLICATION OF CAPITAL FUNDS BY YEAR OF EXPENDITURE ($000)
MODE: BUS
SOURCE OF CAPITAL FUNDS: 2025 Audited 2026 Estimated 2027 Planned
FEDERAL CAPITAL GRANTS
FTA Sec. 5309 (Sec. 3) - - -
FTA Grants
FTA Sec. 5307 (Sec. 9) 3,625 14,518 14,518
Other Federal 137 - -
STATE CAPITAL GRANTS AND SUBVENTIONS
TDA (ART 4) current from unallocated 2,426 10,000 3,000 TDA from prior years reserves
TDA (ART 8)
STA current from unallocated - - -
STA from prior years reserve
Other State - TIRCP - 1,095 1,095
Other State 575 - -
LOCAL CAPITAL GRANTS
System Generated
General Fund
Prop. A Local Return
Prop. A Discretionary Carry Over
Prop. C Discretionary
Prop. C Local Return
Prop. C 5% Security
Prop C MOSIP 9,003 4,482 7,288
Prop. C Other
Measure R Bus Capital - 411 411
Prop 1B PTMISEA Bridge Funds 307 - -
Prop 1B Transit Security Bridge Funds 69 - -
Other Local - SB1 SGR 561 1,262 1,262
TOTAL CAPITAL REVENUE 16,703 31,769 27,574
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENSES 16,703 31,769 27,574
45 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
TABLE L-4(B)
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED FINANCIAL STATUS
BY YEAR OF EXPENDITURE ($000)
SOURCE OF OPERATING FUNDS: 2025 Audited 2026 Estimated 2027 Planned
FEDERAL CASH GRANTS AND REIMBURSEMENTS
FTA Sec. 5307 (sec. 9) Operating
FTA Sec. 5310 (operating) (dial-a-ride) 162 0 0
STATE GRANTS AND REIMBURSEMENTS
TDA Current from Unallocated 25,734 15,442 25,734
STA Current from Unallocated 5,820 5,692 5,820
other state (specify): SB1 4,414 4,284 4,414
LOCAL CASH GRANTS AND REIMBURSEMENTS
Passenger Fares 6,455 6,163 6,163
Special Transit Service
Charter Service Revenues
Auxiliary Transportation Revenues 2,584 2,000 2,000
Non-transportation Revenues 9,792 4,340 4,340
Prop. A 40% Discretionary 14,965 15,236 15,236
Prop. A 25% Local Return 602 601 601
Prop. A Incentive Fund
Prop. A Interest
Measure R Local Return
Measure R - Operating - 9,958 9,958
Measure M - Operating 11,199 9,851 9,851
Prop. C 40% Discretionary
Prop. C 20% Local Return
Prop. C 5% Security 1,289 999 999
Prop. C Interest
BSIP & Foothill Mitigation 1,854 1,751 1,751
ALT FUEL TAX CREDIT 819 - -
MOSIP
Other Local Revenue 58 61 61
One Time Fund - ARPA - - -
One Time Fund - CRRSAA - - -
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 85,746 76,379 86,928
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 85,746 76,379 86,928
46 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
TABLE L-5
Transit Performance Measures Report
LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Fiscal Year 2024 TPM Report Form
Attachment A
Agency Name: City of Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus Status: Audited Annual Totals
FAP Funded Non-FAP Funded
Total MTA
Funded Other
Codes2
System
Total
NTD
Reference
Total All
Modes
Rpt#
TDA, STA & Proposition A
Discretionary FAP
Total
Proposition C 40% Discretionary Non-FAP
Total Local Express Dial-A-Ride1 TSE Base
Re-Structuring
BSIP MOSIP
Total Vehicle Miles 4,380,731 48,280 4,429,011 47,623 47,623 4,476,633 63,646 4,540,279 S-10 Vehicle Service Miles 3,856,237 27,405 3,883,642 41,759 41,759 3,925,400 62,148 3,987,548 S-10 Total Vehicle Hours 449,031 3,421 452,452 4,865 4,865 457,317 6,699 464,016 S-10 Vehicle Service Hours 423,256 1,789 425,045 4,570 4,570 429,615 6,476 436,091 S-10 Unlinked Passengers 8,487,753 24,916 8,512,669 91,532 91,532 8,604,201 29,258 8,633,459 S-10 Passenger Revenue 6,333,724 17,335 6,351,059 68,289 68,289 6,419,348 10,477 6,429,825 F-10 Aux. Rev/Local Subs. 10,616,407 75,510 10,691,916 10,691,916 10,691,916 F-10 Op. Cost Less Depr. 82,527,794 721,183 83,248,977 895,126 895,126 84,144,103 760,852 84,904,955 F-30 Full Time Equiv Employees 403 403 R-10
Active Vehicles 191 2 193 1 194 38 232 S-10
Peak Vehicles 121 2 123 1 124 38 162 S-10
DAR Seat Capacity A-30
Base Fare
Effective Date
1.25 1.25 1.50
1- "Included Dial - A - Ride" only includes operations that historically have been included in the FAP calculations. 2-a- Agencies that have Proposition A 5% of 40% Incentive Funds for their Sub-regional Paratransit program, please insert data here. 2-b- Please Describe 2a: Dial-A-Ride
EZ Pass Data included above:
Revenue $88,836
Unlinked Passengers 151,778
Prepared by: Enny Chung Graham
Date
Approved by:
General Manager Date
47 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
TABLE L-6
PERFORMANCE AUDIT FOLLOW-UP OF DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE LAST COMPLETED PERFORMANCE AUDIT FY2022-2024
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
OPERATOR PROGRESS
TO DATE
BBB update its methodology for reporting "local subsidies" and "auxillary" revenues as it relates to TPM reporting. Completed 48 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
4.G.c
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: FY26-FY28 SRTP_digital final [Revision 1] (7220 : Adoption of Resolution and File Short TABLE L-7
SANTA MONICA BIG BLUE BUS
FY2025-2027 SUMMARY OF CAPITAL PROJECTS
Project Name Total Request
FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027
Bus Components Replacement Program 6,121,237 6,366,564 6,372,133 Yard Improvements 50,000 716,255 53,045
Technology Equipment 2,247,251 1,517,251 1,079,349
Bus Stop Amenities 75,000 77,250 79,568
Service Vehicles 538,377 165,000 110,000
Bus Replacement Program 2,242,693 14,518,136 42,000,000 Shop Equipment 905,321 100,000 100,000
Facility Upgrades & Renovations 2,297,032 940,199 596,737 Telecommunication Services 70,905 73,028 72,519
Customer Experience 636,982 182,509 130,438
Universal Fare System
Transit Security
Radio Tower Equipment 110,000 120,000 122,000
Fiber Optic Network
Stars Software Implementation
Safey & Security
Prop 1B Safety and Security
Transit Oriented Development
Dial-A-Ride Vehicles
7th Street Fencing Upgrade
Two-way Communication System
Fleet Asset Management 111,102 116,657 122,490
Scheduling and Operations Mgmt System
49 DOT | Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2025-27
Prepared by Leone Solutions Group | January 2026
Department of Transportation
City of Santa Monica
Short Range Transportation Plan
FY 2025-27
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.H
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, Interim City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration
Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance to Add Section 9.64.065 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to Establish the Off-Site Affordable Housing Pilot Program for 1000 Units and Add Section 9.64.075 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to Extend and Expand the Off-Site Affordable Housing Pilot Program
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.
Executive Summary
At its meeting on January 13, 2026, the City Council introduced for first reading an Ordinance to add Section 9.64.065 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to establish the Off-site Affordable Housing Pilot Program for 1000 units and add Section 9.64.075 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to extend and expand the Off-site Affordable Housing Pilot Program. The ordinance is now presented to the City Council for adoption.
Prepared By: Bradley Michaud, Legal Administrative Services Officer Approved Forwarded to Council
4.H
Packet Pg. 421
2 of 2
Attachments:
A. AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading
4.H
Packet Pg. 422
1 City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER ____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA MONICA ADDING SECTIONS 9.64.065 AND 9.64.075 TO THE SANTA
MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH AN OFF-SITE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PILOT PROGRAM
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
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, the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP), codified as Chapter 9.64 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, was enacted in 1998 and requires developers of market-rate housing projects to contribute to affordable housing production by either:
1) Constructing inclusionary affordable residences onsite in a development; 2) Constructing affordable residences offsite in another development; or 3) Paying an affordable housing fee that is deposited into the Citywide Housing Trust Fund and used by the City to subsidize affordable housing developments; and WHEREAS, Since the enactment of the AHPP, the City has produced more than 1,200 affordable lower income units; and
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 2 WHEREAS, the City’s AHPP has been amended numerous times to increase affordable housing production and meet the City’s housing goals; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2609 (CCS), which authorized modification to the AHPP to remove the extremely-low income housing option from the Tier 2 community benefits for housing projects with an application that was determined complete before March 26, 2019, and after November 27, 2019; and WHEREAS, on October 22, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2622 (CCS), to extend the removal of the extremely-low income housing option from the Tier 2 community benefits to housing projects with an application that was determined complete before March 26, 2019, and after November 27, 2020; and WHEREAS, on October 27, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2654 (CCS), to extend the removal of the extremely-low income housing option from the Tier 2 community benefits to housing projects with an application that was determined complete before March 26, 2019, and after February 28, 2022; and WHEREAS, on April 11, 2023, as part of the 6th Cycle Housing Element implementing actions, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2742 (CCS), which included amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that included streamlining the approval of housing projects and modifying the AHPP to establish a 15% on-site inclusionary requirement; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915 et seq., projects that provide a certain percentage of affordable units in a housing development project are eligible for density bonuses, incentives or concessions, and waivers or reductions of development standards; and
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 3 WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 9.22, Density Bonus, housing projects of 20 units or more that provide onsite affordable units in accordance with the 15% inclusionary requirement set forth in the AHPP are eligible for the greatest density bonus and incentives or concessions permitted under State Density Bonus Law; and WHEREAS, the residential construction industry is facing significant financial challenges due to macroeconomic and global political factors; and WHEREAS, while the City has streamlined the approval of more than 3,400 market rate projects and 900 affordable units through a ministerial process, most of these projects have yet to begin construction; and
WHEREAS, the number of building permits that have been issued in the City has dropped significantly in the last two years and, in 2025, two building permits have been issued by the City to date; and
WHEREAS, in light of these factors, on June 20, 2025, the City Council gave direction to staff to “establish a pilot program allowing market-rate housing projects more flexibility in how they provide affordable housing units off-site, while also allowing these housing projects to be eligible for density bonus, incentives/concessions, and modifications”; and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2025, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance, Ordinance Number 2824 (CCS), adding Section 9.64.065 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to establish an off-site affordable housing pilot program (the “Pilot Ordinance”); and WHEREAS, the Pilot Ordinance, by its own terms, effectively terminated upon the earlier to occur of (i) the submittal of applications utilizing the provisions of Section
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 4 9.64.065 for a cumulative total of 1000 dwelling units for all the multiple-unit project applications submitted or (ii) September 30, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Pilot Ordinance effectively terminated prior to September 30, 2025, because applications for the pilot program for a cumulative total of 1000 dwelling units were submitted prior to September 30, 2025; and
WHEREAS, at its public meeting on September 30, 2025, Council directed staff to extend the off-site pilot program to allow additional applications for market rate multifamily residential projects to be filed, subject to modified provisions and conditions, including that applications filed before the expiration of the Pilot Ordinance be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Section 9.64.065 of this ordinance and applications filed after the expiration of the Pilot Ordinance be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Section 9.64.075 of this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, housing development projects that do not provide affordable housing units on site are not eligible for bonuses, waivers and modifications or incentives and concessions under State Density Bonus Law; and
WHEREAS, there exists a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare due to factors that deter construction of previously entitled housing projects that have not pulled building permits to date; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance responds to Council’s direction to address the housing crisis in the City by creating an incentive program targeted at increasing the feasibility for previously entitled housing projects that have not pulled building permits to date; and WHEREAS, this ordinance will create flexibility in the AHPP off-site affordable housing option by removing the requirement that the Certificate of Occupancy for the
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 5 affordable housing be issued before the Certificate of Occupancy for the market-rate housing, subject to alternative means of securing performance for production of the affordable units; and
WHEREAS, to incentivize the production of housing units, this ordinance will further ensure that housing projects that provide units offsite in accordance with the pilot program are eligible for local density bonuses, incentives and concessions and waivers and modifications equivalent to those provided for in Chapter 9.22, Density Bonus.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. New Section 9.64.065 is hereby added to the Santa Monica Municipal Code and shall read in its entirety as follows:
Section 9.64.065 Off-Site Affordable Housing
A. Definitions. As used in this Section:
1. “100% affordable housing project” means a 100% affordable housing project as defined in Section 9.52.020.0050.
2. “Affordability covenants” means 75-year affordability covenants that are included in a recorded deed restriction, in form approved by the City Attorney.
3. “Affordable housing provider” means an affordable housing provider reasonably approved by the City.
4. “Applicant” means the applicant, or its successors in interest, for a discretionary and ministerial City permit applicable to a multiple-unit project.
5. “Building permit” means a final building permit issued by the City’s Building Official (excluding grading or early start construction permits).
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 6 6. “Gap financing amount” means the amount of financing necessary to complete a 100% affordable housing project assuming that (a) the off-site affordable project will obtain a 4% federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and/or tax-exempt bond allocation; and (b) that there will be no land acquisition costs. The gap financing amount shall be $150,000, per offsite affordable unit to be constructed within the 100% affordable housing project. The gap financing amount shall be increased annually, commencing on the first anniversary from the effective date of this ordinance, by the last published annual average in the ENR Building Cost Index (BCI) for the Los Angeles region, but shall not exceed an annual increase of five (5) percent. The gap financing amount should be calculated from the effective date of the ordinance until deposited into escrow in accordance with Section 9.64.065(D).
7. “Multiple-unit project” means an eligible multiple-unit project pursuant to Section 9.64.065(B).
8. “Multiple-unit project property” means the property on which a multiple-unit project will be built.
9. “Off-site property” means a clean, uncontaminated property in the location specified in Section 9.64.060(E).
10. “Option” means a purchase option for the off-site property that may be exercised by the City or an affordable housing provider, at the election of the City, for the purchase amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00).
11. “Option agreement” means a purchase option agreement, including escrow instructions upon exercise of the Option, approved as to form by the City Attorney, and executed by the City or an affordable housing provider, at the election of the City, and the
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 7 owner of the off-site property. The option agreement shall be recorded in the official records of Los Angeles County.
12. “Protected unit(s)” means any of the following:
a. Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income within the past five years. b. Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power within the past five years.
c. Residential dwelling units that are or were occupied by lower or very low-income households within the past five years.
d. Residential dwelling units that were withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with California Government Code Sections 7060 et seq. within the past 10 years.
13. “Rehabilitation property” means a property proposed for substantial rehabilitation of units pursuant to Section 9.64.065(E).
14. “Uncontaminated property” means a property free from hazardous substances, as defined under state and federal law.
B. Eligible Multiple-Unit Projects. In order for Applicants to use the provisions of this Section 9.64.065, each multiple-unit project shall contain 6 or more residential units; shall have obtained final approval of all required discretionary and ministerial City permits that have not expired, except for Architectural Review Board approval and post entitlement phase permits, as
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 8 defined in Government Code Section 65913.3(j)(3), on or before August 12, 2025; and shall have submitted a complete application to use the provisions of this Section 9.64.065 within the 1000 unit cap and/or prior to September 30, 2025; provided, however, that except as otherwise expressly provided in Section (D)(5)(b), herein, multiple-unit projects that have obtained a building permit, are under construction, or have been completed are not eligible. The applicant of an entitled multiple-unit project that meets the requirements of Section 9.64.065.B may also use the provisions of Section 9.64.065 to satisfy the requirements of Section 9.64.060 for a project if the applicant obtains a new entitlement for the same multiple-unit property prior to December 31, 2026.
C. Exclusions. Nothing in this Section 9.64.065 shall conflict with or supersede state or local requirements for on-site replacement of protected units, including, but not limited to, those set forth in the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, as amended from time to time, Government Code Sections 66300 et seq., and Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.34, Residential Unit Replacement Requirements.
D. Alternative Off-Site Option. Notwithstanding Section 9.64.040(B), an applicant for a multiple-unit project may satisfy the affordable housing obligation in Chapter 9.64 by providing affordable housing units in a 100% affordable housing project on an off-site property in accordance with this section if the applicant complies with the following requirements:
1. The requirements of subsections (B) through (E), and (I) of Section 9.64.060 shall apply and be met by the applicant.
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 9 2. The off-site property shall also meet the following requirements:
a. The off-site property shall not have any lien or encumbrance on title that would prevent the recordation of an option agreement and affordability covenants in first priority position on title in favor of the City. b. The off-site property shall be owned in whole or in part and operated by an affordable housing provider reasonably approved by the City for the life of the 100% affordable housing project.
3. Requirements for Affordable Units. The affordable units in the 100% affordable housing project shall be rental units and shall comply with the provisions of subsections (E)(2)-(5) of Section 9.64.050, unless modified pursuant to Section
9.64.065(G). The number of off-site affordable units in the 100% affordable housing project shall be calculated as set forth in Section 9.64.065(H).
4. Annual Report. The affordable housing provider operating the 100% affordable housing project shall submit an annual report pursuant to the Affordability Covenants recorded on the off-site affordable housing property as discussed in Section
9.64.065(D).
5. Additional Requirements for Off-Site Units.
a. The applicant shall satisfy all the following requirements prior to and as a condition of issuance of a building permit for any multiple-unit project:
i. Identify the location of the off-site property and identify each multiple-unit project that will locate its required affordable housing units in the 100% affordable housing project to be constructed on the off-site property, and the number, bedroom mix, size, and affordability level of units
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 10 in the 100% affordable housing project that will be attributed to each multiple-unit project. Designated units in the 100% affordable housing project shall not be counted more than once to satisfy the required affordable housing units required for each multiple-unit project. ii. Identify and enter into an agreement with an affordable housing provider that will own, in whole or in part, and operate the 100% affordable housing project.
iii. The applicant shall procure a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the off-site property, and a Phase II ESA of the offsite property, if necessary, conducted by a City approved experienced environmental professional, to determine the potential presence on or under the off-site property of hazardous waste, as defined under state and federal laws. If contaminants are detected in soil at or above regulatory levels, then the results of the soil sampling shall be shared with the City reviewed and acted upon by the appropriate regional, state, or local regulatory agencies as needed. If remediation is necessary, a No Further Action letter or similar documentation indicating case closure shall be obtained under the appropriate oversight agency prior to project occupancy. City has the right in its reasonable discretion to reject any off-site property that indicates the potential presence of hazardous waste and/or require the applicant to execute an environmental indemnity agreement in form approved by the City Attorney. In the event that the City rejects the off-site property due to the potential presence of hazardous waste, applicant shall have the
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 11 opportunity to propose an alternate off-site location, subject to the same requirements under Section 9.64.065(D) or proceed with alternative options under Section 9.64.065(E) and (F).
b. The applicant of a multiple-unit project located in the Coastal Zone with an approved Coastal Development Permit requiring an on-site affordability covenant that has already been recorded against the multiple-unit project property may be eligible to relocate the affordable units to an off-site property pursuant to this Section 9.64.065 any time (1) after the California Coastal Commission has approved the relocation of the affordable units to an off-site property without any other material changes to the terms and/or conditions of the Coastal Development Permit; and (2) prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the multiple-unit project; provided, however, that all other requirements under Section 9.64.065(D) are satisfied.
c. Prior to, and as a condition of, issuance of the first building permit issued for any multiple-unit project, or issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a multiple-unit project located in the Coastal Zone, the applicant shall place the Gap Financing Amount for that multiple-unit project in an interest-bearing escrow account and enter into a joint escrow agreement executed by the City or an affordable housing provider, at the election of the City, and the applicant, with instructions that provide as follows:
i. The Gap Financing Amount shall be distributed to the City or an affordable housing provider at no cost to either the City or affordable housing provider, at the election of the City, if construction of the off-site
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 12 affordable housing project does not commence within (a) forty-eight (48) months following the issuance of the first building permit for any multiple unit project not located in the Coastal Zone, or (b) eighteen (18) months following the date the Coastal Commission approves a Coastal Development Permit or Coastal Development Permit amendment that allows a multiple-unit project in the Coastal Zone to locate its affordable units on an off-site property; provided, that the City may grant a twelve (12) month extension by making a written finding of good cause prior to the expiration of the initial forty-eight (48) month term.
ii. If construction of the 100% affordable housing project does commence within the applicable forty-eight (48) months following the issuance of the first building permit for a multiple-unit project, or eighteen (18) months following the date the Coastal Commission approves a Coastal Development Permit or Coastal Development Permit amendment that allows a multiple-unit project in the Coastal Zone to locate its affordable units on an off-site property; or within the twelve (12) month extension period if an extension is granted by the City, then the Gap Financing Amount shall be returned to the applicant upon applicant’s deposit into the joint escrow account of a ready-to-issue building permit letter from the City to construct the 100% affordable housing project on the off-site property.
Following receipt by the escrow officer of the ready-to issue building permit letter, the Gap Financing Amount shall be disbursed to the applicant.
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 13 iii. For purposes of this subsection (c)(i) and (c)(ii), “commence” means that the project has received a building permit and construction activities begin on the site.
6. Prior to and as a condition of issuance of any building permit(s) for the first multiple-unit project(s), or prior to and as a condition of issuance of any certificate of occupancy for a multiple-unit project in the Coastal Zone, the applicant shall complete the following steps:
a. Execute and record on the off-site property an Option Agreement that authorizes the City or an affordable housing provider, at the election of the City, to exercise the Option in the event that construction of the 100% affordable housing project does not commence (a) within forty-eight (48) months following the issuance of the first building permit for any multiple-unit project not located in the Coastal Zone that is locating its affordable housing units in the off-site affordable housing project, or (b) eighteen (18) months following the date the Coastal Commission approves a Coastal Development Permit or Coastal Development Permit amendment to allow a multiple-unit project in the Coastal Zone to locate its affordable units in the off-site affordable housing project, or within the twelve (12) month extension period if an extension is granted by the City. Upon exercise of the Option and as such process is provided in the Option Agreement, the fee simple interest in the property shall transfer to the City only if construction of the off-site 100% affordable housing project does not commence (a) within forty-eight (48) months following the issuance of the first building permit for any multiple-unit project not located in the Coastal Zone that is locating its affordable housing units
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 14 in the off-site affordable housing project, or (b) eighteen (18) months following the date the Coastal Commission approves a Coastal Development Permit or Coastal Development Permit amendment to allow a multiple-unit project in the Coastal Zone to locate its affordable units in the off-site affordable housing project, unless the City grants a twelve (12) month extension for good cause in writing prior to the expiration of the forty-eight (48) month term. If construction of the off-site 100% affordable housing project does commence within the applicable forty-eight (48) month term, or within the twelve (12) month extension period if an extension is granted by the City, then the Option Agreement shall automatically become null and void and shall be removed from title upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 100% affordable housing project. For purposes of this subsection (6)(a), “commence” has the meaning given in subsection (5)(c)(iii). b. Concurrently with the recordation of the Option Agreement on the offsite property, the applicant or owner shall execute and record on each multipleunit property a Notice of Off-Site Affordability Covenants that discloses the location of the off-site property and the description of the Affordability Covenants to be recorded on the off-site property. The Notice of Off-Site Affordability Covenants shall not impose any duty on the applicant or owner of the multiple-unit property to comply with any affordability requirements on-site and shall merely serve as notice that the affordability requirements of Chapter 9.64 are to be satisfied off-site. The Notice of Off-Site Affordability Covenants shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney.
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 15 c. Concurrently with the recordation of the Option Agreement on the offsite property, the applicant or owner shall execute and record on the off-site housing property Affordability Covenants in compliance with Section 9.64.130, which shall be recorded ahead of any monetary liens.
d. The applicant or owner shall provide a current title report evidencing that no monetary liens are recorded on title of the off-site property at the time the Option Agreement and Affordability Covenants are recorded. The Option Agreement and Affordability Covenants shall each provide that no monetary liens may be recorded on the off-site property until the building permit is issued for construction of the 100% affordable housing project.
e. If an applicant of a multiple-unit project located in the Coastal Zone timely satisfies the requirements above, the City shall execute a termination of the preexisting multiple-unit project’s onsite affordable covenant agreement within ten (10) business days of issuance of the building permit for the 100% affordable housing project.
7. Unit Mix. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, affordable units proposed for the off-site property shall not include studio units.
E. Substantial Rehabilitation of Units at an Off-Site Property in lieu of New Construction. Notwithstanding Section 9.64.040(B), and excluding any required affordable or rent controlled replacement units that may be required pursuant to Government Code Sections 66300.5 and 66300.6, an applicant for a multiple-unit project
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 16 may satisfy the affordable housing obligation in Chapter 9.64 by substantial rehabilitation of affordable housing units at an off-site property, subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantially Rehabilitated. Units to be substantially rehabilitated at an off-site property must comply with the following provisions:
a. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a multiple-unit project, the City Council must determine at a public hearing that the units proposed for substantial rehabilitation at an off-site property must be at imminent risk of loss to the housing stock and the units proposed for substantial rehabilitation are unfit for human habitation due to the existence of at least four violations of the conditions listed in subdivisions (a) to (g), inclusive, of Section 17995.3 of the Health and Safety Code.
b. The applicant must commit to providing the displaced tenants with relocation assistance in accordance with Section 4.36.100 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, provided that (i) if the owner elects to satisfy the temporary relocation obligations by payment of the daily per diem, the total amount paid to the tenant shall be no less than four times the tenant’s rent; and (ii) if the owner elects to satisfy their temporary relocation obligations by providing a comparable replacement unit, the owner shall additionally pay the tenant four times the tenant’s monthly rent and shall reduce the tenant’s monthly rent during relocation, if necessary, so that the rent does not exceed 30% of the tenant’s income. c. Any displaced tenant, regardless of income status for displaced tenants of rent-controlled units, must have the right to reoccupy the rehabilitated units.
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 17 d. Rehabilitated units must have long-term affordability requirements for lower income households, for a term of not less than 75 years. e. As a condition to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any multiunit property that will satisfy the affordable housing obligation in Chapter 9.64 by substantial rehabilitation of off-site units, and prior to initial occupancy after rehabilitation, the City’s Building Official shall issue a certificate of occupancy indicating compliance with all applicable state and local building code and health and safety code requirements for the substantially rehabilitated units.
2. Additional Requirements for Substantially Rehabilitated Units. a. Prior to obtaining a building permit for a multiple-unit project, the applicant shall provide a rehabilitation plan which has been approved by the City’s Housing Division Manager that includes the following information:
i. Documentation evidencing applicant’s ownership or control of the rehabilitation property during the period of rehabilitation; ii. A property assessment report performed by a licensed appraiser for the rehabilitation property, including all units proposed for substantial rehabilitation;
iii. Identification and location of the units that will be substantially rehabilitated;
iv. Scope and budget for substantial rehabilitation;
v. Demonstrated sources and uses of financing required for substantial rehabilitation; and
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 18 b. Applicant shall indicate the exact location of units that will be provided to very and lower--income households.
c. Applicant shall comply with Chapter 8.100, Tenant Protection During Construction, as amended from time to time.
d. The applicant or owner shall provide a current title report evidencing that no monetary liens are recorded on title of the off-site property hosting the substantially rehabilitated units.
e. Execute and record on the property hosting the substantially rehabilitated units a 75-year deed restriction to ensure that the rehabilitated units are restricted for rental to qualifying lower income households at an affordable rent, in form approved by the City Attorney.
f. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, substantially rehabilitated units shall not include studio units.
F. In Lieu Fee Option for Off-Site Housing (without land provided).
1. Notwithstanding Section 9.64.070, an applicant for a multiple-unit project may satisfy the affordable housing obligation in Chapter 9.64 by paying an in-lieu fee based on the following formula:
(Base Unit Fee per Square Foot) x (total square feet of the residential floor area in the multiple-unit project)
2. For purposes of this Section, the City's base unit fee per square foot shall be established pursuant to Section 9.64.070 by resolution of the City Council.
Commencing on July 1, 2026, and on July 1st of each fiscal year thereafter, the City's
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 19 base unit fee per square foot shall be adjusted based on changes in construction costs and land costs.
3. The affordable housing fee shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for any multiple-unit project utilizing Section 9.64.065(F).
4. The City shall deposit any payment made pursuant to this Section
9.64.065(F) in a reserve account separate from the General Fund to be used only for development of affordable housing, administrative costs related to the production of this housing, substantial rehabilitation of existing affordable housing, a City sponsored program of rental subsidies for lower income Santa Monica residents, and monitoring and evaluation of this affordable housing production program.
G. Local Incentive Density Bonus. Multiple-unit projects satisfying their affordable housing obligation in lieu of Chapter 9.64 in accordance with Section 9.64.065 shall be eligible for a local incentive of density bonuses, incentives and concessions, waivers and reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios equivalent to those set forth in Chapter 9.22, Density Bonus, as if the affordable units were provided on the site of the multiple-unit project. Further, as an additional local density bonus, any on-site affordable units that were formerly part of an approved multiple-unit project can convert to market-rate units in the revised multiple-unit project. Any off-site affordable housing project shall be eligible for density bonuses, incentives and concessions, waivers and reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios under State Density Bonus Law.
H. Calculation of Off-Site Affordable Units. The number of affordable units to be provided in the 100% affordable housing project shall be calculated as follows:
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 20 1. Eligible Housing Projects Entitled Without Additional Very Low or Moderate-Income Units to Obtain Additional Density Bonuses Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(v): For housing projects previously entitled that do not propose additional moderate-income units to obtain additional density bonuses pursuant to Government Code section 65915(v), any applicant utilizing the off-site options under this Section 9.64.065 shall provide no less than fifteen percent (15%) of the base density number of units, prior to the award of any market rate density bonus units under State Density Bonus Law (California Government Code Section 65915 et. seq.) and Chapter 9.22, Density Bonus within each multiple-unit project as:
a. Affordable deed-restricted units in an offsite 100% affordable housing project in accordance with subsection (D),
b. Substantially rehabilitated deed-restricted units in accordance with subsection (E), or
c. Equivalent in-lieu fee in accordance with subsection (F).
By way of illustration, if the base density number of units (prior to the award of a market rate density bonus) is 100 units, then the applicant must provide 15 deed restricted units at the designated off-site property.
2. Eligible Housing Projects Entitled With Additional Proposed Density Bonuses Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(v): For housing projects previously entitled with additional very low income or moderate-income units and proposed additional density bonuses pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(v), any applicant utilizing the off-site options under this Section 9.64.065 shall provide no
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 21 less than the percentage of very low or moderate income units as required in the chart contained in Government Code Section 65915(2) as calculated against the base density.:
a. Affordable deed-restricted units in a 100% affordable housing project in accordance with subsection (D);
b. substantially rehabilitated deed-restricted units in accordance with subsection (E); or
c. Equivalent in-lieu fee in accordance with subsection (F).
By way of illustration, if the base density number of units (prior to the award of a market rate density bonus) is 100 units, and the applicant of a multiple-unit project has obtained approval of an additional 50 percent density bonus (for a total 100 percent density bonus) by providing additional Moderate Income units pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(v)(2), then the applicant must provide 30 deed restricted units at the designated off-site property.
SECTION 2. New Section 9.64.075 is hereby added to the Santa Monica Municipal Code and shall read in its entirety as follows:
Section 9.64.075 Off-Site Affordable Housing
A. Definitions. As used in this Section:
1. “100% affordable housing project” means a 100% affordable housing project as defined in Section 9.52.020.0050.
2. “Affordability covenants” means 75-year affordability covenants that are included in a recorded deed restriction, in form approved by the City Attorney.
3. “Affordable housing provider” means an affordable housing provider reasonably approved by the City.
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 22 4. “Applicant” means the applicant, or its successors in interest, for a discretionary and ministerial City permit applicable to a multiple-unit project.
5. “At-risk covenants” means covenants that are contained in a recorded deed restriction to restrict rental units for occupancy by lower income households at affordable rent for lower income households, where the covenants are set to expire in accordance with the terms of the deed restriction within five (5) years from the date an owner or applicant files an application to use this Section 9.64.075.
6. “Building permit” means a final building permit issued by the City’s Building Official (excluding grading or early start construction permits).
7. “Chapter 6.96” means Chapter 6.96 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, in effect as of September 30, 2025.
8. “City Manager” means the City Manager or his or her designee.
9. “Community Benefit Payment” means the payment to the City by the owner or applicant in an amount equal to the amount of real estate transfer taxes owed to the City pursuant to Chapter 6.96 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, in effect as of September 30, 2025.
10. “Gap financing amount” means the amount of financing necessary to complete a 100% affordable housing project assuming that (a) the off-site affordable project will obtain a 4% federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and/or tax-exempt bond allocation; and (b) that there will be no land acquisition costs. The gap financing amount shall be $160,000, per offsite affordable unit to be constructed within the 100% affordable housing project. Commencing on July 1, 2026, and on July 1st of each fiscal year thereafter, the gap financing amount shall be adjusted by Council resolution based on
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 23 changes in costs for building construction, as evidenced by the ENR Building Cost Index (BCI) for the Los Angeles region. The gap financing amount should be calculated from the effective date of the ordinance until deposited into escrow in accordance with Section
9.64.075(D).
11. “Measure GS Transfer” means a transfer of the multiple-unit project and/or multiple-unit project property, or portion thereof, which is subject to taxation under the City’s Third Tier Tax Rate, as defined in Chapter 6.96.
12. “Multiple-unit project” means an eligible multiple-unit project pursuant to Section 9.64.075(B).
13. “Multiple-unit project property” means the property on which a multiple-unit project will be built.
14. “Off-site property” means a clean, uncontaminated property in the location specified in Section 9.64.060(E).
15. “Option” means a purchase option for the off-site property that may be exercised by the City or an affordable housing provider, at the election of the City, for the purchase amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00).
16. “Option agreement” means a purchase option agreement, including escrow instructions upon exercise of the Option, approved as to form by the City Attorney, and executed by the City or an affordable housing provider, at the election of the City, and the owner of the off-site property. The option agreement shall be recorded in the official records of Los Angeles County.
17. “Owner” or “applicant” means the owner or applicant of the multiple-unit project.
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 24 18. “Performance Deed of Trust” means a performance deed of trust recorded against the multiple-unit property to secure the Community Benefit Payment.
19. “Protected unit(s)” means any of the following:
a. Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income within the past five years. b. Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power within the past five years.
c. Residential dwelling units that are or were occupied by lower or very low-income households within the past five years.
d. Residential dwelling units that were withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with California Government Code Sections 7060 et seq. within the past 10 years.
20. “Rehabilitation property” means a property proposed for substantial rehabilitation of units pursuant to Section 9.64.075(E).
21. “Right of First Refusal Agreement” means an agreement that ensures the City has the priority to purchase the off-site property before a third-party prospective buyer can. Upon receiving an offer from third party, the owner must present this offer to the City, who can choose to pay the owner no more than fair market value or let it pass to the third party.
22. “Transfer” means any transfer of beneficial ownership of a multiple-unit project and/or multiple-unit project property, or portions thereof, that would be subject to
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 25 taxation under California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 11911(a) and is not exempt from taxation under Sections 11921 (instrument securing debt), 11923 (conveyances under reorganization or adjustment plans), or 11924 (conveyances under order of securities and exchange commission). The term “transfer” includes, without limitation, any deed, instrument or writing to which the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof, any state or territory, or political subdivision thereof, is acquiring title to a multipleunit project and/or multiple-unit property.
23. “Uncontaminated property” means a property free from hazardous substances, as defined under state and federal law.
B. Eligible Multiple-Unit Projects. In order for Applicants to use the provisions of this Section 9.64.075, each multiple-unit project shall contain 6 or more residential units; shall have obtained final approval of all required discretionary and ministerial City permits that have not expired, except for Architectural Review Board approval and post entitlement phase permits, as defined in Government Code Section 65913.3(j)(3) on or before August 12, 2025; and shall have submitted a complete application to use the provisions of this Section 9.64.075 after September 30, 2025; provided, however, that except as otherwise expressly provided in Section (D)(5)(b), herein, multiple-unit projects that have obtained a building permit, are under construction, or have been completed are not eligible. The applicant of an entitled multiple-unit property that meets the requirements of Section 9.64.075.B may also use the provisions of Section 9.64.075.D – G to satisfy the requirements of Section 9.64.060 for a project if the applicant obtains a new entitlement for the same multiple-unit property prior to December 31, 2026.
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 26 C. Exclusions. Nothing in this Section 9.64.075 shall conflict with or supersede state or local requirements for on-site replacement of protected units, including, but not limited to, those set forth in the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, as amended from time to time, Government Code Sections 66300 et seq., and Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter
9.34, Residential Unit Replacement Requirements.
D. Alternative Off-Site Option. Notwithstanding Section 9.64.040(B), an applicant for a multiple-unit project may satisfy the affordable housing obligation in Chapter 9.64 by providing affordable housing units in a 100% affordable housing project on an off-site property in accordance with this section if the applicant complies with the following requirements:
1. The requirements of subsections (B) through (E), and (I) of Section 9.64.060 shall apply and be met by the applicant.
2. The off-site property shall also meet the following requirements:
a. The off-site property shall not have any lien or encumbrance on title that would prevent the recordation of an option agreement and affordability covenants in first priority position on title in favor of the City. b. The off-site property shall be owned in whole or in part and operated by an affordable housing provider reasonably approved by the City for the life of the 100% affordable housing project.
3. Requirements for Affordable Units. The affordable units in the 100% affordable housing project shall be rental units, unless modified pursuant to Section
9.64.075(H). The number of off-site affordable units in the 100% affordable housing project shall be calculated as set forth in Section 9.64.075(I).
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 27 4. Annual Report. The affordable housing provider operating the 100% affordable housing project shall submit an annual report pursuant to the Affordability Covenants recorded on the off-site affordable housing property as discussed in Section
9.64.075(D).
5. Additional Requirements for Off-Site Units.
a. The applicant shall satisfy all the following requirements prior to and as a condition of issuance of a building permit for any multiple-unit project:
i. Identify the location of the off-site property and identify each multiple-unit project that will locate its required affordable housing units in the 100% affordable housing project to be constructed on the off-site property, and the number, bedroom mix, size, and affordability level of units in the 100% affordable housing project that will be attributed to each multiple-unit project. Designated units in the 100% affordable housing project shall not be counted more than once to satisfy the required affordable housing units required for each multiple-unit project. ii. Identify and enter into an agreement with an affordable housing provider that will own, in whole or in part, and operate the 100% affordable housing project.
iii. The applicant shall procure a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the off-site property, and a Phase II ESA of the offsite property, if necessary, conducted by a City approved experienced environmental professional, to determine the potential presence on or under the off-site property of hazardous waste, as defined under state and federal
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 28 laws. If contaminants are detected in soil at or above regulatory levels, then the results of the soil sampling shall be shared with the City reviewed and acted upon by the appropriate regional, state, or local regulatory agencies as needed. If remediation is necessary, a No Further Action letter or similar documentation indicating case closure shall be obtained under the appropriate oversight agency prior to project occupancy. City has the right in its reasonable discretion to reject any off-site property that indicates the potential presence of hazardous waste and/or require the applicant to execute an environmental indemnity agreement in form approved by the City Attorney. In the event that the City rejects the off-site property due to the potential presence of hazardous waste, applicant shall have the opportunity to propose an alternate off-site location, subject to the same requirements under Section 9.64.075(D) or proceed with alternative options under Section 9.64.075(E), (F) and (G).
b. The applicant of a multiple-unit project located in the Coastal Zone with an approved Coastal Development Permit requiring an on-site affordability covenant that has already been recorded against the multiple-unit project property may be eligible to relocate the affordable units to an off-site property pursuant to this Section 9.64.075 any time (1) after the California Coastal Commission has approved the relocation of the affordable units to an off-site property without any other material changes to the terms and/or conditions of the Coastal Development Permit; and (2) prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the multiple-unit
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 29 project; provided, however, that all other requirements under Section 9.64.075(D) are satisfied.
c. Prior to, and as a condition of, issuance of the first building permit issued for any multiple-unit project, or issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a multiple-unit project located in the Coastal Zone, the applicant shall place the Gap Financing Amount for that multiple-unit project in an interest-bearing escrow account and enter into a joint escrow agreement executed by the City or an affordable housing provider, at the election of the City, and the applicant, with instructions that provide as follows:
i. The Gap Financing Amount shall be distributed to the City or an affordable housing provider at no cost to either the City or affordable housing provider, at the election of the City, if construction of the off-site affordable housing project does not commence within (a) forty-eight (48) months following the issuance of the first building permit for any multipleunit project not located in the Coastal Zone, or (b) eighteen (18) months following the date the Coastal Commission approves a Coastal Development Permit or Coastal Development Permit amendment that allows a multiple-unit project in the Coastal Zone to locate its affordable units on an off-site property; provided, that the City may grant a twelve (12) month extension by making a written finding of good cause prior to the expiration of the initial forty-eight (48) month term.
ii. If construction of the 100% affordable housing project does commence within the applicable forty-eight (48) months following the
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 30 issuance of the first building permit for a multiple-unit project, or eighteen (18) months following the date the Coastal Commission approves a Coastal Development Permit or Coastal Development Permit amendment that allows a multiple-unit project in the Coastal Zone to locate its affordable units on an off-site property; or within the twelve (12) month extension period if an extension is granted by the City, then the Gap Financing Amount shall be returned to the applicant upon applicant’s deposit into the joint escrow account of a ready-to-issue building permit letter from the City to construct the 100% affordable housing project on the off-site property.
Following receipt by the escrow officer of the ready-to issue building permit letter, the Gap Financing Amount shall be disbursed to the applicant. iii. For purposes of this subsection (c)(i) and (c)(ii), “commence” means that the project has received a building permit and construction activities begin on the site.
6. Prior to and as a condition of issuance of any building permit(s) for the first multiple-unit project(s), or prior to and as a condition of issuance of any certificate of occupancy for a multiple-unit project in the Coastal Zone, the applicant shall complete the following steps:
a. Execute and record on the off-site property an Option Agreement that authorizes the City or an affordable housing provider, at the election of the City, to exercise the Option in the event that construction of the 100% affordable housing project does not commence (a) within forty-eight (48) months following the issuance of the first building permit for any multiple-unit project not located in the
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 31 Coastal Zone that is locating its affordable housing units in the off-site affordable housing project, or (b) eighteen (18) months following the date the Coastal Commission approves a Coastal Development Permit or Coastal Development Permit amendment to allow a multiple-unit project in the Coastal Zone to locate its affordable units in the off-site affordable housing project, or within the twelve (12) month extension period if an extension is granted by the City. Upon exercise of the Option and as such process is provided in the Option Agreement, the fee simple interest in the property shall transfer to the City only if construction of the off-site 100% affordable housing project does not commence (a) within forty-eight (48) months following the issuance of the first building permit for any multiple-unit project not located in the Coastal Zone that is locating its affordable housing units in the off-site affordable housing project, or (b) eighteen (18) months following the date the Coastal Commission approves a Coastal Development Permit or Coastal Development Permit amendment to allow a multiple-unit project in the Coastal Zone to locate its affordable units in the off-site affordable housing project, unless the City grants a twelve (12) month extension for good cause in writing prior to the expiration of the forty-eight (48) month term. If construction of the off-site 100% affordable housing project does commence within the applicable forty-eight (48) month term, or within the twelve (12) month extension period if an extension is granted by the City, then the Option Agreement shall automatically become null and void and shall be removed from title upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 100% affordable housing project. For purposes of this subsection (6)(a), “commence” has the meaning given in subsection (5)(c)(iii).
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 32 c. Concurrently with the recordation of the Option Agreement on the offsite property, the applicant or owner shall execute and record on each multipleunit property a Notice of Off-Site Affordability Covenants that discloses the location of the off-site property and the description of the Affordability Covenants to be recorded on the off-site property. The Notice of Off-Site Affordability Covenants shall not impose any duty on the applicant or owner of the multiple-unit property to comply with any affordability requirements on-site and shall merely serve as notice that the affordability requirements of Chapter 9.64 are to be satisfied off-site. The Notice of Off-Site Affordability Covenants shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. Concurrently with the recordation of the Option Agreement on the offsite property, the applicant or owner shall execute and record on the off-site housing property Affordability Covenants in compliance with Section 9.64.130, which shall be recorded ahead of any monetary liens. If the applicant or owner has recorded affordability covenants on the multiple unit property, and if the owner desires to utilize the provisions of Section 9.64.075. D, then the applicant or owner must request release of the on-site affordability covenants on the multiple unit property prior to issuance of a building permit on the multiple unit property and such covenants shall be released by the City concurrently with the recording of the Affordability Covenants on the off-site housing property, provided that the applicant or owner has complied with all other conditions set forth in Section 9.64.075.B and D. Concurrently with the recordation of the Affordability Covenants on the off-site property, the applicant or owner shall execute and record on the off-site housing property a Right of First Refusal Agreement in form approved by the City Attorney,
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 33 which have a concurrent term with the Affordability Covenants and shall be recorded ahead of any monetary liens; provided, however, that If, at any time during the term of the Right of First Refusal Agreement, the owner proposes to refinance any of the existing indebtedness on the off-site property or intends to borrow additional funds after commencement of the term of the Right of First Refusal Agreement, the City Manager may approve subordination of the Right of First Refusal to the new secured (re)financing. The City shall not unreasonably withhold its approval if: (i) the terms and conditions of the additional loan or refinanced loan provide the City with such security and remedies as the City deems adequate in the City’s sole discretion; (ii) the additional loan or refinanced loan is consistent with the City’s objectives to preserve the City's affordable housing stock; (iii) the owner is not taking cash out of the equity of the off-site property for any purposes other than effecting necessary structural and equipment replacements and improvements of a capital nature for the property; and (iv) the additional indebtedness will not impair the security of the Affordability Covenants and/or Right of First Refusal.
d. The applicant or owner shall provide a current title report evidencing that no monetary liens are recorded on title of the off-site property at the time the Option Agreement, Affordability Covenants, and Right of First Refusal Agreement are recorded. The Option Agreement, Affordability Covenants, and Right of First Refusal Agreement shall each provide that no monetary liens may be recorded on the off-site property until the building permit is issued for construction of the 100% affordable housing project.
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 34 e. If an applicant for a multiple-unit project located in the Coastal Zone timely satisfies the requirements above, the City shall execute a termination of the preexisting multiple-unit project’s onsite affordable covenant agreement within ten (10) business days of issuance of the building permit for the 100% affordable housing project.
f. Prior and as a condition to obtaining a building permit for any multiple-unit project, owner or applicant shall submit a complete entitlement application for the 100% affordable housing project.
g. Prior to and as a condition to obtaining a certificate of occupancy for any multiple-unit project, owner or applicant shall have submitted a complete set of construction plans for the 100% affordable housing project, as reasonably determined by the City’s Building Official.
h. Notwithstanding any other provisions in this ordinance to the contrary, City may exercise the Option to purchase the off-site property in accordance with the Option Agreement before issuance of the certificate of occupancy for any multiple-unit project if the owner or applicant does not submit a complete set of construction plans for the off-site property within sixty (60) days of applicant’s or owner’s request for issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any multiple-unit project.
7. Unit Mix. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, affordable units proposed for the off-site property shall not include studio units.
E. Substantial Rehabilitation of Units at an Off-Site Property in lieu of New Construction. Notwithstanding Section 9.64.040(B), and excluding any required
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 35 affordable or rent controlled replacement units that may be required pursuant to Government Code Sections 66300.5 and 66300.6, an applicant for a multiple-unit project may satisfy the affordable housing obligation in Chapter 9.64 by substantial rehabilitation of affordable housing units at an off-site property, subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantially Rehabilitated. Units to be substantially rehabilitated at an off-site property must comply with the following provisions:
a. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a multiple-unit project, the City Council must determine at a public hearing that the units proposed for substantial rehabilitation at an off-site property must be at imminent risk of loss to the housing stock and the units proposed for substantial rehabilitation are unfit for human habitation due to the existence of at least four violations of the conditions listed in subdivisions (a) to (g), inclusive, of Section 17995.3 of the Health and Safety Code.
b. The applicant must commit to providing the displaced tenants with relocation assistance in accordance with Section 4.36.100 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, provided that (i) if the owner elects to satisfy the temporary relocation obligations by payment of the daily per diem, the total amount paid to the tenant shall be no less than four times the tenant’s rent; and (ii) if the owner elects to satisfy their temporary relocation obligations by providing a comparable replacement unit, the owner shall additionally pay the tenant four times the tenant’s monthly rent and shall reduce the tenant’s monthly rent during relocation, if necessary, so that the rent does not exceed 30% of the tenant’s income.
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 36 c. Any displaced tenant, regardless of income status for displaced tenants of rent-controlled units, must have the right to reoccupy the rehabilitated units.
d. Rehabilitated units must have long-term affordability requirements for lower income households, for a term of not less than 75 years. e. As a condition to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any multiunit property that will satisfy the affordable housing obligation in Chapter 9.64 by substantial rehabilitation of off-site units, and prior to initial occupancy after rehabilitation, the City’s Building Official shall issue a certificate of occupancy indicating compliance with all applicable state and local building code and health and safety code requirements for the substantially rehabilitated units.
2. Additional Requirements for Substantially Rehabilitated Units. a. Prior to obtaining a building permit for a multiple-unit project, the applicant shall provide a rehabilitation plan which has been approved by the City’s Housing Division Manager that includes the following information:
i. Documentation evidencing applicant’s ownership or control of the rehabilitation property during the period of rehabilitation; ii. A property assessment report performed by a licensed appraiser for the rehabilitation property, including all units proposed for substantial rehabilitation;
iii. Identification and location of the units that will be substantially rehabilitated;
iv. Scope and budget for substantial rehabilitation;
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 37 v. Demonstrated sources and uses of financing required for substantial rehabilitation; and
b. Applicant shall indicate the exact location of units that will be provided to very and lower--income households.
c. Applicant shall comply with Chapter 8.100, Tenant Protection During Construction, as amended from time to time.
d. The applicant or owner shall provide a current title report evidencing that no monetary liens are recorded on title of the off-site property hosting the substantially rehabilitated units.
e. Execute and record on the property hosting the substantially rehabilitated units a 75-year deed restriction to ensure that the rehabilitated units are restricted for rental to qualifying lower income households at an affordable rent, in form approved by the City Attorney.
f. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, substantially rehabilitated units shall not include studio units.
F. In Lieu Fee Option for Off-Site Housing (without land provided).
1. Notwithstanding Section 9.64.070, an applicant for a multiple-unit project may satisfy the affordable housing obligation in Chapter 9.64 by paying an in-lieu fee based on the following formula:
(Base Unit Fee per Square Foot) x (total square feet of the residential floor area in the multiple-unit project)
2. For purposes of this Section, the City's base unit fee per square foot shall be established pursuant to Section 9.64.070 by resolution of the City Council.
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 38 Commencing on July 1, 2026, and on July 1st of each fiscal year thereafter, the City's base unit fee per square foot shall be adjusted based on changes in construction costs and land costs.
3. The affordable housing fee shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for any multiple-unit project utilizing Section 9.64.075(F).
4. The City shall deposit any payment made pursuant to this Section
9.64.075(F) in a reserve account separate from the General Fund to be used only for development of affordable housing, administrative costs related to the production of this housing, substantial rehabilitation of existing affordable housing, a City sponsored program of rental subsidies for lower income Santa Monica residents, and monitoring and evaluation of this affordable housing production program.
G. Purchase of At-Risk Covenants. Notwithstanding Section 9.64.040(B), and excluding any required affordable or rent controlled replacement units that may be required pursuant to Government Code Sections 66300.5 and 66300.6, an owner or applicant for a multiple-unit project may satisfy the affordable housing obligation in Chapter 9.64 by purchasing at-risk covenants on an off-site property, subject to the following conditions:
a. The term of the at-risk covenants shall be extended by recording of new Affordability Covenants in compliance with Section 9.64.130 with a term of seventy-five (75) years from the issuance of the building permit issued for any multiple-unit project to be issued a building permit.
b. The affordable units shall be rental units. The number of affordable units shall be calculated as set forth in Section 9.64.075(I).
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 39 c. The applicant’s or owner’s use of this Section 9.64.075(G) shall be subject to City Manager’s prior written approval, based upon the City’s assessment that the structural condition of the property City supports the purchase of at-risk covenants and the extension of the affordability period for seventy-five (75) years. In the event that the City determines the structural condition of the proposed off-site property is not feasible to support the useful life of the property for the extended covenant period of seventy-five (75) years, the owner or applicant may not use this Section 9.64.075(G). d. The owner of the property shall submit an annual report pursuant to the new Affordability Covenants recorded on the off-site property as discussed in Section
9.64.075(D).
H. Local Incentive Density Bonus. Multiple-unit projects satisfying their affordable housing obligation in lieu of Chapter 9.64 in accordance with Section 9.64.075 shall be eligible for a local incentive of density bonuses, incentives and concessions, waivers and reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios equivalent to those set forth in Chapter 9.22, Density Bonus, as if the affordable units were provided on the site of the multiple-unit project. Further, as an additional local density bonus, any on-site affordable units that were formerly part of an approved multiple-unit project can convert to market-rate units in the revised multiple-unit project. Any off-site affordable housing project shall be eligible for density bonuses, incentives and concessions, waivers and reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios under State Density Bonus Law.
I. Calculation of Off-Site Affordable Units. The number of affordable units to be provided in the 100% affordable housing project shall be calculated as follows:
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 40 1. Eligible Housing Projects Entitled Without Additional Very Low or Moderate-Income Units to Obtain Additional Density Bonuses Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(v): For housing projects previously entitled that do not propose additional moderate-income units to obtain additional density bonuses pursuant to Government Code section 65915(v), any applicant utilizing the off-site options under this Section 9.64.075 shall provide no less than fifteen percent (15%) of the base density number of units, prior to the award of any market rate density bonus units under State Density Bonus Law (California Government Code Section 65915 et. seq.) and Chapter 9.22, Density Bonus within each multiple-unit project as:
a. Affordable deed-restricted units in an offsite 100% affordable housing project in accordance with subsection (D);
b. Substantially rehabilitated deed-restricted units in accordance with subsection (E);
c. Equivalent in-lieu fee in accordance with subsection (F); or d. Purchase of at-risk covenants in accordance with subsection (G).
By way of illustration, if the base density number of units (prior to the award of a market rate density bonus) is 100 units, then the applicant must provide 15 deed restricted units at the designated off-site property.
2. Eligible Housing Projects Entitled With Additional Proposed Density Bonuses Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(v): For housing projects previously entitled with additional very low income or moderate-income units and proposed additional density bonuses pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(v), any applicant utilizing the off-site options under this Section 9.64.075 shall provide no
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 41 less than the percentage of very low or moderate income units as required in the chart contained in Government Code Section 65915(2) as calculated against the base density:
a. Affordable deed-restricted units in a 100% affordable housing project in accordance with subsection (D);
b. substantially rehabilitated deed-restricted units in accordance with subsection (E);
c. Equivalent in-lieu fee in accordance with subsection (F); or d. Purchase of at-risk covenants in accordance with subsection (G).
By way of illustration, if the base density number of units (prior to the award of a market rate density bonus) is 100 units, and the applicant of a multiple-unit project has obtained approval of an additional 50 percent density bonus (for a total 100 percent density bonus) by providing additional Moderate Income units pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(v)(2), then the applicant must provide 30 deed restricted units at the designated off-site property.
G. Administrative Fee. An administrative fee shall be assessed and paid to the City by the owner or applicant at the time of issuance of the building permit for any multipleunit project. The administrative fee shall be imposed to cover cost of administering and implementing the requirements of this Section and shall be set by City Council resolution.
H. Community Benefit Payment. In consideration for the local density bonus granted herein, solely in connection with the first transfer of a multiple-unit project and/or multiple-unit project property, or portion thereof, if such first transfer does not constitute a Measure GS Transfer for any reason, the owner or applicant shall pay the Community Benefit Payment to City in the amount of: 5.0% of the amount of consideration or value
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 42 paid for the first transfer of the multiple-unit project and/or multiple-unit project property, or portion thereof; or, if the City’s Third Tier Tax Rate, as defined in Chapter 6.96, is reduced for any reason (e.g., by ordinance modification or repeal, ballot initiative, or state law), subsequent to the effective date of the ordinance adopting Section 9.64.075, in addition to paying the reduced amount, the owner or applicant shall pay the Community Benefit Payment to City in the amount of the difference between [5.0% of the amount of consideration or value paid for the first transfer of the multiple-unit project and/or multipleunit project property, or portion thereof] and [the reduced amount paid]. For illustrative purposes only, if the City’s Third Tier Tax Rate is reduced to 2.5%, the owner or applicant shall pay 5.0% equal to the 2.5% reduced amount plus 2.5% as the difference between
5.0% and 2.5%.
1. No Change to Applicability of Chapter 6.96. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, nothing in this Section 9.64.075 shall be interpreted to alter, modify, negate, reduce or void the applicability of Chapter 6.96 to any first or subsequent transfers of the multiple-unit project and/or multiple-unit project property, or portion thereof.
2. Security for the Community Benefit Payment. As a condition to obtaining a building permit for any multiple-unit project, the applicant or owner shall execute and record a Performance Deed of Trust on the multiple-unit project to secure the payment of the Community Benefit Payment to the City. Alternatively, in lieu of a Performance Deed of Trust, the City Manager may accept equivalent security in the form of an irrevocable standby letter of credit issued by an FDIC insured financial institution in form approved by the City Attorney.
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 43 3. Timing for Community Benefit Payment. The Community Benefit Payment shall be due upon first transfer of a multiple-unit project and/or a multiple-unit project property from the owner or applicant to a third-party, as set forth, below:
a. If Chapter 6.96 is in effect at the time of the transfer, the Community Benefit Payment shall be deemed as paid and the Performance Deed of Trust shall be reconveyed or, if accepted as an alternative to the Performance Deed of Trust, the irrevocable standby letter of credit shall be released, concurrently with the transfer through escrow provided that the owner or applicant provides no less than thirty (30) days written notice of the transfer to the City. b. If Chapter 6.96 is not in effect at the time of the transfer for any reason (including partial reduction), the owner or applicant shall be required to pay the Community Benefit Payment directly to the City no later than the date of the transfer and the Performance Deed of Trust shall be reconveyed or, if accepted as an alternative to the Performance Deed of Trust, the irrevocable standby letter of credit shall be released, concurrently with the transfer through escrow provided that the owner or applicant provides no less than thirty (30) days written notice of the transfer to the City.
c. If Chapter 6.96 is not in effect at the time of the transfer for any reason (including partial reduction) and Community Benefit Payment has not been paid prior to the transfer, the City may exercise its remedies under the Performance Deed of Trust, or, alternatively, draw down on the irrevocable standby letter of credit, to recover the Community Benefit Payment, plus all City costs to recover
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) 44 the Community Benefit Payment, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, in addition to any other remedies allowed by law.
SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
HEIDI VON TONGELN
Interim City Attorney
4.H.a
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: AHPP Ordinance 2nd reading (7508 : AHPP Ord - Second Reading) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026
Agenda Item: 5.A
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, Interim City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1):
John U.N.B. Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV12746; John Doe 1, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV15009; Hector Orozco v. John Doe: Does 1-2; LASC # 23SMCV03120; John JPC Doe v. Doe City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV22020; John AD Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV26548; John CW Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV29623; John Doe (A.G.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al; LASC # 23SMCV06066; John GA DOE, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV06484; John U.L.W. Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV06768; Joseph Garcia v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV01368; John Doe 15, et al. v.
City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV07647; John Doe 18, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV0239; John RR Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV09398; John Doe 33, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV15580; John Doe 48 v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV15420; John Doe 49 v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV19296; John DD Doe v.
City, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV04421; Jane EB Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV24146; John Doe (V.D.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05049; John Doe (D.F.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05050; John Doe (D.G.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05051; Jane Doe 13, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV27233; John AM Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV28433; John Doe v. City, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05527; John Doe 53 v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV31763; John Doe (Y.M.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV06355; Jane Doe 16, et al. v. a Public Entity, et al.; LASC # 25STCV02235; John Doe 62, et al. v.
City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV04414; John Doe 23 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV05850; John Doe (E.B.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 25STCV06354; Jane PB Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV06880; John Doe 67 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV10142; John Doe 68 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV12089; John Doe 69, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV14031; John OR Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV16251; John RD Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV24158
5.A
Packet Pg. 467
2 of 2
Prepared By: Andrew Cabello, Legal Assistant
Approved Forwarded to Council
5.A
Packet Pg. 468
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026
Agenda Item: 5.G
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, Interim City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Conference with real estate negotiator - Gov. Code § 54956.8; property:
1333 4th/1324 5th Street (“4th/5th/Arizona”) and 1234 4th Street ("Parking Structure 1), Santa Monica, California; City negotiators: Natalie Verlinich, Housing Manager, and Agustin Aleman, Senior Development Analyst; owner of record: City of Santa Monica; persons to be negotiated with: Mee Heh Risdon, Director of Housing, A Community of Friends; Jeff Edgren, Director of Acquisitions, Affirmed Housing; Frank Chang, Vice President of Acquisitions, Linc Housing; Gary Steinhardt, Metropolitan Pacific Real Estate Group; Jay Stark, Principal, The Pinyon Group; Bill Witte, CEO, Related California; David Grunwald, Executive Vice President, RMG Housing; Steven Spielberg, Senior Vice President, Alliant Communities; Andrew Bueno, Bueno Group; Charles Cohen, Project Manager, EAH, Inc.; Daniel Hanasab, Principal, Orum Capital; Luis de la Rosa, Pacific Urbanism; Shant Samuelian, Samuelian Group; Jason Yap, Director of Acquisitions, Sola Impact; Anup Patel, Director of Real Estate Development, West Hollywood Community Housing Corporation; Hunter Simmons, Partner, Bridge Realty Advisors; Mike Lanza, Project Manager, People Assisting the Homeless; Ian Fishburn, Managing Director, Vitruvian Development; under negotiation: disposition of property, price and terms of payment
Prepared By: Andrew Cabello, Legal Assistant
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
5.G
Packet Pg. 469
1 David Yakobson
From: Kathy Knight <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 2:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi
Subject: Item 5.G 4th/5th and Arizona 27 SM City Council Meeting Closed Session Item
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members: We strongly support this letter. Please DON’T SELL OUR PRECIOUS PUBLIC LAND AT 5th & Arizona.
Kathy Knight and Joe Faris
Santa Monica Residents for past 30 years
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] ov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], na [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] v, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] v, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Sent: 1/26/2026 2:47:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: January 27, 2026 Council Meeting - CLOSED SESSION Item 5.G. - 4th/5th & Arizona - NO SALE! GROUND LEASE ONLY!
Dear Mayor Torosis, Mr. Chi, and Councilmembers -
Regarding this closed session real estate negotiation about City-owned land at 4th/5th & Arizona... ...I strongly urge you please never to sell this public land at 4th/5th & Arizona, if that's what on the table tomorrow night. Please only consider a long-term ground lease.
Why? We owe it to the future financial health of our City not to deplete our City's property inventory today.
We have a fiduciary responsibility to preserve opportunities and flexibility for our City to meet its future needs, both decades or even a century from now. This is a huge, marquee property. So please only consider a long-term lease structure, not a sale.
To wit - Many in the community including me were shocked to learn recently that the City inconceivably deeded the contentious Ocean Avenue properties to Community Corp. back in 2016. Deeded ocean-view properties!! That was an action, presumably, of the "Gleam Davis crony capitalism and public land privatization Council". I believe it is short-sighted and irresponsible to hand over City-owned properties that will only continue to skyrocket in value over time in what is a land-locked City.
Please preserve the City's ownership of our public lands for an as-yet unknowable future.
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
5.G.a
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7525 : 1333 4th) 2 N.B. - As a result of so many land transfers in the past 10-20 years, Community Corp likely has a billion dollar+ real estate portfolio. And we have just seen they may have been poised to sell out to a developer with an extremely bad reputation who you fired from the DTSM Board of Directors. Argh!!
Long-term lease ONLY, please!!!
THANK YOU SO MUCH!
Best, Ann Bowman
Resident, 29 years
G. Conference with real estate negotiator - Gov. Code § 54956.8; property: New Item Received 1/22/2026
1333 4th/1324 5th Street (“4th/5th/Arizona”) and 1234 4th Street ("Parking Structure 1), Santa Monica, California; City negotiators: Natalie Verlinich, Housing Manager, and Agustin Aleman, Senior Development Analyst; owner of record: City of Santa Monica; persons to be negotiated with: Mee Heh Risdon, Director of Housing, A Community of Friends; Jeff Edgren, Director of Acquisitions, Affirmed Housing; Frank Chang, Vice President of Acquisitions, Linc Housing; Gary Steinhardt, Metropolitan Pacific Real Estate Group; Jay Stark, Principal, The Pinyon Group; Bill Witte, CEO, Related California; David Grunwald, Executive Vice President, RMG Housing; Steven Spielberg, Senior Vice President, Alliant Communities; Andrew Bueno, Bueno Group; Charles Cohen, Project Manager, EAH, Inc.; Daniel Hanasab, Principal, Orum Capital; Luis de la Rosa, Pacific Urbanism; Shant Samuelian, Samuelian Group; Jason Yap, Director of Acquisitions, Sola Impact; Anup Patel, Director of Real Estate Development, West Hollywood Community Housing Corporation; Hunter Simmons, Partner, Bridge Realty Advisors; Mike Lanza, Project Manager, People Assisting the Homeless; Ian Fishburn, Managing Director, Vitruvian Development; under negotiation: disposition of property, price and terms of payment
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
5.G.a
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7525 : 1333 4th) 1 David Yakobson
From: Soloff, Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 3:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 1.27.26 City Council Meeting Agenda (Items 10.1, 16.c, and 5.G
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:
I have a meeting tonight as a pro bono attorney with the tenants of a building in Echo Park whose landlord illegally tried to empty the building. I therefore may not make it back to your meeting in time to provide live public comment (and have learned that phone comment required sign up yesterday). Here are my comments.
Main Agenda
Item 10A
SMRR supports adoption of the proposed worker retention policy, but urges that you amend the draft to include the specific language proposed by UniteHere. SMRR understands that by making these amendments you will bring the new ordinance into conformity with the Los Angeles LAX ordinance and other local ordinances.
Workers at the hotels on City land, and at pier businesses, play a vital role in our tourist economy, and thereby contribute greatly to the sales tax and TOT tax that benefits all of us residing in Santa Monica. We owe it to those workers to protect them to the extent reasonably possible from losing their jobs merely because one lessee goes out of business and a new one enters. Assuring that those workers can be retained, even if there is a delay between the closing of one business and the opening of another, is a very reasonable step that the UniteHere language addresses. It is bad enough that Rusty’s was closed immediately after the workers had decided to unionize. It would add additional injury if this City allowed the delay in reopening at that location to cost these workers their jobs.
Item 16C
SMRR applauds the eƯort of Mayor Torosis and Council members Hall and Raskin in bringing forward an item focusing on aƯordability. SMRR was formed to preserve housing aƯordability, and has continued to fight to do so for more than 45 years. SMRR believes all of the items are worthy of study, although any final position will depend on the details of any proposals later brought forward.
SMRR believes that one critical aƯordability program needs to be added to the list; namely, the Council should direct exploration of expansion of cash payments to rent burdened renter households. The POD program targets senior households, but many other types of households—including families with children and even residents of some of our aƯordable housing projects, get no help from that program at Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
5.G.a
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7525 : 1333 4th) 2 present. Part of the reason for passing 2022 Measure GS was to allow expansion of assistance to new groups, and Council should direct exploration of doing so.
The prior direction by Council to stand up a right to council and flexible financial assistance program is critical to avoiding homelessness. But as this item highlights, that does not address ongoing aƯordability and the devastating health and educational consequences of being lower income and rent burdened. Direct cash payments do address this in a highly cost-eƯective manner, as the POD program and Section 8 prove. Please add this to your aƯordability study agenda.
Consent Calendar
Item 5.G
As a personal comment only, while I rarely agree with the people who provided written comment on this, I think that from a transparency perspective the City is going overboard by putting all of this into closed session (i.e., even withholding the rough outlines of what it is going to negotiate about regarding the public land). I also have concerns about EAH given that so little progress has been made on the 4th Street Garage project to date, and hope that the City will negotiate provisions with whomever to assure real and timely progress is made toward building the aƯordable housing to which the City committed in the housing element on its public land.
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
5.G.a
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7525 : 1333 4th) 1 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 11:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln Subject: 1/27/26 City Council - Items 5G, 5H, 5I, 5J - OPPOSE & Brown Act Violation
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to oppose Items 5G, 5H, 5I, 5J as Brown Act violations. The Brown Act allows for narrow exceptions of price and terms of real estate transactions to be discussed in closed session. However, how we use our public funds and public land, to what goals and policies, and with which counterparties, should all be discussed publicly BEFORE working out a deal.
There is a lot of controversy surrounding pier leases and we need to know what you are doing with this unique asset.
Furthermore, regarding the other 3 properties, residents have raised myriad issues relating to programs and services being offered in Santa Monica, many by the county and with insufficient city and resident transparency and engagement. You have recently unanimously approved several 16 items requiring more transparency. Yet we have at least 3 more items on today's closed session that appear to fall in this category and have no public outreach component.
In addition, Item 5G appears to be contemplating a sale of city property and that should NEVER be done. Once you sell OUR LAND, we can never get it back. Selling public land is a short term solution lacking vision and leadership. You also shouldn't be saddling us with a lease of OUR LAND that we didn't have the opportunity to review and comment on.
Please stop working on these items until we have a transparent public discussion, making use of all the information required by recent 16 items, regarding the use of our public land and the services being provided in our city.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and Voter
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
5.G.a
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7525 : 1333 4th) 1 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 11:30 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Cc: Peter James; Susan Cline; [email protected]; Jing Yeo; [email protected]; Natalie Verlinich; Jennifer Taylor; Nia Tang; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Mtg. 1/27/2026 - CLOSED SESSION - Item 5.G - 4th/5th & Arizona - No sale of public land; ground lease only
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Councilmembers and City Manager Chi, Regarding this closed session real estate negotiation about City-owned land at 4th/5th & Arizona I strongly urge you to please reconsider selling the public land at 4th/5th & Arizona, if that's what is on the table night. Please only consider a long-term ground lease.
Why? We owe it to the future financial health of our City not to deplete our City's property inventory today. As well, this property is the heart of Santa Monica. We have a fiduciary responsibility to preserve opportunities and flexibility for our City to meet its future needs, both decades or even a century from now. This is a huge, marquee property. So please only consider a long-term lease structure, not a sale and continue looking for this property to provide cultural and financial benefits for our city's long-term future.
I was surprised to learn recently that the City inconceivably deeded two contentious Ocean Avenue properties to Community Corp. back in 2016. Deeded ocean-view properties! That action and presumably the lack of transparency of it continues to make residents question the promises of transparency and accountability, something it has been impeling neighborhood groups to do. In addition, there have been two Ocean Ave. properties used by a developer to land bank these properties until they could receive higher development thresholds and we have seen a mental health facility, sober living and "prisoner" housing, as defined by the city, try to be located there with no risk requirement analysis or assessment on the neighborhood. I believe it is short-sighted and irresponsible to hand over City-owned properties that will only continue to skyrocket in value over time in what is a land-locked, three-sided City.
Please preserve the City's ownership of our public lands for an as-yet unknowable future.
With respect to Community Corp and as a result of so many land transfers in the past 10-20 years to Community Corp it is a possibility that it has a billion dollar+ real estate portfolio. And we have just seen they may have been poised to sell out to a developer with an extremely bad reputation who you fired from the DTSM Board of Directors. I would request that Councilmember Snell as Chair of the Audit Sub-Committee identify as a key project for the internal auditors an effort to understand the current state of Community Corporation's Santa Monica real estate footprint/portfolio, 10 year Santa Monica city build/facility management plan and overall assessment of transparency, accountability and ongoing reporting to Santa Monica City Council and residents.
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
5.G.a
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7525 : 1333 4th) 2 Finally, with respect to city land and the two and half year Santa Monica Realignment Plan passed in October 2025, I would request that the pro forma income statement for this massive program provide a detailed budget of revenue sources and expenses for it. The original Realignment Plan document outlined specific expenses but did not forecast how much revenue (one-time or ongoing) would be generated from the revenue sources discussed and had little numerical specificity. In this way we will know how much of that revenue is one-time i.e., from reserves, selling public land, selling/leasing city rights to private companies, etc. The city needs to be clear about its targets and forecasting to ensure the promises of transparency and accountability in its actions and reporting. We should be tracking, ensuring and reporting the revenue sources generated from the Realignment Plan are growing in the ongoing revenue category and provides a sustainable financial future or discuss other options, openly and on a timely basis.
Many thanks,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Wilmont, 45 years
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
5.G.a
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7525 : 1333 4th) 1 David Yakobson
From: Alex Novakovich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 5:27 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Oliver Chi
Cc: councilmtgitems; Peter James; Susan Cline; Oscar Santiago; Jing Yeo; Heather Averick; Natalie Verlinich; Jennifer Taylor; Nia Tang; Agustin Aleman Subject: Closed session item 5-G. Do not sell!
EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis, Mr. Chi and Councilmembers,
“Buy Land — they ain’t making any more of that stuff.”
Will Rogers
Regarding the closed session real estate negotiation concerning City-owned land at at Arizona Ave. between 4th & 5th Streets:
Please do not sell the public land at Arizona Ave. between 4th & 5th Streets. Please consider a long-term ground lease.
As a resident of Santa Monica for over 50 years I believe we owe it to the future financial health of our city not to deplete our City's inventory of property. The value of City-owned properties will only continue to skyrocket in our seaside city.
We have a fiduciary responsibility to preserve opportunities and flexibility for our City to meet its future needs. This is a huge, strategically placed property. Please only consider a long-term lease structure, not a sale.
Thank you,
Alex Novakovich
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
5.G.a
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7525 : 1333 4th) 2 David Yakobson
From: Ellen Mark <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 7:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi
Cc: Peter James; Susan Cline; Oscar Santiago; Jing Yeo; Heather Averick; Natalie Verlinich; Jennifer Taylor; Nia Tang; Agustin Aleman
Subject: January 27, 2026 Council Meeting - CLOSED SESSION Item 5.G. - 4th/5th & Arizona - NO SALE! GROUND LEASE ONLY!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Mr. Chi, and Councilmembers -
Regarding this closed session real estate negotiation about City-owned land at 4th/5th & Arizona...
Dear Mayor Tosoris, Mr. Chi, andCouncilmembers,
...I strongly urge you please never to sell this public land at 4th/5th & Arizona, if that's what on the table tomorrow night. Please only consider a long-term ground lease.
Why? We owe it to the future financial health of our City not to deplete our City's property inventory today.
We have a fiduciary responsibility to preserve opportunities and flexibility for our City to meet its future needs, both decades or even a century from now. This is a huge, marquee property. So please only consider a long-term lease structure, not a sale.
To wit - Many in the community including me were shocked to learn recently that the City inconceivably deeded the contentious Ocean Avenue properties to Community Corp. back in 2016. Deeded ocean-view properties!! That was an action, presumably, of the "Gleam Davis crony capitalism and public land privatization Council". I believe it is short-sighted and irresponsible to hand over City-owned properties that will only continue to skyrocket in value over time in what is a land-locked City.
Please preserve the City's ownership of our public lands for an as-yet unknowable future.
N.B. - As a result of so many land transfers in the past 10-20 years, Community Corp likely has a billion dollar+ real estate portfolio. And we have just seen they may have been poised to sell out to a developer with an extremely bad reputation who you fired from the DTSM Board of Directors. Argh!!
Long-term lease ONLY, please!!!
Thank you for your attention to this issue
Best,
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
5.G.a
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7525 : 1333 4th) 3 Ellen Mark
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
5.G.a
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7525 : 1333 4th) 1 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 2:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi
Cc: Peter James; Susan Cline; Oscar Santiago; Jing Yeo; Heather Averick; Natalie Verlinich; Jennifer Taylor; Nia Tang; Agustin Aleman
Subject: January 27, 2026 Council Meeting - CLOSED SESSION Item 5.G. - 4th/5th & Arizona - NO SALE! GROUND LEASE ONLY!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Mr. Chi, and Councilmembers -
Regarding this closed session real estate negotiation about City-owned land at 4th/5th & Arizona... ...I strongly urge you please never to sell this public land at 4th/5th & Arizona, if that's what on the table tomorrow night. Please only consider a long-term ground lease.
Why? We owe it to the future financial health of our City not to deplete our City's property inventory today.
We have a fiduciary responsibility to preserve opportunities and flexibility for our City to meet its future needs, both decades or even a century from now. This is a huge, marquee property. So please only consider a long-term lease structure, not a sale.
To wit - Many in the community including me were shocked to learn recently that the City inconceivably deeded the contentious Ocean Avenue properties to Community Corp. back in 2016.
Deeded ocean-view properties!! That was an action, presumably, of the "Gleam Davis crony capitalism and public land privatization Council". I believe it is short-sighted and irresponsible to hand over City-owned properties that will only continue to skyrocket in value over time in what is a land-locked City.
Please preserve the City's ownership of our public lands for an as-yet unknowable future.
N.B. - As a result of so many land transfers in the past 10-20 years, Community Corp likely has a billion dollar+ real estate portfolio. And we have just seen they may have been poised to sell out to a developer with an extremely bad reputation who you fired from the DTSM Board of Directors. Argh!!
Long-term lease ONLY, please!!!
THANK YOU SO MUCH!
Best, Ann Bowman
Resident, 29 years
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
5.G.a
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7525 : 1333 4th) 2 G.
Conference with real estate negotiator - Gov. Code § 54956.8; property:
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.New Item Received
1/22/2026
1333 4th/1324 5th Street (“4th/5th/Arizona”) and 1234 4th Street ("Parking Structure 1), Santa Monica, California; City negotiators: Natalie Verlinich, Housing Manager, and Agustin Aleman, Senior Development Analyst; owner of record: City of Santa Monica; persons to be negotiated with: Mee Heh Risdon, Director of Housing, A Community of Friends; Jeff Edgren, Director of Acquisitions, Affirmed Housing; Frank Chang, Vice President of Acquisitions, Linc Housing; Gary Steinhardt, Metropolitan Pacific Real Estate Group; Jay Stark, Principal, The Pinyon Group; Bill Witte, CEO, Related California; David Grunwald, Executive Vice President, RMG Housing; Steven Spielberg, Senior Vice President, Alliant Communities; Andrew Bueno, Bueno Group; Charles Cohen, Project Manager, EAH, Inc.; Daniel Hanasab, Principal, Orum Capital; Luis de la Rosa, Pacific Urbanism; Shant Samuelian, Samuelian Group; Jason Yap, Director of Acquisitions, Sola Impact; Anup Patel, Director of Real Estate Development, West Hollywood Community Housing Corporation; Hunter Simmons, Partner, Bridge Realty Advisors; Mike Lanza, Project Manager, People Assisting the Homeless; Ian Fishburn, Managing Director, Vitruvian Development; under negotiation: disposition of property, price and terms of payment
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
document
Staff
Report
Printout
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
Item 5-G
January 27, 2026
5.G.a
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7525 : 1333 4th) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026
Agenda Item: 5.H
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, Interim City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Conference with real estate negotiator - Gov. Code § 54956.8; property: 256 Santa Monica Pier, Santa Monica, California; City negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager; owner of record: City of Santa Monica; persons to be negotiated with: Sean Ahaus, California Roadhouse, Inc., a California corporation d.b.a.
California Roadhouse; under negotiation: price and terms of payment for lease
Prepared By: Andrew Cabello, Legal Assistant
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
5.H
Packet Pg. 482
1 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 11:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln Subject: 1/27/26 City Council - Items 5G, 5H, 5I, 5J - OPPOSE & Brown Act Violation
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to oppose Items 5G, 5H, 5I, 5J as Brown Act violations. The Brown Act allows for narrow exceptions of price and terms of real estate transactions to be discussed in closed session. However, how we use our public funds and public land, to what goals and policies, and with which counterparties, should all be discussed publicly BEFORE working out a deal.
There is a lot of controversy surrounding pier leases and we need to know what you are doing with this unique asset.
Furthermore, regarding the other 3 properties, residents have raised myriad issues relating to programs and services being offered in Santa Monica, many by the county and with insufficient city and resident transparency and engagement. You have recently unanimously approved several 16 items requiring more transparency. Yet we have at least 3 more items on today's closed session that appear to fall in this category and have no public outreach component.
In addition, Item 5G appears to be contemplating a sale of city property and that should NEVER be done. Once you sell OUR LAND, we can never get it back. Selling public land is a short term solution lacking vision and leadership. You also shouldn't be saddling us with a lease of OUR LAND that we didn't have the opportunity to review and comment on.
Please stop working on these items until we have a transparent public discussion, making use of all the information required by recent 16 items, regarding the use of our public land and the services being provided in our city.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and Voter
Item 5-I
January 27, 2026
Item 5-I
January 27, 2026
5.H.a
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Written Comments (7533 : 5.H. Closed Session: Roadhouse) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 11:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 1/27/26 items 5-I and 5-J-- Is the city planning to run both The Manor and the Palm Motel?
EXTERNAL
I. Conference with real estate negotiator - Gov. Code § 54956.8; property: 2019 and 1905 Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica, California; City negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager; owner of record: Dennis Wylder; persons to be negotiated with: Dennis Wylder; under negotiation: price and terms of payment of lease
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.New Item Received 1/22/2026
J.
Item 5-I
January 27, 2026
Item 5-I
January 27, 2026
5.H.a
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Written Comments (7533 : 5.H. Closed Session: Roadhouse) 6 1905 Pico Blvd. and 2019 Pico Blvd. are both "The Manor" -- licensed by by the State of California to California Care Centers. https://themanoronline.com/ -- They're both on the north side of Pico Blvd. and have been there for many years. It is described as a residential facility for mentally ill and developmentally disabled adults (board & care).
We discussed it at the last Neighborhood Council meeting. A Wilmont Board member said that it was a wonderful facility for his relative, but a PNA Board member said that PNA gets lots of complaints. If you Google "the Manor Santa Monica + reviews" the reviews run the gamut.
The Pico Neighborhood is only four blocks wide and 1.4 miles long, yet it is apparently home to 22 low-income and/or assisted living projects.
According to AI: The Manor is a licensed residential care facility in West Los Angeles/Santa Monica serving adults with mental illness and developmental disabilities, offering services such as, but not limited to, 24-hour care, meals, and assistance with daily living, as reported on the website. It has faced challenges related to the financial strain on the broader Board and Care system in L.A. County.
In driving by, you can see that the outside of the buildings are deteriorating. If you drive up the alley north of Pico between 19th and 20th, you can see Manor residents hanging out in the alley.
Fatal stabbing in 2010: https://www.smdp.com/stabbing-called-random-attack/
Former resident with knife in 2021: https://www.smdp.com/smpd-arrest-man-with-knife-on-pico-blvd/
Dennis Wilder is the Executive Director of The Manor: https://themanoronline.com/contact_us.html
"Dennis Wylder" is listed in the Closed Session item.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-05-19-mn-9230-story.html -- This article from 1985 explains the finances and the differences in government funding and programs for mentally ill vs. developmentally disabled. Dennis Wilder is quoted.
https://homeless.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/FY-2022-23-Measure-H-Contractor-Directory.pdf -- Funding from L.A. County Measure H -- See pages 12, 21, 29, 33, 34, 38, 58, and 59 for various organizations in Santa Monica that received funding. The Manor (California Care Centers) is listed on p. 33. ********************************************************************************* Item 5-I
January 27, 2026
Item 5-I
January 27, 2026
5.H.a
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Written Comments (7533 : 5.H. Closed Session: Roadhouse) 7 From retired SMC Professor William Selby, who lives near the Palm Motel:
November 11, 2025
Hello City and County Officials:
Please find the attached letter that summarizes experiences from our neighbors (around SMC and 14th and Pico) who have become worried about the future of our community. This letter has evolved during the last year, reflecting accumulated comments from local homeowners, businesses, and numerous frightened tenants living in surrounding apartment buildings, some who fear retaliation from officials for speaking out.
We appreciate that you have been struggling to solve these problems and we hope you don’t see this letter or us as a problem, since we wish to support your efforts to find solutions to these growing challenges. But we were once an eclectic neighborhood with a diverse population of hardworking people from many different backgrounds and income levels who helped form the backbone of Santa Monica.
Now, our neighborhood is gradually and too often becoming known for human feces left in our streets, lifeless people passed out on our sidewalks, flailing mentally ill screaming obscenities and intimidating residents, and as a dangerous place to take kids or walk at night.
I’m sure you agree that this is not the future we want for our neighborhood or our city. So, we issue this letter as support for you and as a wakeup call for those who continue to champion failed policies that may be destroying our neighborhood and victimizing its residents.
I have lived and worked in Santa Monica since 1981 and in this neighborhood since 2001 and have contributed and volunteered to help improve the quality of our communities and our city. I am sending this on to you because it would be irresponsible for me to stand by in silence any longer while my worried neighbors continue to share their fears and frustrations ... and their feelings of helplessness.
Respectfully,
William Selby
310 463-8636
wselby9msn.com
1402 Bay Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 5-I
January 27, 2026
Item 5-I
January 27, 2026
5.H.a
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Written Comments (7533 : 5.H. Closed Session: Roadhouse) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026
Agenda Item: 5.I
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, Interim City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Conference with real estate negotiator - Gov. Code § 54956.8; property: 2019 and 1905 Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica, California; City negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager; owner of record: Dennis Wylder; persons to be negotiated with: Dennis Wylder; under negotiation: price and terms of payment of lease Prepared By: Andrew Cabello, Legal Assistant
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
5.I
Packet Pg. 487
1 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 11:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln Subject: 1/27/26 City Council - Items 5G, 5H, 5I, 5J - OPPOSE & Brown Act Violation
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to oppose Items 5G, 5H, 5I, 5J as Brown Act violations. The Brown Act allows for narrow exceptions of price and terms of real estate transactions to be discussed in closed session. However, how we use our public funds and public land, to what goals and policies, and with which counterparties, should all be discussed publicly BEFORE working out a deal.
There is a lot of controversy surrounding pier leases and we need to know what you are doing with this unique asset.
Furthermore, regarding the other 3 properties, residents have raised myriad issues relating to programs and services being offered in Santa Monica, many by the county and with insufficient city and resident transparency and engagement. You have recently unanimously approved several 16 items requiring more transparency. Yet we have at least 3 more items on today's closed session that appear to fall in this category and have no public outreach component.
In addition, Item 5G appears to be contemplating a sale of city property and that should NEVER be done. Once you sell OUR LAND, we can never get it back. Selling public land is a short term solution lacking vision and leadership. You also shouldn't be saddling us with a lease of OUR LAND that we didn't have the opportunity to review and comment on.
Please stop working on these items until we have a transparent public discussion, making use of all the information required by recent 16 items, regarding the use of our public land and the services being provided in our city.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and Voter
Item 5-I
January 27, 2026
Item 5-I
January 27, 2026
5.I.a
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Written Comments (7536 : 5.I. Closed Session: Wylder) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 11:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 1/27/26 items 5-I and 5-J-- Is the city planning to run both The Manor and the Palm Motel?
EXTERNAL
I. Conference with real estate negotiator - Gov. Code § 54956.8; property: 2019 and 1905 Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica, California; City negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager; owner of record: Dennis Wylder; persons to be negotiated with: Dennis Wylder; under negotiation: price and terms of payment of lease
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.New Item Received 1/22/2026
J.
Item 5-I
January 27, 2026
Item 5-I
January 27, 2026
5.I.a
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Written Comments (7536 : 5.I. Closed Session: Wylder) 6 1905 Pico Blvd. and 2019 Pico Blvd. are both "The Manor" -- licensed by by the State of California to California Care Centers. https://themanoronline.com/ -- They're both on the north side of Pico Blvd. and have been there for many years. It is described as a residential facility for mentally ill and developmentally disabled adults (board & care).
We discussed it at the last Neighborhood Council meeting. A Wilmont Board member said that it was a wonderful facility for his relative, but a PNA Board member said that PNA gets lots of complaints. If you Google "the Manor Santa Monica + reviews" the reviews run the gamut.
The Pico Neighborhood is only four blocks wide and 1.4 miles long, yet it is apparently home to 22 low-income and/or assisted living projects.
According to AI: The Manor is a licensed residential care facility in West Los Angeles/Santa Monica serving adults with mental illness and developmental disabilities, offering services such as, but not limited to, 24-hour care, meals, and assistance with daily living, as reported on the website. It has faced challenges related to the financial strain on the broader Board and Care system in L.A. County.
In driving by, you can see that the outside of the buildings are deteriorating. If you drive up the alley north of Pico between 19th and 20th, you can see Manor residents hanging out in the alley.
Fatal stabbing in 2010: https://www.smdp.com/stabbing-called-random-attack/
Former resident with knife in 2021: https://www.smdp.com/smpd-arrest-man-with-knife-on-pico-blvd/
Dennis Wilder is the Executive Director of The Manor: https://themanoronline.com/contact_us.html
"Dennis Wylder" is listed in the Closed Session item.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-05-19-mn-9230-story.html -- This article from 1985 explains the finances and the differences in government funding and programs for mentally ill vs. developmentally disabled. Dennis Wilder is quoted.
https://homeless.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/FY-2022-23-Measure-H-Contractor-Directory.pdf -- Funding from L.A. County Measure H -- See pages 12, 21, 29, 33, 34, 38, 58, and 59 for various organizations in Santa Monica that received funding. The Manor (California Care Centers) is listed on p. 33. ********************************************************************************* Item 5-I
January 27, 2026
Item 5-I
January 27, 2026
5.I.a
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Written Comments (7536 : 5.I. Closed Session: Wylder) 7 From retired SMC Professor William Selby, who lives near the Palm Motel:
November 11, 2025
Hello City and County Officials:
Please find the attached letter that summarizes experiences from our neighbors (around SMC and 14th and Pico) who have become worried about the future of our community. This letter has evolved during the last year, reflecting accumulated comments from local homeowners, businesses, and numerous frightened tenants living in surrounding apartment buildings, some who fear retaliation from officials for speaking out.
We appreciate that you have been struggling to solve these problems and we hope you don’t see this letter or us as a problem, since we wish to support your efforts to find solutions to these growing challenges. But we were once an eclectic neighborhood with a diverse population of hardworking people from many different backgrounds and income levels who helped form the backbone of Santa Monica.
Now, our neighborhood is gradually and too often becoming known for human feces left in our streets, lifeless people passed out on our sidewalks, flailing mentally ill screaming obscenities and intimidating residents, and as a dangerous place to take kids or walk at night.
I’m sure you agree that this is not the future we want for our neighborhood or our city. So, we issue this letter as support for you and as a wakeup call for those who continue to champion failed policies that may be destroying our neighborhood and victimizing its residents.
I have lived and worked in Santa Monica since 1981 and in this neighborhood since 2001 and have contributed and volunteered to help improve the quality of our communities and our city. I am sending this on to you because it would be irresponsible for me to stand by in silence any longer while my worried neighbors continue to share their fears and frustrations ... and their feelings of helplessness.
Respectfully,
William Selby
310 463-8636
wselby9msn.com
1402 Bay Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 5-I
January 27, 2026
Item 5-I
January 27, 2026
5.I.a
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Written Comments (7536 : 5.I. Closed Session: Wylder) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026
Agenda Item: 5.J
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, Interim City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Conference with real estate negotiator - Gov. Code § 54956.8; property: 2020 14th Street, Santa Monica, California; City negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager; owner of record: Thea Cappiccille; persons to be negotiated with:
Thea Cappiccille; under negotiation: price and terms of payment of lease Prepared By: Andrew Cabello, Legal Assistant
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
5.J
Packet Pg. 492
1 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 11:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln Subject: 1/27/26 City Council - Items 5G, 5H, 5I, 5J - OPPOSE & Brown Act Violation
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to oppose Items 5G, 5H, 5I, 5J as Brown Act violations. The Brown Act allows for narrow exceptions of price and terms of real estate transactions to be discussed in closed session. However, how we use our public funds and public land, to what goals and policies, and with which counterparties, should all be discussed publicly BEFORE working out a deal.
There is a lot of controversy surrounding pier leases and we need to know what you are doing with this unique asset.
Furthermore, regarding the other 3 properties, residents have raised myriad issues relating to programs and services being offered in Santa Monica, many by the county and with insufficient city and resident transparency and engagement. You have recently unanimously approved several 16 items requiring more transparency. Yet we have at least 3 more items on today's closed session that appear to fall in this category and have no public outreach component.
In addition, Item 5G appears to be contemplating a sale of city property and that should NEVER be done. Once you sell OUR LAND, we can never get it back. Selling public land is a short term solution lacking vision and leadership. You also shouldn't be saddling us with a lease of OUR LAND that we didn't have the opportunity to review and comment on.
Please stop working on these items until we have a transparent public discussion, making use of all the information required by recent 16 items, regarding the use of our public land and the services being provided in our city.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and Voter
Item 5-J
January 27, 2026
Item 5-J
January 27, 2026
5.J.a
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Written Comments (7537 : 5.J. Closed Session: Cappiccille) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 11:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; [email protected] Subject: 1/27/26 agenda item 5-J -- Leasing the Palm Motel on 14th just south of Pico Blvd.
EXTERNAL
From retired SMC Professor William Selby:
November 7, 2025
Our neighborhood needs your help.
You may have noticed that city and county officials seem to be concentrating transitional and homeless shelters, including housing for the mentally ill, in our neighborhood around Santa Monica College and the cemetery (surrounding both sides of Pico Blvd, roughly from Lincoln to Cloverfield Blvd. and Virginia Avenue Park).
We want to build partnerships with government officials and organizations to help solve problems that include caring for the unhoused, but fairness and social justice issues become evident when most of these new facilities are being located in one small neighborhood, especially when residents, businesses, schools, the college, and others who are impacted are kept in the dark about these changes.
As examples, the Palm Motel (at 2020 14th Street) was converted last year without any notification to the impacted community, and the Holiday Motel at 11th and Pico may be the latest. (Apparently, Santa Monica College Police were not even notified or aware after The Palm was converted, though it is across the street from their new Art Complex.)
We have evidence that severely mentally ill people are being housed there. And there have been consequences that include neighbors’ frustrations: disturbances that include “a parade of first responders at the hotel next door”; “screaming in the middle of the night in the hotel next door”; “I don’t feel safe going out during certain times of day in my own neighborhood”;” I can’t let my daughter out any more”; “I can’t even leave my windows open”; “I don’t even feel safe walking my dog.”
These new homeless shelters have recently been added to the long-existing Clare Foundation on Pico (“substance abuse services, residential treatment for substance abuse, and sober living for adults who live in Los Angeles”) and The Manor Board and Care Facility across from the college, “which has provided room, board, care and supervision since the 1960’s for persons with mental illness, and for those with developmental disabilities.”
Item 5-J
January 27, 2026
Item 5-J
January 27, 2026
5.J.a
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Written Comments (7537 : 5.J. Closed Session: Cappiccille) 2 We are not NIMBY’s. We all know there is a housing crisis in the region, and we have been proud to help solve it. But our diverse neighborhood (particularly around 14th Street near Pico) was already a leader in helping to create affordable housing, cure substance abuse, and care for the unhoused. (Note the cluster of Community Corporation and Section 8 rentals along 14th Street.)
We are concerned about rumors that are becoming troubling trends: that city officials are encouraging the county and regional organizations to concentrate mentally ill and unhoused people who are arriving in our region (the majority from other states and countries) into additional shelters that threaten to transform our neighborhood into Southern California’s latest Skid Row. (As example, according to the latest count, homelessness in the City and County of Los Angeles substantially decreased in 2024.
Homelessness in our surrounding Service Planning Area 5 dropped my more than 6%, including a nearly 9% drop in Culver City, 22% decline in Venice, and a record low recorded in Malibu. But the glaring exception was Santa Monica, which experienced a 5% INCREASE in homelessness in 2024, all according to LA Homeless Services Authority as reported in local media such as the SMDP.)
And so, as we expect that the burden of these decisions be spread more equally across the city and region, this has become a fairness and social justice issue that involves every one of Santa Monica’s stated Strategic Priorities:
addressing homelessness; justice, equity, and diversity; clean and safe; sustainable and connected; and economic growth and cultural vitality.
Converting our spaces to new homeless facilities for people who have just arrived in our region from Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Massachusetts, the Philippines, Russia, and France (as just a few recent examples), is taking up valuable spaces and placing more pressure on local residents and workers who already can’t afford to live here, which makes our housing affordability crisis worse. These policies are now threatening the economy of our city and the very nature of our neighborhoods.
It could be that our neighborhood has been ignored and our voices and concerns haven’t been heard because we are sandwiched between the Sunset Park and Pico Neighborhoods. But why are these decisions being kept as secrets from our neighborhood and why do some city and county officials insist on continuing to keep such secrets?
Regardless, it is time to clear the air of the rumors and shine some light on what the city and county (working with regional social services agencies such as The People Concern) are doing, and their plans for the future of our neighborhood.
Since city and county officials have failed to bring transparency to this process, we must insist on a community meeting where they can share their specific plans for us and that includes current and new facilities. The very future of our little neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods depends on it. We must ask for this meeting ASAP; the college would be the perfect place for it.
We request that meeting be scheduled ASAP with notifications to all residents, businesses, and organizations located in the corridor that roughly extends within a block wide along each side of Pico, from Lincoln to Virginia Avenue Park, targeting neighborhoods around recently converted motels and other service facilities so that all neighbors are notified.
Item 5-J
January 27, 2026
Item 5-J
January 27, 2026
5.J.a
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Written Comments (7537 : 5.J. Closed Session: Cappiccille) 3 Here are some of our questions that should be addressed:
What is your procedure to notify residents, businesses, schools, and organizations when transitional housing, homeless shelters, or related facilities are located in a neighborhood?
Is there an updated map that shows the distribution of all current and planned transitional housing and homeless shelters in Santa Monica? If so, why is it not shared openly, since this would be a great benefit to planning and the impacted communities?
Are you caring to locate transitional and homeless shelters evenly across the city and region so that some neighborhoods are not unfairly impacted more than others?
What steps are city officials taking to guarantee safety and security around these facilities? For instance, we assume there is a 24/7 security guard on each site, but security and safety for residences and businesses adjacent to and just beyond those sites has become problematic.
Who is held accountable should there be gaps in oversight and accountability in neighborhoods impacted by homeless shelters, especially due to ongoing and future funding cuts and/or labor shortages?
Because our neighborhood is inordinately impacted and remains uninformed about officials’ decisions, we have also earned specific answers to more general questions about your policies:
Evidence suggests that the vast majority of unhoused people we are now serving have arrived from distant regions and other states and countries. A few rumored examples of recently homeless people currently being served in our immediate neighborhood include people from Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee, the Philippines, Russia, Great Britain, and France.
What does your data show? Are you and the county prioritizing contacting family, friends, and organizations in their home towns so that the unhoused may return home to seek help? Are you also prioritizing help and services for long-time local residents and workers who have been struggling to stay in Santa Monica?
As you are converting more hotels and other spaces to shelters, doesn’t that mean that we will attract and house larger numbers of unhoused people from distant regions? Does this explain why Santa Monica experienced a 5% increase in its homeless count in 2024 while cities in the surrounding region were experiencing substantial drops in their homeless populations?
What is the expected overall impact on city budgets and our quality of life, our community economies, and our cultures as we lose tourist, service industry, and other income due to these policies? Item 5-J
January 27, 2026
Item 5-J
January 27, 2026
5.J.a
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Written Comments (7537 : 5.J. Closed Session: Cappiccille) 4 How many unhoused people are expected to arrive during the next year and how many are you capable of serving?
Are you prioritizing, requiring, and monitoring substance abuse/addiction programs for those who desperately need them? Who is accountable for these programs?
Since it is reported that homeless suspects now account for at least 70% of all arrests in the city, what impacts are your policies having on our already challenged police and other emergency services?
Recognizing that outside funding (especially state and federal money) that could support our efforts to serve the unhoused is drying up, how are these developments changing your plans for our future?
Item 5-J
January 27, 2026
Item 5-J
January 27, 2026
5.J.a
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Written Comments (7537 : 5.J. Closed Session: Cappiccille) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 11:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 1/27/26 items 5-I and 5-J-- Is the city planning to run both The Manor and the Palm Motel?
EXTERNAL
I. Conference with real estate negotiator - Gov. Code § 54956.8; property: 2019 and 1905 Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica, California; City negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager; owner of record: Dennis Wylder; persons to be negotiated with: Dennis Wylder; under negotiation: price and terms of payment of lease
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.New Item Received 1/22/2026
J.
Item 5-J
January 27, 2026
Item 5-J
January 27, 2026
5.J.a
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Written Comments (7537 : 5.J. Closed Session: Cappiccille) 6 1905 Pico Blvd. and 2019 Pico Blvd. are both "The Manor" -- licensed by by the State of California to California Care Centers. https://themanoronline.com/ -- They're both on the north side of Pico Blvd. and have been there for many years. It is described as a residential facility for mentally ill and developmentally disabled adults (board & care).
We discussed it at the last Neighborhood Council meeting. A Wilmont Board member said that it was a wonderful facility for his relative, but a PNA Board member said that PNA gets lots of complaints. If you Google "the Manor Santa Monica + reviews" the reviews run the gamut.
The Pico Neighborhood is only four blocks wide and 1.4 miles long, yet it is apparently home to 22 low-income and/or assisted living projects.
According to AI: The Manor is a licensed residential care facility in West Los Angeles/Santa Monica serving adults with mental illness and developmental disabilities, offering services such as, but not limited to, 24-hour care, meals, and assistance with daily living, as reported on the website. It has faced challenges related to the financial strain on the broader Board and Care system in L.A. County.
In driving by, you can see that the outside of the buildings are deteriorating. If you drive up the alley north of Pico between 19th and 20th, you can see Manor residents hanging out in the alley.
Fatal stabbing in 2010: https://www.smdp.com/stabbing-called-random-attack/
Former resident with knife in 2021: https://www.smdp.com/smpd-arrest-man-with-knife-on-pico-blvd/
Dennis Wilder is the Executive Director of The Manor: https://themanoronline.com/contact_us.html
"Dennis Wylder" is listed in the Closed Session item.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-05-19-mn-9230-story.html -- This article from 1985 explains the finances and the differences in government funding and programs for mentally ill vs. developmentally disabled. Dennis Wilder is quoted.
https://homeless.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/FY-2022-23-Measure-H-Contractor-Directory.pdf -- Funding from L.A. County Measure H -- See pages 12, 21, 29, 33, 34, 38, 58, and 59 for various organizations in Santa Monica that received funding. The Manor (California Care Centers) is listed on p. 33. ********************************************************************************* Item 5-J
January 27, 2026
Item 5-J
January 27, 2026
5.J.a
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Written Comments (7537 : 5.J. Closed Session: Cappiccille) 7 From retired SMC Professor William Selby, who lives near the Palm Motel:
November 11, 2025
Hello City and County Officials:
Please find the attached letter that summarizes experiences from our neighbors (around SMC and 14th and Pico) who have become worried about the future of our community. This letter has evolved during the last year, reflecting accumulated comments from local homeowners, businesses, and numerous frightened tenants living in surrounding apartment buildings, some who fear retaliation from officials for speaking out.
We appreciate that you have been struggling to solve these problems and we hope you don’t see this letter or us as a problem, since we wish to support your efforts to find solutions to these growing challenges. But we were once an eclectic neighborhood with a diverse population of hardworking people from many different backgrounds and income levels who helped form the backbone of Santa Monica.
Now, our neighborhood is gradually and too often becoming known for human feces left in our streets, lifeless people passed out on our sidewalks, flailing mentally ill screaming obscenities and intimidating residents, and as a dangerous place to take kids or walk at night.
I’m sure you agree that this is not the future we want for our neighborhood or our city. So, we issue this letter as support for you and as a wakeup call for those who continue to champion failed policies that may be destroying our neighborhood and victimizing its residents.
I have lived and worked in Santa Monica since 1981 and in this neighborhood since 2001 and have contributed and volunteered to help improve the quality of our communities and our city. I am sending this on to you because it would be irresponsible for me to stand by in silence any longer while my worried neighbors continue to share their fears and frustrations ... and their feelings of helplessness.
Respectfully,
William Selby
310 463-8636
wselby9msn.com
1402 Bay Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 5-J
January 27, 2026
Item 5-J
January 27, 2026
5.J.a
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Written Comments (7537 : 5.J. Closed Session: Cappiccille) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026
Agenda Item:
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: City Manager's Report - ONESAMO People's Academy Prepared By: Sergio Ramirez, Chief of Staff
Approved Forwarded to Council
Packet Pg. 501
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026
Agenda Item: 10.A
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, Interim City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.66 to Provide for Recall of Workers at Hotels on City-Owned Property and Hospitality Businesses on the Santa Monica Pier and Adding Chapter 4.69 to Provide for Retention of Workers at Hospitality Businesses on the Santa Monica Pier
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and
2. Introduce for First Reading the proposed Ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.66 to provide for recall of workers at hotels on Cityowned property and hospitality businesses on the Santa Monica Pier and adding Chapter 4.69 to provide for retention of workers at hospitality businesses on the Santa Monica Pier.
Executive Summary
On July 8, 2025, the City Council – at the request of Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, and Councilmember Raskin – gave direction that staff develop and return with right to recall and labor peace ordinances for full City Council consideration.
Consistent with that direction, the City Attorney’s Office has consulted with the City Manager’s Office and the council sponsors of the item. Through that assessment process, we identified a preference to prioritize ordinances related to the Recall of Workers and Retention of Workers at this time. Accordingly, this report has been
10.A
Packet Pg. 502
2 of 6
prepared for the City Council to consider a proposed Ordinance which aims to do the following:
1) Amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.66, Recall of Workers, to provide for recall of laid-off hotel workers on City-owned property and hospitality workers on the Pier; and
2) Add Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.69, Retention of Workers, to provide for retention of hospitality workers at the Pier for a period of 90 days after a change in control of the business.
Discussion
The City of Santa Monica, host to millions of visitors annually, has a long history of supporting its tourism and hospitality industries, as well as supporting the wellbeing and rights of workers in those establishments.
For example, on December 11, 2001, in response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, which exacerbated already declining economic conditions, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2031 (CCS), adding Chapter 4.66, Recall of Workers, to the Santa Monica Municipal Code, which created requirements for the recall from the layoff of workers of businesses located in the Coastal Zone and extended Downtown Core that had gross receipts of $5 million for that location in the year 2000.
Further, on September 10, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2614 (CCS), adding Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.67, Hotel Worker Protections, which, among other things, provides retention protections for hotel workers in the event of a change of hotel ownership or control.
In recent years, the City’s financial and economic outlook has changed dramatically.
The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a sudden 26.8% decline in General Fund revenue in FY 2020-21. The City has faced challenges achieving its revenue, expenditures, and General Fund reserve targets during the past several years. The recent financial forecasts anticipate that the City will continue to operate a structural deficit for the next two years.
In addition, the federal government has discussed or implemented several economic policies, including tariffs, mass deportations, tax cuts, and deregulation, which may
10.A
Packet Pg. 503
3 of 6
impact the national and local economy. Some economists predict that the national economy will continue to be an inflationary economic environment with rising costs of goods and labor.
Against the backdrop of this economic setting, on September 9, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11698 (CCS), identifying local fiscal distress due to the current financial condition of the City, including the significant drawdown of reserves and interfund payment obligations, coupled with uncertain revenues and increasing costs and liabilities warrants.
After identifying local fiscal distress, the City quickly identified opportunity on the horizon. On October 28, 2025, the City Council adopted the Santa Monica Realignment Plan, predicated around restoring safety, revitalizing key civic spaces, growing economic activity, rebuilding City organizational strength, and returning the City to fiscal balance. And, over the next several years, the Los Angeles region will become a global stage for some of the world’s most watched sporting and cultural events, which will draw millions of visitors, concentrate international media attention, and generate significant economic activity across Southern California.
On December 16, 2025, the City Council discussed the City’s participation in these upcoming events, beginning with activities on the Pier to support the FIFA World Cup in June and July 2026; a collaboration to produce a new music and cultural festival series on Santa Monica beach in the Fall of 2026; a week of fan-focused programming and broadcast activity on the Pier as part of Super Bowl LXI, which is scheduled to return to SoFi Stadium in February 2027; and summer 2028, when the Olympic and Paralympic Games will bring global audiences, cultural festivals, and hospitality activations to venues throughout the region.
Although there is reason for optimism as the City implements the Realignment Plan and prepares for upcoming major events, forecasts for the local and national economy threaten hospitality and tourism businesses, which could lead to layoffs. And changes in ownership, control, or operation of hospitality businesses on the Pier can trigger mass layoffs and displace employees who are skilled, knowledgeable, and experienced in providing a safe, clean and enjoyable experience for the millions of visitors who come to the Pier each year.
The proposed Ordinance was developed to advance worker protections while furthering the City’s economic recovery efforts. The Realignment Plan’s goals are furthered by
10.A
Packet Pg. 504
4 of 6
protecting the City’s investments in hotels located on City-owned land and hospitality businesses located on the Santa Monica Pier. The success of the upcoming major events is strengthened with a stable workforce to support local businesses.
What the Proposed Ordinance Will Do
If approved, the proposed Ordinance will amend Chapter 4.66, Recall of Workers to:
• Require the operators of hotels on City-owned property and hospitality businesses on the Pier with five or more workers to offer positions that become available after the effective date of the Ordinance to laid off workers who:
o Performed at least two hours of work within the geographical boundaries of the City for an employer in a particular week;
o Were employed by an employer for six months or more; and o Had a separation date after September 9, 2025, that was due to lack of business, a reduction in force or other economic, non-disciplinary reason. • Offers are required to be made in writing, and workers shall be given no less than 10 days in which to accept or decline the offer.
• The current provisions for recall of workers from layoff from businesses located in the Coastal Zone and extended Downtown core that had gross receipts of $5 million for that location in the year 2000 remain unchanged.
The proposed Ordinance will also add Chapter 4.69, Retention of Workers, which will:
• Require the retention of workers at hospitality businesses on the Pier with 5 or more workers for a period of 90 days after a change in control of the business; and
• Provide for noticing to workers of the change in control, that offers of employment be made in writing, and that workers shall receive a performance evaluation after the 90-day retention period.
Additionally, the Ordinance:
• Exempts nonprofit businesses;
10.A
Packet Pg. 505
5 of 6
• Excludes managerial, supervisory, or confidential employees; • Allows for supersession by a bona fide collective bargaining agreement; • Prohibits retaliatory actions by employers against workers who seek to exercise or enforce their rights under the Ordinance; and
• Provides for remedies, including enforcement through a civil action or injunction, with possible damages for violations and recovery for attorney’s fees in enforcement actions.
Given that tourism is one of the largest industries in the City and in the entire region, establishing the worker recall and retention standards in the proposed Ordinance were crafted in an attempt to improve worker working conditions while also providing benefits to the local and regional economy overall.
Environmental Review
The action taken by the City Council is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply, “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment”. The measures are administrative in nature in that they provide for worker protections through requiring recall and retention of certain workers on City-owned property. 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.
Fiscal Impacts
None.
10.A
Packet Pg. 506
6 of 6
Prepared By: Heidi Von Tongeln, Interim City Attorney
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) B. Written Comments
C. PowerPoint Presentation
10.A
Packet Pg. 507
1 City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA TO AMEND CHAPTER 4.66 TO PROVIDE FOR RECALL OF
WORKERS AT HOTELS ON CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AND AT HOSPITALITY BUSINESSES ON THE SANTA MONICA PIER AND ADDING CHAPTER 4.69 TO
PROVIDE FOR RETENTION OF WORKERS AT HOSPITALITY BUSINESSES ON THE
SANTA MONICA PIER
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica, host to millions of visitors annually, has a long history of supporting its tourism and hospitality industries as well as supporting the wellbeing and rights of workers in those establishments; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2031 (CCS), adding Chapter 4.66, Recall of Workers, to the Santa Monica Municipal Code, which created requirements for the recall from the layoff of workers of certain businesses located in the Coastal Zone and extended Downtown Core that had gross receipts of $5 million for that location in the year 2000; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2614 (CCS), adding Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.67, Hotel Worker Protections, which, among other things, provides retention protections for hotel workers in the event of a change of hotel ownership or control; and WHEREAS, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a sudden 26.8% decline in General Fund revenue in FY 2020-21; and
WHEREAS, the City has faced challenges achieving its revenue, expenditures, and General Fund reserve targets during the past several years; and
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 2 WHEREAS, the recent financial forecasts anticipate that the City will continue to operate a structural deficit for several years; and
WHEREAS, the federal government has discussed or implemented several economic policies, including tariffs, mass deportations, tax cuts, and deregulation, which may impact the national and local economy; and
WHEREAS, some economists predict that the national economy will continue to be an inflationary economic environment with rising costs of goods and labor; and WHEREAS, on September 9, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11698 (CCS), identifying local fiscal distress due to the current financial condition of the City, including the significant drawdown of reserves and interfund payment obligations, coupled with uncertain revenues and increasing costs and liabilities warrants; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2025, the City Council adopted the Santa Monica Realignment Plan, predicated around restoring safety, revitalizing key civic spaces, growing economic activity, rebuilding City organizational strength, and returning the City to fiscal balance; and
WHEREAS, over the next several years, the Los Angeles region will become a global stage for some of the world’s most watched sporting and cultural events, which will draw millions of visitors, concentrate international media attention, and generate significant economic activity across Southern California; and WHEREAS, on December 16, 2025, the City Council discussed the City’s participation in these upcoming events, beginning with activities on the Pier to support the FIFA World Cup in June and July 2026; a collaboration to produce a new music and cultural festival series on Santa Monica beach in the Fall of 2026; a week of fan-focused
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 3 programming and broadcast activity on the Pier as part of Super Bowl LXI, which is scheduled to return to SoFi Stadium in February 2027; and summer 2028, when the Olympic and Paralympic Games will bring global audiences, cultural festivals, and hospitality activations to venues throughout the region; and WHEREAS, the Realignment Plan’s goals are furthered by protecting the City’s investments in hotels located on City-owned land and hospitality businesses located on the Santa Monica Pier (“Pier”); and
WHEREAS, the success of the upcoming major events is strengthened with a stable workforce to support local businesses; and
WHEREAS, although there is reason for optimism as the City implements the Realignment Plan and prepares for upcoming major events, forecasts for the local and national economy threaten hospitality and tourism businesses, which could lead to layoffs; and
WHEREAS, recall rights for workers ensure fair employment practices during times of economic difficulty and reduce the demand for government-funded social services; and WHEREAS, changes in ownership, control, or operation of hospitality businesses on the Pier can trigger mass layoffs and displace employees who are skilled, knowledgeable, and experienced in providing a safe, clean, and enjoyable experience for the millions of visitors who come to the Pier each year; and WHEREAS, ensuring that workers for hospitality businesses on the Santa Monica Pier have an opportunity to continue working for a business upon change in ownership, control, or operation will prevent both unnecessary disruption to the labor market and increased demands on social services provided by the City, and thereby maintain the
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 4 stability and high level of service in the hospitality businesses in the City, which promotes the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, given that tourism is one of the largest industries in the City and in the entire region, establishing the worker recall and retention standards set forth in this Ordinance will not only improve worker working conditions but also benefit the local and regional economy overall, and thereby promote the public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.66 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Chapter 4.66 RECALL OF WORKERS
4.66.010 Definitions. For purposes of this Chapter, the following words or phrases shall have the following meanings:
a. “Business” means a Coastal Zone business, extended downtown core business, hotel, or a Pier business. For purposes of this Chapter, “business” does not include nonprofit entities.
b. “Coastal Zone” means that area bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the west, by the City borders on the south and north, and on the east by the Lincoln Boulevard centerline south of Pico Boulevard and Fourth Street north of Pico Boulevard. Properties adjacent to the east side of Fourth Street between Pico Boulevard and Colorado Boulevard are included within the area defined by this subsection; otherwise the Fourth Street boundary shall be at the centerline.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 5 c. “Coastal Zone business” means a business operating within the Coastal Zone with gross receipts over five million dollars in the year 2000 for that location. d. “Coastal Zone employer” means any person who owns, controls, or operates a Coastal Zone business, and includes any person, contractor, or subcontractor who, in a managerial, supervisory, or confidential capacity, employs extended Coastal Zone workers to provide services at a Coastal Zone business in conjunction with the business’s purpose.
e. “Coastal Zone worker” means any person who is employed by a Coastal Zone business. “Extended downtown core worker” does not include a managerial, supervisory or confidential employee.
f. “Employer” means a Coastal Zone employer, extended downtown core employer, hotel employer or Pier employer.
g. “Extended downtown core” means that area bounded by Ocean Avenue on the west, Wilshire Boulevard on the north, Fifth Street on the east and Colorado Boulevard on the south. Properties on both sides of the boundary streets shall be included within this definition.
h. “Extended downtown core business” means a business operating within the extended downtown core with gross receipts over five million dollars in the year 2000 for that location.
i. “Extended downtown core employer” means any person who owns, controls, or operates an extended downtown core business, and includes any person, contractor or subcontractor who, in a managerial, supervisory, or confidential capacity,
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 6 employs extended downtown core workers to provide services at an extended downtown core business in conjunction with the business’s purpose. j. “Extended downtown core worker” means any person who is employed by an extended downtown core business. “Extended downtown core worker” does not include a managerial, supervisory or confidential employee. k. “Hotel” means an establishment that provides temporary lodging in the form of overnight accommodations in guest rooms to transient patrons who maintain a permanent place of residence elsewhere for payment for periods of thirty consecutive calendar days or less, and may provide additional services, such as conference and meeting rooms, restaurants, bars, or recreation facilities available to guests or to the general public. “Hotel” includes motor lodges, motels, apartment hotels, and tourist courts meeting the definition set forth above. “Hotel” also includes any contracted, leased or sublet premises operated in conjunction with a hotel or that is used for the primary purpose of providing services at a hotel. “Hotel” does not include a hostel, which is a lodging facility primarily characterized by dormitory-style accommodations, shared bathrooms, and reservations of beds rather than rooms. “Hotel” also does not include corporate housing, rooming houses, boarding houses, or private residential clubs, singleroom occupancy housing, vacation rentals, or bed and breakfast establishments within a single-unit residence.
l. “Hotel employer” means any person who owns, controls, or operates a hotel, and includes any person, contractor or subcontractor who, in a managerial, supervisory, or confidential capacity, employs hotel workers to provide services at a hotel in conjunction with the hotel’s purpose.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 7 m. “Hotel worker” means any person who is employed by a hotel employer to provide services at a hotel. “Hotel worker” does not include a managerial, supervisory or confidential employee.
n. “Laid off worker” means any worker who, in a particular week, performs at least two hours of work within the geographical boundaries of the City for an employer, was employed by an employer for six months or more, and whose most recent separation was due to lack of business, a reduction in force or other economic, non-disciplinary reason. Laid off workers includes Coastal Zone and extended downtown core workers with a separation from active service occurring after September 11, 2001, and hotel and Pier workers with a separation from active service occurring after September 9, 2025. o. “Length of service” means the total of all periods of time during which a worker has been in active service, including periods of time when the worker was on leave or on vacation.
p. “Pier” means Santa Monica Pier, consisting of both the Newcomb Pier and the Municipal Pier, protruding from the Santa Monica State Beach at the southwesterly terminus of Colorado Avenue, and extending for approximately two thousand one hundred thirty-five feet into the Santa Monica Bay.
q. “Pier business” means a business that provides hospitality services on the Pier, including eating and drinking establishments, as defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.51.020(B)(8), large-scale facilities, as defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.51.020(B)(7)(d) and small-scale facilities, as defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.51.020(B)(7)(e) and employs 5 or more Pier workers.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 8 r. “Pier employer” means any person who owns, controls, or operates a Pier business, and includes any person, contractor or subcontractor who, in a managerial, supervisory, or confidential capacity, employs Pier workers to provide services at a Pier business in conjunction with the business’s purpose.
s. “Pier worker” means any person who is employed by a Pier employer to provide services at the Pier. “Pier worker” does not include a managerial, supervisory or confidential employee.
t. “Worker” means a Coastal Zone worker, extended downtown core worker, hotel worker or a Pier worker.
Coastal zone. That area bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the west, by the City borders on the south and north, and on the east by the Lincoln Boulevard centerline south of Pico Boulevard and Fourth Street north of Pico Boulevard. Properties adjacent to the east side of Fourth Street between Pico Boulevard and Colorado Boulevard are included within the area defined by this subsection; otherwise the Fourth Street boundary shall be at the centerline.
Employee. Any person who does not actually work as a manager, supervisor or confidential employee, and who is not required to possess an occupational license.
Extended downtown core. That area bounded by Ocean Avenue on the west, Wilshire Boulevard on the north, Fifth Street on the east and Colorado Boulevard on the south.
Properties on both sides of the boundary streets shall be included within this definition.
Laid off employee. Any employee who was employed by the employer for six months or more and whose most recent separation from active service occurred after September
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 9 11, 2001, and was due to lack of business, a reduction in force or other, economic, nondisciplinary reason.
Length of service. The total of all periods of time during which an employee has been in active service, including periods of time when the employee was on leave or on vacation.
4.66.020 Applicability of requirements.
The requirements of this chapter shall apply to Coastal Zone employers, extended downtown core employers, hotel employers operating on City-owned property, and Pier employers.
The requirements of this chapter shall apply to employers doing business at a location in the Coastal Zone or Extended Downtown Core with gross receipts over five million dollars in the year 2000 for that location.
4.66.030 Right of recall.
a. Preference for Laid Off Workers Employees. An employer shall offer in writing, to the last known address of laid off workers employees, all positions which are or become available after the effective date of this Chapter for which the laid off workers employees are qualified. A laid off worker employee is qualified for a position if the worker employee: (1) held the same or similar position at the same site of employment at the time of the worker’s employee's most recent separation from active service with the employer; or (2) is or can be qualified for the position with the same training that would be provided to a new worker employee hired into that position. The employer shall offer positions to laid off workers employees in an order of preference corresponding to categories (1) and (2) in the preceding sentence. Where more than one worker employee
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 10 is entitled to preference for a position, the employer shall offer the position to the worker employee with the greatest length of service with the employer at the employment site. b. Time Limit. A laid off worker employee who is offered a position pursuant to this Chapter shall be given no less than ten days in which to accept or decline the offer.
4.66.040 Supersession Supercession by collective bargaining agreement.
All of the provisions of this Chapter, or any part thereof, may be waived pursuant to in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement, but only if the waiver is explicitly set forth in such agreement in clear and unambiguous written terms. Neither party to a collective bargaining agreement relationship may waive or supersede any provision of this Chapter by means of unilaterally imposed terms and conditions of employment. Unilateral implementation of terms and conditions of employment by either party to a collective bargaining relationship shall not constitute, or be permitted as, a waiver of all or any part of the provisions of this Chapter.
4.66.050 Retaliatory Action Prohibited
No employer shall refuse to employ, terminate, reduce in compensation, or otherwise take any adverse action against any person for seeking to exercise or enforce his or her rights under this Chapter by any lawful means, for participating in proceedings related to this Chapter, for opposing any practice proscribed by this Chapter, or for otherwise asserting rights under this Chapter. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that an adverse employment action taken against a worker within ninety days of the worker's exercise of rights under this Chapter was taken in retaliation for the exercise of such rights. This Section shall also apply to any laid off worker who mistakenly, but in good faith, alleges noncompliance with this Chapter.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 11 4.66.0650 Remedies
a. Civil Action. The City or any aggrieved person may enforce the provisions of this Chapter by means of a civil action.
b. Injunction. Any person who commits an act, proposes to commit an act, or engages in any pattern or practice that violates this Chapter may be enjoined therefrom by a court of competent jurisdiction. An action for injunction under this subsection may be brought by any aggrieved person, by the City Attorney, or by any person or entity who will fairly and adequately represent the interests of an aggrieved person or persons. c. Damages and Penalties. Any person who violates the provisions of this Chapter is liable for any actual damages suffered by any aggrieved person or for statutory damages up to the amount of one hundred dollars per aggrieved person per day. For willful violations, the amount of monies and penalties to be paid under this subsection shall be trebled.
d. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. In a civil action brought under this Section, the court shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including expert witness fees, except that, notwithstanding Section 998 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a prevailing defendant shall not be awarded fees and costs unless the court finds the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.
e. Cumulative Remedies. The remedies set forth in this Chapter are cumulative. Nothing in this Chapter shall be interpreted as restricting, precluding, or otherwise limiting a separate or concurrent criminal prosecution under this Code or State law.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 12 f. The provisions of this Chapter shall not be construed as creating a cause of action against the City.
Any person, including the City, may enforce the provisions of this Chapter by means of a civil action for injunctive and monetary relief. The burden of proof in such cases shall be preponderance of the evidence. Any person who violates or aids another person to violate the provisions of this Chapter is liable for each and every such offense for the actual damages suffered by any aggrieved party or for statutory damages in the sum of five hundred dollars, whichever is greater, and shall be liable for such attorneys' fees and costs as may be determined by the court in addition thereto. The court may also award punitive damages to any plaintiff, including the City, in a proper case as defined by Civil Code Section 3294. The burden of proof for purposes of punitive damages shall be clear and convincing evidence.
SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.69 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
Chapter 4.69 RETENTION OF WORKERS
4.69.010 Definitions. For purposes of this Chapter, the following words or phrases shall have the following meanings:
a. “Affected business” means: (1) in the event of a change in control as defined in subsection (c)(1) below, the business or discrete portion of the business that has been the subject of the change in control and remains in operation following the change in control; or (2) in the event of a change in control as defined in subsection (c)(2) or (c)(3) below, the business that remains in operation following the change in control of that business.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 13 b. “Business” means a Pier business. For purposes of this Chapter, “business” does not include nonprofit entities.
c. “Change in control” means: (1) any sale, assignment, transfer, contribution, or other disposition of all or substantially all of the assets used in the operation of a business or a discrete portion of the business that continues in operation; (2) any sale, assignment, transfer, contribution, or other disposition of a controlling interest (including by consolidation, merger, or reorganization) of an employer or any person who controls an employer; or (3) any other event or sequence of events (including a purchase, sale, lease, or termination of a management contract or lease) that causes the identity of the employer at a business to change. For purposes of this Chapter, a change in control shall be defined to occur on the date of execution of the document effectuating the change in control.
d. “Eligible worker” means a worker employed by an incumbent Pier employer at the time of a change in control and who has been so employed for at least two months prior to the change in control.
i. “Incumbent Pier employer” means a Pier employer who owns, controls, or operates a Pier business prior to a change in control of the Pier business or of a discrete portion of the Pier business that continues to operate after the change in control. j. “Pier” means Santa Monica Pier, consisting of both the Newcomb Pier and the Municipal Pier, protruding from the Santa Monica State Beach at the southwesterly terminus of Colorado Avenue, and extending for approximately two thousand one hundred thirty-five feet into the Santa Monica Bay.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 14 k. “Pier business” means a business that provides hospitality services on the Pier, including eating and drinking establishments, as defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.51.020(B)(8), large-scale facilities, as defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.51.020(B)(7)(d) and small-scale facilities, as defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.51.020(B)(7)(e) and employs 5 or more workers. l. “Pier employer” means any person who owns, controls, or operates a Pier business, and includes any person or contractor who, in a managerial, supervisory, or confidential capacity, employs Pier workers to provide services at a Pier business in conjunction with the business’s purpose.
m. “Pier worker” means any person who is employed by a Pier employer to provide services at the Pier. “Pier worker” does not include a managerial, supervisory or confidential employee.
n. “Successor Pier employer” means a Pier employer who owns, controls, or operates a Pier business after a change in control.
o. “Worker” means a Pier worker.
p. “Worker retention period” means the period of time beginning on the date of a change in control and extending to 90 days from the first date that an affected business is open to the public after a change in control.
4.69.020 Pier Worker Retention
a. Notice of change in control. Within five days of a change in control of a Pier business, a successor Pier employer shall post written notice of the change in control at the location of the affected Pier business.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 15 1. This written notice shall remain posted during any closure of the affected Pier business and for six months following the first date on which the affected Pier business is open to the public under the successor Pier employer.
2. This written notice shall include, but not be limited to, the name and contact information of the incumbent Pier employer, the name and contact information of the successor Pier employer, and the effective date of the change in control.
3. This written notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place at the affected Pier business and shall be readily visible to eligible Pier workers, other employees, and applicants for employment.
b. Incumbent Pier employer responsibilities. Within fifteen days of a change in control, an incumbent Pier employer shall provide a successor Pier employer with a list of eligible workers. This list shall include the name, date of hire, and job classification of each eligible worker. A successor Pier employer shall be required to maintain and hire from this list during the worker retention period. c. Successor Pier employer responsibilities. A successor Pier employer shall, during the worker retention period, offer each eligible worker employment for no less than ninety days, except that:
1. A successor Pier employer shall not be required to offer employment to an eligible worker if the successor Pier employer has reasonable and substantiated cause not to retain that eligible worker based on that eligible worker’s individual performance or conduct while employed by the incumbent Pier employer; and
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 16 2. If a successor Pier employer determines during the worker retention period that it requires fewer workers than were required by the incumbent Pier employer, the successor Pier employer shall retain eligible workers pursuant to the terms of a relevant collective bargaining agreement, if any, or by seniority and experience within each job classification to the extent that comparable job classifications exist.
d. An eligible worker retained pursuant to this Section shall be employed under terms and conditions established by the successor Pier employer as required by law and shall not be discharged except for good cause based on individual performance or conduct.
e. An offer of employment made pursuant to subsection (c) shall be made in writing and shall remain open for at least ten business days from the date of the offer. f. A successor Pier employer shall retain written verification of each offer of employment made pursuant to subsection (c). This verification shall include the name, address, date of hire, and job classification of the eligible worker to whom the offer was made. A successor Pier employer shall retain the required verification for no less than three years from the date the offer is made.
g. At the end of the worker retention period, a successor Pier employer shall provide each worker retained pursuant to this Section with a written performance evaluation. If the worker’s performance was satisfactory, the successor Pier employer shall consider offering the worker continued employment under the terms and conditions established by the successor employer and as required by law. A successor Pier employer
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 17 shall retain the written performance evaluation required under this subsection for no less than three years from the date it is issued.
h. The rights to retention set forth in this Section do not apply to any managerial, supervisory, or confidential employee and do not include the right to retain any supervisory or management responsibility.
4.69.030 Supersession by collective bargaining agreement.
All of the provisions of this Chapter, or any part thereof, may be waived pursuant to a bona fide collective bargaining agreement, but only if the waiver is explicitly set forth in such agreement in clear and unambiguous written terms. Neither party to a collective bargaining agreement relationship may waive or supersede any provision of this Chapter by means of unilaterally imposed terms and conditions of employment.
4.69.040 Retaliatory Action Prohibited
No employer shall refuse to employ, terminate, reduce in compensation, or otherwise take any adverse action against any person for seeking to exercise or enforce his or her rights under this Chapter by any lawful means, for participating in proceedings related to this Chapter, for opposing any practice proscribed by this Chapter, or for otherwise asserting rights under this Chapter. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that an adverse employment action taken against a worker within ninety days of the worker's exercise of rights under this Chapter was taken in retaliation for the exercise of such rights. This Section shall also apply to any worker who mistakenly, but in good faith, alleges noncompliance with this Chapter.
4.69.050 Remedies
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 18 a. Civil Action. The City or any aggrieved person may enforce the provisions of this Chapter by means of a civil action.
b. Injunction. Any person who commits an act, proposes to commit an act, or engages in any pattern or practice that violates this Chapter may be enjoined therefrom by a court of competent jurisdiction. An action for injunction under this subsection may be brought by any aggrieved person, by the City Attorney, or by any person or entity who will fairly and adequately represent the interests of an aggrieved person or persons. c. Damages and Penalties. Any person who violates the provisions of this Chapter is liable for any actual damages suffered by any aggrieved person or for statutory damages up to the amount of one hundred dollars per aggrieved person per day. For willful violations, the amount of monies and penalties to be paid under this subsection shall be trebled.
d. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. In a civil action brought under this Section, the court shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including expert witness fees, except that, notwithstanding Section 998 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a prevailing defendant shall not be awarded fees and costs unless the court finds the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.
e. Cumulative Remedies. The remedies set forth in this Chapter are cumulative. Nothing in this Chapter shall be interpreted as restricting, precluding, or otherwise limiting a separate or concurrent criminal prosecution under this Code or State law.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 19 f. The provisions of this Chapter shall not be construed as creating a cause of action against the City.
SECTION 3. Any provision of the Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
HEIDI VON TONGELN
Interim City Attorney
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Amendments to Chapter 4.66 (Worker Recall and Retention) (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 1 David Yakobson
From: Sean Ahaus <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 10:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: California Roadhouse, Inc - 256 Santa Monica Pier
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
My name is Sean Ahaus, I’m the CEO & co-owner of California Roadhouse, Inc., a small locally owned business which was recently selected by The Santa Monica Pier Corporation to help save & greatly improve live music, entertainment and community involvement on the Santa Monica Pier, by using our unique live entertainment concept, which has been specifically designed to help develop and showcase local singers, musicians, comedians & others talent in Santa Monica. While also introducing our delicious California themed foods & beverages. The California Roadhouse is working to create fun, wellpaid jobs and to give visitors another great reason to visit and return to Santa Monica.
As a small local business owner, I can tell you firsthand how hard it is to open a successful business in Santa Monica.
In June of 2025, we viewed a Santa Monica City public listing to lease 256 Santa Monica Pier.
The first week in July of 2025, California Roadhouse, Inc. submitted a letter of intent and proposal to lease 256 Santa Monica Pier, to the Santa Monica Pier Corporation (acting as agent &/or under authority of the City of Santa Monica).
In October of 2025, the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, and The City of Santa Monica’s Economic Development Dept. notified California Roadhouse, Inc. that California Roadhouse, Inc’s letter of intent and proposal to lease 256 Santa Monica Pier had been officially accepted and approved by SMPC, and that due to the current city regulations, that additional city council approval would not be necessary.
Subsequently to said notice of governmental approval in October 2025, California Roadhouse, Inc. has invested substantial time, work, resources and expenditures to complete improvements for their project to be located at 256 Santa Monica Pier, based in good faith reliance on Santa Monica City government authorization(s).
California Roadhouse, Inc. believes that a vested right to complete our improvements in 256 Santa Monica Pier exists. It is the position of California Roadhouse, Inc. that any new changes to local ordinance(s) should not be retroactive and should be prohibited from negatively restricting or affecting the rights of California Roadhouse, Inc., to improve 256 Santa Monica Pier. Retroactively passing any ordinance(s) that restrict(s) or negatively affects any of these rights would violate the due process rights of California Roadhouse, Inc.
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Written Comments (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 2 Furthermore, California Roadhouse, Inc. opposes Santa Monica City’s proposed January 27, 2026, Agenda Item: 10.A, that proposes to Amend SMMC Chapter 4.66, and that proposes adding Chapter
4.69, which attempts to force new businesses on city owned property in Santa Monica, to rehire all the workers of previously failed businesses.
SMMC 4.69 would require a new business to hire all previous staff of a failed business even if some of these previous employees lack the experience requirements of a new employer, or have a history of violence, or a history of unsafe work practices, or a history of dishonesty, or if they lack any other requirements of a new employer, and even if some of these previous employees directly contributed to the reason(s) the previous employer went out of business.
California Roadhouse, Inc. believes that forcing new businesses to hire employees solely based on where they have previously worked, over and regardless of any potential employee’s qualifications, and over an employee’s character, integrity and/or merit is a recipe for disaster, and a recipe for yet another failed business.
It has been over 6 months since California Roadhouse, Inc. submitted our letter of intent to lease 256 Santa Monica Pier, and the property has been vacant for over one year, costing the city of Santa Monica over $1,000 per day (and over $365,000 in lost revenue over the past year). This has also cost our community over 35 well-paid jobs for more than a year and counting.
Let’s work together to get many deserving people back to work as quickly as possible.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration to these issues, Sean Ahaus
California Roadhouse, Inc
213-364-6251
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Written Comments (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 1 David Yakobson
From: Becky Warren <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 11:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Council Mailbox
Subject: File Item 10A Council Meeting Jan 27 (Today): Oppose Right to Return Proposed Ordinance
Attachments: Oppose File 10A, Right to Return Ordinance, 012725.pdf
EXTERNAL
Please see the attached letter in opposition to File Item 10A re: proposed right to return ordinance signed by multiple Santa Monica businesses.
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Written Comments (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) January 27, 2026
Santa Monica Mayor Caroline Torosis and Santa Monica City Councilmembers 1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Oppose File Item 10A Proposed “Recall of Workers and Retention of Workers” Ordinance Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
At a time when the City has made clear that attracting private business investment and revitalizing Santa Monica’s economy is a top priority, this proposed ordinance sends the opposite message:
that Santa Monica is willing to add new, city-specific employment mandates that will give employers and prospective tenants pause before investing here. What is worse, is that while small businesses are working to keep the lights on, this ordinance is placed at the last minute with no formal outreach to impacted businesses.
This proposal creates uncertainty for the smallest of employers and new tenants Santa Monica’s recovery depends on businesses choosing to sign leases, make capital investments, and hire workers in a highly competitive regional market. A city-specific right to return mandate for any business with over five employees in specified areas in town, particularly one that goes beyond state law introduces uncertainty that businesses factor directly into leasing and expansion decisions.
For businesses considering entering Santa Monica, this type of ordinance:
• Raises concerns about long-term regulatory creep once a new mandate is on the books, • Adds additional compliance and administrative burdens that do not exist in neighboring cities, and
• Signals a willingness to impose one-off local employment rules that increase operational risk.
• Increases litigation risk by opening the door for trial lawyers to sue small businesses under the private right to action provision.
That reality alone is enough to cause businesses to reconsider whether Santa Monica is the right place to locate.
This ordinance is driven by outside special interests, not Santa Monica’s recovery We are also concerned that this proposal is being driven by outside special interest groups – specifically UNITE HERE Local 11 that do not operate businesses in Santa Monica and have little stake in the City’s long-term economic vitality. These groups will not be responsible for filling vacant storefronts, restoring visitation, or generating the tax revenue that funds City services.
Santa Monica’s economic challenges are unique, and solutions must be shaped by those who are invested in making the City more vibrant, not by one-size-fits-all policies imported from elsewhere.
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Written Comments (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance)
This ordinance adds new litigation risk to small businesses.
The ordinance adds essentially a private right of action which is just a way for predatory law firms to sue small businesses.
The City should focus on policies that grow jobs, not deter investment Santa Monica’s visitor economy generates hundreds of millions of dollars in annual spending and tens of millions in transient occupancy tax revenue that directly support City services and local jobs.
Policies that discourage employers from leasing space, expanding operations, or hiring workers ultimately undermine those shared goals.
Right now, Santa Monica is still struggling:
• Tourism is down 50% since 2019, with Santa Monica Travel & Tourism projecting continued decline.
• Many restaurants and hotels report July 2025 revenues are worse than in July 2020, which was the peak of COVID-19 restrictions.
• Businesses on the Pier and Ocean Avenue are bracing for an even steeper drop as the Pier Bridge closes for the next two years.
• Part II crime is up 16%, contributing to persistent customer safety concerns that occur nearly daily exacerbating the declining foot traffic.
• A 2023 LA County Economic Development Corp report found over 38,000 businesses closed permanently between 2020–2023, primarily small businesses in retail, food service, and hospitality.
Santa Monica would be an outlier and that matters to investors California already has a temporary statewide right-to-return framework for hotels, airports, office buildings and private clubs specifically related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Creating a broader, cityspecific ordinance would make Santa Monica an outlier and layer local requirements on top of existing state law.
Santa Monica is competing with other coastal and regional markets for hospitality, tourism, and destination investment. Adopting a broader and permanent mandate of this kind does not provide businesses with confidence and instead, it raises red flags.
Oppose Permanent Right to Return
For these reasons, we respectfully urge the City Council to reject any city-specific right-to-return ordinance that would impose additional burdens on Pier businesses, hotel employers, and the broader visitor economy.
Santa Monica’s workers and businesses succeed together. The City should send a clear and consistent message that it welcomes investment, values job creation, and is committed to economic revitalization, not additional uncertainty.
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Written Comments (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) We respectfully urge Council to slow down, engage stakeholders early, and fully evaluate the economic and operational impacts before advancing any new requirements.
Sincerely,
Fred Deni & Jim Christel
Owners
Back to the Beach Café
Michael Bezerra
Cabo Cantina
Jameson’s
Matthew Sutton
Senior Vice President
California Restaurant Association
Albin Gielicz
Santa Monica Resident
Peter Trinh
Partner
Lanea Restaurant
Hunter Hall
Executive Director
Main Street Business Improvement District
Don Luis Camacho
Owner
Mariasol Restaurant
Jeff Klocke
CEO
Pacific Park on the Santa Monica Pier
Richard & Melody Chacker & Family
Owners
Perry's Café & Blazing Saddles
Joanie Gordon
Marlene Gordon
Dana Picore
Monique Giroux
Co-Owners
Playland Arcade
Alan Mont
Promenade Enterprises L.P.
Colby Goff
Co-Owner
Rustic Canyon Family
Judi Barker
Owner/Operator
Santa Monica Air Center/Barker Hangar
Cindy Pfeifer
Co-Executive Director
Santa Monica Pier Lessees Association
(SMPLA)
Greg Morena
Owner
The Albright - SM Pier Seafood est.1977
Marina Case
1444 Third St. Promenade Corp
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Written Comments (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) Cc: City Manager Oliver Chi
Interim City Attorney Heidi von Tongeln
Assistant City Attorney Susan Cola
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Written Comments (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 1 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 10:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Santa Monica City Council Meeting Agenda Items 5.H and 10.A for January 27, 2026 From: James Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2026 5:05 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>
Subject: Santa Monica City Council Meeting Agenda Items 5.H and 10.A for January 27, 2026 Dear Honorable Mayor Torosis and City Council Members,
In reviewing the City Council agenda for the January 27, 2026, City Council Meeting, I have noted two items that relate to the purview of the Santa Monica Pier Corporation.
Item 5.H. – Conference with Real Estate Negotiator regarding 256 Santa Monica Pier The Leasing Guidelines adopted by the Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board of Directors and then subsequently adopted by the City Council in July 2025 state that the Pier Corporation Board of Directors recommends a lessee and the City Manager negotiates the lease for any lease under 25 years. I would like to understand the purpose of this Closed Session Item, so I can communicate to my board how it impacts the board’s role in the adopted leasing process.
Item 10.A – proposed ordinance relating to “Recall of Workers at Hotels on City-Owned Property and Hospitality Businesses on the Santa Monica Pier”
The Santa Monica Pier Corporation assists the City with public review and discussion of planning and policy matters related to the Pier objectives. The agendizing of this item on Thursday January 22, 2026, and the Clerk’s Office being closed on Friday, January 23rd mean that the Pier Corporation Board of Directors cannot notice a public meeting before the date of the Council Meeting to provide public review and discussion of this matter. Before the Council takes final action on this matter, I request that staff present the proposed ordinance to the Santa Monica Pier Corporation at our meeting scheduled for February 9, 2026, at 6:30pm.
Thank you for your partnership in working toward the best for the Santa Monica Pier and the community we serve.
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Written Comments (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 2 Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Written Comments (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 1 David Yakobson
From: Judy Kruger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 1:25 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Cc: councilmtgitems; Judy Kruger
Subject: Council Agenda Item 10.A. Recall and Retention Attachments: Chamber Letter re Recall and Retention.pdf
EXTERNAL
Good Afternoon Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers:
Please see the attached letter from the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce addressing Council Agenda Item 10.A.
Respectfully,
Judy
Judy Kruger
CEO & President
213-703-1340
[email protected]
smchamber.com
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Written Comments (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) January 26, 2026
City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Council Agenda Item – OPPOSE 10.A. Recall and Retention of Workers Ordinance
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Councilmembers:
On behalf of the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce, we are requesting that City Council not move forward on the proposed Recall and Retention ordinance.
The City and the Chamber know well that our business community is still recovering economically from impacts from Covid-19, downturn in tourism, and, more recently, the devastating wildfires. Imposing additional onerous regulatory requirements that limit business recovery, deter new business attraction, and force additional costs on businesses is untimely and excessive.
We share the same belief with the City, that economic recovery and vitality can and will soon return to our beloved City and hard-working business community. But at this time, the City must do everything to protect, nurture, and support businesses so that the path to recovery is swift.
For these reasons, the Chamber requests that City Council not move forward on the proposed Recall and Retention Ordinance.
Respectfully Submitted,
Judy Kruger Paula Larmore
President & CEO Chair, Board of Directors
Board Executives
Chair
Paula Larmore
Harding, Larmore,
Kutcher & Kozal LLP
Past Chair
Charlie LopezQuintana
ETC Hotels
Treasurer
Addie VanGessel
Tavern on Main
Vice-Chair
Dustin Peterson
Fairmont Miramar
Hotel & Bungalows
Vice-Chair
Jeremy Rawitch
RAND
Vice-Chair
Vee Gomez
Beach Yoga SoCal
Vice-Chair
Melissa Cohen
Boston Properties
Vice-Chair
Elias Garcia
Kaiser Permanente
Directors
Eddie Guerboian
Jeweler
Neil Carrey
Attorney
Elnie Vannatim
Cedars-Sinai
Gina Gribow
EKA Public Affairs
Directors
Jessica Rincon
Sanbourne
Lilit Avagyan
US Bank
Jenn Verma
Lionsgate
Ben Marcus
UP Partners
Yvette Sims
Hair by Yvette
Cheree
Michael Altchule
UCLA Health
Shanna Johnson
Regent
Shari Davis
Santa Monica
College
Wesly Hernandez
SNAP Inc.
Berta Negari
XYZ Rent
Garrett Childers
SM Fire 1109
Doreen Lahav
Prism Places
Kara Block
DHF Architects
Carlos Madrid
SMPD POA
Jared Amerson
Providence Saint
John’s
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Written Comments (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 1 David Yakobson
From: Cindy Pfeifer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 8:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SOLUTION FOR Council Meeting 1/27 Item 10A
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
As a long-time resident of Santa Monica and business owner, I am disappointed to see that the council is continuing to push for Retention / Recall of Workers. A solution for a problem that doesn’t exist in the manner you are being sold on.
The problem that does exist is that Santa Monica businesses are closing at a record rate, leaving many employees jobless. Employees need to pay their bills, pay rent and buy groceries now. They can’t wait a year or two to return to their old job locations, they need help NOW. Retention / Recall of Workers does not provide this help.
If the city really wants to help the employees, I propose the following:
o The City of Santa Monica puts into place a city run Santa Monica centric job database When a Santa Monica business goes out of business, employees will have the opportunity to register in the data base.
Santa Monica residents will also have the opportunity to register (the locals are being squeezed out with your current proposal.)
When hiring, current and new Santa Monica employers can access the data base Your decision Tuesday night will aƯect more than just the businesses but residents as well, along with the future of our City. Please put the welfare of the City of Santa Monica and not special interest groups and organizations at the forefront of your decision. That is the only way you will be able to turn around the decline of Santa Monica.
Please stand up for Santa Monica.
Thank you for your time.
Cindy Pfeifer
RESIDENT
Email: [email protected]
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Written Comments (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) 1 David Yakobson
From: Joanne Leslie <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 1:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Retention law for businesses on the Santa Monica Pier
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council members,
My name is Joanne Leslie. I’m a retired professor of public health at UCLA and an Episcopal Deacon at St. Augustine’s-by-the-Sea church. I’ve lived in Santa Monica for almost 30 years. Santa Monica Pier is a place where my family has built memories and relationships over many years. My 8-year-old granddaughter lives in Brooklyn and going to the Pier is an important part of every visit to Grandma in Santa Monica.
Most employees at businesses on the Pier, like the Rusty’s workers I have gotten to know over the past year, work long hours, especially in the summer and on holiday weekends. They are a key part of what makes the Pier such a welcoming place for people of all ages and all economic levels.
They deserve to be treated with dignity and as valued members of the Santa Monica community, whether they live here or commute long distances to work here, as many do.
In this particular moment, what this means for me, is that the Rusty’s workers shouldn’t lose their jobs, just because a restaurant changed hands. I want Santa Monica to be known as a city with high ethical standards, a city where we care not just about home owners and landlords, but also about renters, and a city where we care not just about business owners and managers, but also about workers. So, please, at the upcoming City Council meeting on January 27th, I urge you to support a worker retention law for all businesses that operate on the city owned Santa Monica Pier.
Thank you very much for taking time to read my letter,
The Rev. Dr. Joanne Leslie
1351 Grant St. Santa Monica 90405
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Written Comments (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) Updates to Recall and
Retention Protections
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) Background
• July 8, 2025: Council gives direction that staff develop and return with right to recall and labor peace ordinances for full City Council consideration
• September 9, 2025: Council adopts Resolution identifying local fiscal distress due to the current financial condition of the City Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) Background
• October 28, 2025: Council adopts the Santa Monica Realignment Plan, predicated around restoring safety, revitalizing key civic spaces, growing economic activity, rebuilding City organizational strength, and returning the City to fiscal balance
• December 16, 2025: Council discusses the City’s participation in various upcoming world-class events that will bring global audiences, cultural festivals, and hospitality activations to venues throughout the region
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) Background
• Against this backdrop, the City Manager’s Office and the City Attorney’s Office have spent time since mid-2025 consulting with the sponsors of the Council direction on recall and labor peace regulations • Through those conversations, the Council subcommittee identified a preference to strike a balanced approach focused on encouraging business activity and supporting worker rights
• That policy perspective led to a focus on advancing only Right of Recall and Retention regulations at this time • Protect the Santa Monica Pier, one of the City’s most valuable assets • Protect workers • Furthers the Realignment Plan by encouraging business activity • Reduces disruption during major events Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) Proposed Scope of Additional Worker
Protections
1. Amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.66, Recall of Workers, to provide for recall of laid-off hotel workers on Cityowned property and hospitality workers on the Pier; and
2. Add Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.69, Retention of Workers, to provide for retention of hospitality workers at the Pier for a period of 90 days after a change in control of the business.
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) Current Protections for Pier Workers
Chapter 4.66, Recall of Workers
• Adopted in response to economic conditions following September 11, 2001
• Requires employers to first rehire workers that were previously laid off for economic reasons
• Applies to workers within the Coastal Zone and “extended” Downtown core, if the employer had gross receipts of at least $5 million in the year 2000
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) Current Protections for Pier Workers
Labor Peace Language in Pier Leasing Guidelines
• Existing City guidelines require that new or substantially amended leases include provisions to ensure that Pier tenants will not engage in practices that impede employees’ ability to organize and contract with a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining • Of note, existing Labor Peace Provisions in the City’s Leasing Guidelines will not be updated or amended
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) Current Protections for Hotel Workers
Chapter 4.67, Hotel Worker Protections
• The City also has existing regulations in place to protect hotel workers • Current provisions require retention protections for hotel workers in the City for a period of 90 days following a change in control of the hotel operator
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) Updates to Chapter 4.66, Recall of Workers
• Through the work of the subcommittee, existing recall regulations in the City’s municipal code would remain in place
• Updates being proposed tonight would apply to operators of:
1) Hotels on City-owned property; and
2) Hospitality businesses on the Pier with five or more workers Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) Updates to Chapter 4.66, Recall of Workers
• If adopted, the proposed worker recall rules would require operators to offer positions that become available after the effective date of the Ordinance to laid off workers who: • Performed at least two hours of work within the geographical boundaries of the City for an employer in a particular week; • Were employed by an employer for six months or more; and • Had a separation date after September 9, 2025, that was due to lack of business, a reduction in force or other economic, non-disciplinary reason.
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) Addition of Chapter 4.69, Retention of
Workers
• Proposed worker retention regulations would keep existing rules in place for current hotel workers, while expanding those protections as follows: • Requires the retention of workers at hospitality businesses on the Pier with 5 or more workers for a period of 90 days after a change in control of the business • Provides for noticing to workers of the change in control, that offers of employment be made in writing, and that workers shall receive a performance evaluation after the 90-day retention period
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) Potential Clarifications and Changes
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) Potential Clarifications and Changes
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) Potential Clarifications and Changes
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) Potential Clarifications and Changes
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) Potential Clarifications and Changes
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) Potential Clarifications and Changes
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7518 : Worker Recall and Retention Ordinance) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026
Agenda Item: 11.A
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oscar Santiago, Director, Finance Department
Subject: Authorization of Modification to the Measure YY/GS Master Facilities Use Agreement with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Recommended Action
Staff recommend that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a modification to agreement 10658, the Measure YY/GS Master Facilities Use Agreement with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, to extend the term indefinitely.
Summary
The City and the Santa Monica–Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) have built a longstanding collaborative partnership that has strengthened educational, cultural, and recreational opportunities for the community. The City has consistently invested in high‑quality programs and facilities that benefit students, while the District has supported residents through strong classroom instruction and shared use of school facilities.
In 2010 and 2016, Santa Monica voters approved local tax measures accompanied by advisory measures recommending that portions of the resulting revenues be dedicated to school facilities and educational programs. To honor that voter intent, the City and SMMUSD formalized their partnership through the Measure YY/GS Master Facilities
11.A
Packet Pg. 557
2 of 4
Use Agreement, which is currently set to expire on June 30, 2028, with optional ten‑year extensions by mutual agreement.
Staff now seeks Council approval to modify the agreement by extending its term indefinitely, subject to existing termination provisions, and by increasing the required notice of termination from three years to fifteen years.
Discussion
Santa Monica voters approved Measure Y and advisory Measure YY in November 2010. Measure Y established a half‑percent transaction and use tax, and Measure YY recommended allocating half of the resulting revenue to school, educational, and after‑school programs, with the remaining half directed to the City’s General Fund.
In November 2016, voters approved Measures GSH and GS. Measure GSH added another half‑percent transaction and use tax, while advisory Measure GS recommended dedicating half of that revenue to improving and maintaining public school facilities and supporting educational and after‑school programs at District sites in Santa Monica, with the other half allocated to the City’s affordable housing initiatives. These commitments with SMMUSD were formalized in the Measure YY/GS Master Facilities Use Agreement.
The City currently provides approximately $30.3 million annually to SMMUSD: $18.3 million through the Measure YY/GS Master Facilities Use Agreement and $12 million through the Joint Use Agreement. The Measure YY/GS Master Facilities Use Agreement is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2028. In recognition of the strong partnership with SMMUSD, the City Council voted on October 28, 2025, to authorize staff to negotiate an extension beyond 2028. Consistent with that direction, staff now proposes modifying the agreement to extend its term indefinitely unless a majority of the City Council approves issuing a Notice of Nonrenewal, which requires a material
11.A
Packet Pg. 558
3 of 4
financial change dictating nonrenewal (“Basis for Nonrenewal”), with fifteen years’ notice.
The Joint Use Agreement, which provides SMMUSD with $12 million annually, is set to expire in early 2027. As part of the City’s broader fiscal realignment strategy, staff is evaluating the potential for a citywide parcel tax sized to generate $12 million annually to offset the Joint Use Agreement funding. In a separate staff report, City staff will present findings from a community survey of Santa Monica voters conducted in October 2025 to assess support for a potential City‑initiated parcel tax measure. Under that item, staff seeks Council direction on whether to continue preparing for possible placement of the measure on the November 2026 general election ballot.
Environmental Review
The Measure YY/GS Master Facilities Use Agreement would have no effect on the environment, and therefore, is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply, “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The agreement is administrative in nature and would not have any adverse physical effects on the environment.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended action. The projected contribution of $18.3 million to SMMUSD related to the Measure YY/GS Master Facilities Use Agreement is included in the FY 2025-26 adopted budget.
Budget authority for subsequent fiscal years will be requested in each budget for Council approval. Future year funding is contingent on Council budget approval.
11.A
Packet Pg. 559
4 of 4
Prepared By: Oscar Santiago, Director
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements
B. Attachment B – April 10, 2018 – Approval of Master Facilities Use Agreement (Web Link)
C. Written Comments
11.A
Packet Pg. 560
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master
11.A.a
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Attachment A - Existing Executed Agreements (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master 1 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 11:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln Subject: 1/27/26 City Council - Item 11A: OPPOSE Extension of YY/GSH Joint Use Agreements
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to oppose the extension of the YY/GSH Joint Use Agreements for the following reasons:
This is premature. These agreements don't expire for another 2.5 years and a lot can change in that time. Extending the contracts for 10 years now is not prudent. You have no compliance information. There is ZERO analysis in the staff report of which facilities are covered by each agreement, and whether the city or school district are in compliance with, or in default under, the agreements. There is no information about the revenues paid and the use of facilities received. Furthermore, any extension would be a deemed waiver of current defaults under these Joint Use Agreements, and it would be irresponsible of you to waive defaults on behalf of the public with no information. This is a piecemeal decision. There are THREE joint use agreements. However, you would be extending two while not addressing the third. There is ZERO analysis in the staff report of which facilities are being extended and which are not and what the value is of each facility. This lays the groundwork for a parcel tax. You are limiting future options, which appears to be an attempt to force our hands on a parcel tax. Based on the "Realignment Plan", you have disingenuously claimed you cannot afford to pay the original Joint Use Agreement from 2005, despite it being a recurring revenue stream and payment to the school district for 20 years.
The City has a spending problem, most problematically in the form of unchallenged molestation settlements while refusing to release the Uller Report (it's Santa Monica's Epstein Files). You have brought us to the brink of fiscal collapse, not by paying the same bill to the school district for 20 years, but by reckless NEW spending decisions. You only want to "cut school spending" because you know voters are gullible enough to pass another tax "for the schools." But we know this is really a NEW tax to backfill your fiscal mismanagement.
Delay voting on this until all the Joint Use Agreement and Parcel Tax cards are on the table. The residents of Santa Monica deserve transparency.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and Voter
11.A.c
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master Facilities 1 David Yakobson
From: Ted Winterer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 6:23 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems; Shelton, Antonio
Subject: Item 11-a, 1/287/26 City Council Meeting
EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and Honorable Councilmembers,
I am writing on behalf of the Community for Excellent Public Schools (CEPS) with respect to the Y/YY and GS/GSH Agreement (Agreement) between the City and SMMUSD.
The two tax measures that fund this Agreement – Y/YY (2010) and GS/GSH (2016) – included advisory measures that directed that 50% of the revenue would go to SMMUSD to fund public education and 50% would go to the City. CEPS led the campaign effort on these measures; the overwhelming majority of volunteers and campaign funding was provided by the school community.
CEPS has reviewed the Agreement, which provides an initial ten-year term (July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2028) and an indefinite number of potential ten-year extensions. CEPS urges the City and SMMUSD to confirm a ten-year extension through June 30, 2038.
CEPS does not believe there is any need to amend or modify the Agreement. In particular, CEPS does not support changing the Agreement insofar as it addresses non-renewal.
We look forward to a continuation of this City support of the children and teachers at our public schools.
Item 11-A
January 27, 2026
Item 11-A
January 27, 2026
11.A.c
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master Facilities 2 Regards,
Ted Winterer
CEPS Chair
--
Ted Winterer
Realtor @Compass, 2115 Main Street Santa Monica
"Most Loved Real Estate Agent 2025," Santa Monica Daily Press DRE #02047989
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Item 11-A
January 27, 2026
Item 11-A
January 27, 2026
11.A.c
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7496 : 11.A Approval of Modification to Contract No. 10658 Measure YY/GS Master Facilities City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026
Agenda Item: 11.B
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oscar Santiago, Director, Finance Department
Subject: Polling Results On Potential 2026 Parcel Tax Ballot Measure Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding that the report provided herein is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
2. Receive the results of a statistically reliable community survey of Santa Monica voters, conducted in October 2025, to gauge sentiment around a potential parcel tax ballot measure; and provide direction to staff on whether to continue preparations to place the measure on the November 2026 general election ballot.
Summary
This report presents key insights from a poll of registered Santa Monica voters conducted October 8–16, 2025. The survey gauged sentiment regarding a potential parcel tax ballot measure and tested alternative tax structures. Based on the findings, this report also provides suggested ballot language should Council choose to advance the measure. Additional details are provided in Attachment A.
Background
Santa Monica was long regarded as one of California’s most vibrant and fiscally sound cities, with a thriving downtown, iconic waterfront, and strong civic infrastructure. But that foundation has weakened. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted tourism, shuttered businesses, and strained public services. Since then, the City has faced compounding challenges: rising public safety concerns, growing homelessness, high retail and office
11.B
Packet Pg. 679
2 of 5
vacancies, deferred maintenance, and declining public trust. Visitor traffic has dropped, events like the Palisades Fire, and policy changes from the federal government have further impacted revenue. These factors have led to a sharp decline in hotel and sales tax revenues, contributing to a previously projected General Fund deficit in FY 2026-27.
To address the growing deficit, staff continue to explore various revenue options, including adjustments to existing tax rates and new voter-approved tax measures.
Discussion
One option under consideration is adoption of a parcel tax, which under California law must be a Special Tax. Unlike ad valorem property taxes, capped by Proposition 13 at one percent of assessed value plus amounts necessary to repay voter-approved indebtedness (Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 1), parcel taxes are not based on property value.
Instead, they are levied on a non-ad valorem basis, such as a flat amount per parcel, a charge per square foot of building area, or other parcel-related metrics.
The California Constitution expressly authorizes such special taxes when approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate (Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 4). Cities throughout California have lawfully adopted parcel taxes structured in this manner.
Staff estimate that a Santa Monica parcel tax could generate approximately $12 million annually. This revenue would offset the City’s current $12 million General Fund subsidy to the Santa Monica–Malibu Unified School District under the Master Facilities Joint Use Agreement (expiring in 2027), while sustaining funding for essential City services such as homelessness response, public safety, libraries, parks, and community programs.
Current Rules for approval of Local Tax Measures in California Because the viability of any tax measure depends on voter approval thresholds, it is important to understand the rules governing local tax measures sponsored by a local government in California. State law distinguishes between two types of taxes:
11.B
Packet Pg. 680
3 of 5
General taxes: Require approval by a simple majority (50% + 1) of voters. These are taxes used for general government purposes and must be placed on the ballot during a regularly scheduled election for city or county officials.
Special taxes: Require a two-thirds (66.7%) supermajority. Special taxes are earmarked for specific purposes (e.g., parks, libraries, public safety).
Community Survey
To assess public support, the City engaged Goodwin Simon Strategic Research to conduct a statistically reliable survey of 499 randomly selected voters (English and Spanish, online and phone) between October 8–16, 2025. The poll tested two versions of a parcel tax:
1. A flat parcel tax of $540 per parcel
2. A square footage-based tax of $0.08 per square foot of parcel Key findings
• Initial support (mid-40s%), based solely on the 75-word ballot summary, fell short of the two-thirds threshold required for passage of a government-initiated ballot measure.
• Majority support (mid-50s%) emerged for both versions of the parcel tax after voters learned how funds would be used locally and not diverted to state or federal governments.
• The flat tax version earned majority support from homeowners after additional information; the square footage tax lagged by approximately 15 points.
• Voters are largely unaware of the Master Facilities Joint Use Agreement, and while they recognize the District’s funding needs, the agreement’s benefits are not top priorities.
11.B
Packet Pg. 681
4 of 5
• Voters expressed strong support for City–District collaboration to improve services.
Recommended Next Steps
If the Council directs staff to proceed with adding the parcel tax to the November 2026 general election ballot, which requires two thirds voter approval, the following steps are advised:
• Consider a lower tax amount to improve viability
• Launch a community outreach and education campaign to build awareness and support
• Refine the ballot language to emphasize high-priority uses (firefighters, homelessness, 911 services, and teacher retention)
• Clearly state that funds will be used exclusively in Santa Monica for essential services and public education
Proposed Ballot Language
If Council decides to move forward with placing the item on the ballot, the recommended ballot language is as follows (informed by the poll results):
PRESERVING SANTA MONICA SERVICES AND PUBLIC EDUCATION
To maintain funding for homelessness, firefighters, 911 emergency services, and libraries, while preserving city funding for Santa Monica’s public schools to retain quality teachers and improve education quality, shall the measure approving a tax of $540 per parcel, generating approximately $12,000,000 annually until repealed by voters, exempting seniors, with funds that cannot be taken by the state or federal governments and can only be used in Santa Monica, be adopted?
11.B
Packet Pg. 682
5 of 5
Environmental Review
The Polling results on a potential parcel tax ballot measure is not a “project” subject to CEQA. The report is administrative in nature and provides results on the voter poll.
Pursuant to CEQA Section 21065, the report does not meet the definition of a “project” subject to CEQA as it will not “cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” Additionally, per Section 15378(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a “project” does not include organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Therefore, the report is not subject to CEQA.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended action. The estimated cost to place a tax revenue measure on the ballot typically ranges between $42,000 – $47,000 for a single measure, depending on jurisdiction size, election type, and ballot length. If Council directs staff to move forward with the work to place the item on the November 2026 general election ballot, staff will return to Council to seek approval of the required actions.
Prepared By: Oscar Santiago, Director
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Attachment A - Santa Monica Parcel Tax Survey Presentation B. Written Comments
11.B
Packet Pg. 683
Santa Monica
Parcel Tax
Survey
Conducted by Goodwin Simon
Strategic Research
October 2025
Presentation of Findings
11.B.a
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Attachment A - Santa Monica Parcel Tax Survey Presentation [Revision 1] Methodology
• Goodwin Simon Strategic Research completed 499 interviews with registered voters in Santa Monica between October 8 and 16, 2025. Fielding was conducted online via text invitations (46%) and by cell phones (53%) and landlines (1%).
• The sample was drawn from a list of Santa Monica voters who are likely to participate in a 2026 election based on past vote history.
• The survey was fielded in both English and Spanish.
• The margin of error for the full results is +/- 4.34% at a 95% confidence level. That is, if this survey were to be repeated exactly as it was originally conducted, then 95 out of 100 times the responses from the sample (expressed as proportions) would be within 4.34% of the actual population proportions. • The margin of error for questions about the flat tax option (N=252) and about the per square foot option (N = 247) is +/- 6.16%.
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research 2
11.B.a
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Attachment A - Santa Monica Parcel Tax Survey Presentation [Revision 1] Overview/Recommendations
• A majority in the mid-50s supports either version of a parcel tax after respondents learn how the funds might be used by the City and the SMMUSD – and learn that the funds will not be used by the state or federal governments. • However, initial support for a tax (i.e. based only on the 75-word ballot title and summary we tested for each version) is only in the mid-40s, a level that does not appear to be sufficient to pass a measure at the two-thirds level required for a city tax measure.
• If the city is interested in placing a measure of this kind on the ballot, we recommend identifying a lower amount to put before voters and a process of community outreach/education and additional voter research. • If a measure does proceed, we recommend 75-word ballot language that offers examples of how the funds could be used that are focused on voters’ highest priorities, specifically firefighters, homelessness, 911 services, and hiring/retaining teachers. Ideally the ballot language would also make clear that the funds can only be used in Santa Monica for essential city services and public education. An example is offered on the next slide. • Relatively few voters are aware of the Master Facilities Joint Use Agreement (MFJUA) with SMMUSD. Moreover, while most voters recognize that the District has need of funding, the community programs and services resulting from the MFJUA are not among the highest priorities for most voters.
• Still, the poll makes clear that voters are very supportive of the City and the District partnering to improve the services they provide to residents.
• The flat tax earns majority support from homeowners in the poll after they learn more about how the revenue will be used. In contrast the square footage tax still trails by 15 points among homeowners after more information.
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research 3
11.B.a
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Attachment A - Santa Monica Parcel Tax Survey Presentation [Revision 1] City approval ratings
steady since 2022
SMMUSD May 2019 Jan 2022 June 2024 October 2025
Positive 55% 48% 58% 58%
Negative 19% 27% 22% 15%
City May 2022 May 2024 October 2025
Positive 55% 59% 54%
Negative 40% 36% 41%
Approval ratings for the City are similar to what we found in 2022 and 2024.
While positive job ratings for the SMMUSD and the City are roughly similar, negative ratings continue to be higher for the city (41%) compared to the District (15%).
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research 4
11.B.a
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Attachment A - Santa Monica Parcel Tax Survey Presentation [Revision 1] Limited awareness of
the Master Facilities
Joint Use Agreement
(MFJUA) with SMMUSD
• Only 36% of voters are aware of the agreement, with
homeowners and parents much more aware of it than
renters and non-parents
• Supporters of a tax tend to be less aware of the
agreement than tax opponents
MFJUA
Awareness All Owners Renters Parents Not Parents Voting Yes Voting No Yes 36% 46% 27% 60% 28% 33% 41%
No 59% 47% 68% 33% 67% 62% 52%
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research 5
11.B.a
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Attachment A - Santa Monica Parcel Tax Survey Presentation [Revision 1] A majority of voters
(58%) recognize at least
some need for MFJUA
funding to help schools
Two in three voters who say
they are aware of the
agreement believe the public
schools need this funding,
compared to 53% of those
not aware of the funding.
About 71% of Yes voters say
there is a need for the funding
compared to 49% of the No
voters.
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research6
Great need,
27%
Some need,
31%
Little/no need,
21%
Not sure, 21%
58 %
11.B.a
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Attachment A - Santa Monica Parcel Tax Survey Presentation [Revision 1] Response to
proposed uses of
the tax revenue
For voters, the most important
uses of the funds include three city
services (homeless, firefighters,
911), plus “hiring and retaining
qualified teachers.”
This is especially the case for ”Yes
1x” voters, who are mostly those
who switched from No or Not sure
initially to Yes after hearing more
about the measures, and the
initially undecided voters.
Note that the MFJUA funding was
the least important use of the
revenue for voters of the items we
tested.
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research 7
Ext. imp All
Voting
Yes
Voting
No
Not
sure Yes 2x Yes 1x Yes 0x
Homeless 56% 71% 38% 65% 73% 59% 37%
Firefighters 51% 59% 38% 64% 61% 56% 39%
Teachers 50% 71% 28% 51% 72% 51% 27%
911 48% 52% 40% 58% 53% 49% 42%
Preschool 42% 59% 23% 47% 60% 52% 19%
Arts/music 41% 55% 23% 46% 57% 47% 21%
Parks 40% 49% 28% 46% 50% 40% 29%
Libraries 39% 52% 24% 40% 54% 41% 22%
Streets 39% 42% 34% 44% 43% 43% 33%
MFJUA 34% 43% 22% 41% 45% 39% 21%
Voted yes both
times (2x)
when asked
about a tax
Voted yes once
but not twice
(1x) when
asked about a
tax
Voted yes 0
times (0x)
when asked
about a tax
11.B.a
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Attachment A - Santa Monica Parcel Tax Survey Presentation [Revision 1] Most influential
endorsers: Firefighters,
Teachers, Library
advocates
The relative importance of firefighters and teachers as influencers is especially important with undecided and
swing (Yes 1x) voters.
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research 8
More inclined to support tax if endorsed by:
All Owners Renters Yes voters No voters Not sure Yes 2x Yes 1x Yes 0x Firefighters 53% 47% 58% 68% 34% 60% 71% 66% 28%
Teachers 49% 45% 54% 75% 21% 53% 78% 60% 15%
Friends of SMPL 43% 34% 51% 65% 20% 39% 68% 44% 16%
SMRR 37% 22% 51% 53% 20% 37% 55% 47% 13%
LWV 35% 31% 38% 52% 17% 36% 55% 43% 11%
CEPS 34% 30% 38% 52% 12% 42% 54% 47% 7%
SM FSS 34% 32% 37% 49% 19% 33% 49% 41% 15%
PTA 32% 29% 36% 50% 13% 36% 52% 42% 8%
SM Forward 16% 16% 16% 25% 5% 20% 26% 24% 2%
Voted yes both
times (2x)
when asked
about a tax
Voted yes once
but not twice
(1x) when
asked about a
tax
Voted yes 0
times (0x)
when asked
about a tax
11.B.a
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Attachment A - Santa Monica Parcel Tax Survey Presentation [Revision 1] Comparing the flat and
square foot versions of
the parcel tax: initial
reaction
• Overall, the 45% support for a $540 flat parcel tax is not significantly different from the 42% support for the $0.08/square foot tax. • We find a notable variance in preference among self-identified homeowners, with 43% who support a flat tax and just 29% who would vote yes on a square footage tax.
• As is typically the case, we see renters, Democrats, younger voters, and parents most inclined to vote for either tax option.
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research 9
All Dems GOP Ind Owners Renters 18-39 49-64 65+ Parents Not
Parents
Flat yes 45% 52% 15% 41% 43% 47% 53% 39% 46% 58% 41%
Sq. ft.
yes
42% 52% 11% 33% 29% 53% 47% 38% 45% 40% 44%
Net flat
yes
3% 0% 4% 8% 14% -6% 6% 1% 1% 18% -3%
Flat no 40% 31% 72% 52% 43% 38% 27% 46% 42% 33% 42%
Sq. ft.
no
43% 32% 77% 55% 57% 32% 34% 49% 43% 41% 43%
Net flat
no -3% -1% -5% -3% -14% 6% -7% -3% -1% -8% -1%
$540
flat
$0.08/
sq. ft
Yes 45% 42%
No 40% 43%
Net yes 5% -1%
Not
sure
15% 14%
11.B.a
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Attachment A - Santa Monica Parcel Tax Survey Presentation [Revision 1] Reasons to support
the tax (open-end
responses)
The most frequent reasons
mentioned were • To help public schools,
mentioned by 33% of yes
voters
• To help fund city services,
mentioned by 29% of yes
voters
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research 10
11.B.a
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Attachment A - Santa Monica Parcel Tax Survey Presentation [Revision 1] Support rises to 55%-59% after voters learn more
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research 11
45%
40%
15%
59%
33%
8%
Yes No Not sure
Flat tax
Unaided Aided
42% 43%
14%
55%
37%
8%
Yes No Not sure
Square Foot tax
Unaided Aided
11.B.a
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Attachment A - Santa Monica Parcel Tax Survey Presentation [Revision 1] The flat tax option seems to
generate more support and
less opposition from
homeowners compared to
the square footage option
After homeowners learn more about the flat tax, their
support for it rises to 54% with 42% opposed, compared to just 39% in favor and 54% opposed for the square footage option. Renter support for the flat tax version rises to 66% with 23% opposed.
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research 12
All Owners Renters
Flat Unaided: Yes 45% 43% 47%
Unaided: No 40% 43% 38%
Unaided: Net yes 5% 0% 9%
Aided: Yes 59% 54% 66%
Aided: No 33% 42% 23%
Aided: Net yes 27% 12% 43%
Sq. Ft. Unaided: Yes 42% 29% 53%
Unaided: No 43% 57% 32%
Unaided: Net yes -1% -28% 21%
Aided: Yes 55% 39% 69%
Aided: No 38% 54% 23%
Aided: Net yes 17% -16% 46%
11.B.a
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Attachment A - Santa Monica Parcel Tax Survey Presentation [Revision 1] Movement
• Roughly 65% of initially undecided voters shifted to yes, and about 15% of no voters shifted to yes.
• The biggest movement of opinion was seen among:
• Renters
• Parents
• Voters under 39 (and especially renters under 40)
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research 13
11.B.a
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Attachment A - Santa Monica Parcel Tax Survey Presentation [Revision 1] What information is
most important to
voters who move to a
yes vote?
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research 14
There were two statements that are
most important for voters who move
from being initially undecided about or
opposed to a tax measure to supporting
it:
“The funds generated by the measure
will be spent entirely in Santa Monica
and none of it can be taken by the state
or federal government” and
“The funds generated by this measure
will protect local public schools if the
state or federal government cuts funding
for California schools.”
11.B.a
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Attachment A - Santa Monica Parcel Tax Survey Presentation [Revision 1] Proposed
Ballot
Language
(Flat tax
version)
PRESERVING SANTA MONICA SERVICES AND
PUBLIC EDUCATION
To maintain funding for homelessness,
firefighters, 911 emergency services, and libraries,
while preserving city funding for Santa Monica’s
public schools to retain quality teachers and
improve education quality, shall the measure
approving a tax of $540 per parcel, generating
approximately $12,000,000 annually until
repealed by voters, exempting seniors, be
adopted, with funds that cannot be taken by the
state or federal governments and can only be used
in Santa Monica, be adopted?
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research 15
11.B.a
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Attachment A - Santa Monica Parcel Tax Survey Presentation [Revision 1] 1 David Yakobson
From: Karen Melick <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 7:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi
Subject: Item 11b, no on parcel tax
EXTERNAL
Hello,
Please do not move forward on any kind of parcel tax to transfer the burden of paying SMMUSD $12 million a year from the City funds to the residents of Santa Monica.
As a Parks a Recreation commissioner, it’s disappointing that this was never brought up at a RPC meeting before this is presented to City Council. Therefore I am speaking on my own behalf on this topic. This Joint Use Agreement annual payment is in exchange for use of the elementary school playgrounds which is not of a value anywhere near $12 million.
The proposal of an additional $540 per year per parcel impacts housing affordability in Santa Monica. Property owners already pay about 17% more than our base tax with about 10% going to SMMUSD and another 7% going to SMC.
The City made this commitment and it’s wrong to burden the residents with this now. The proposed language is also deceiving and it is not describing accurately what this proposed tax is about. The money for this is to go to SMMUSD, not Santa Monica services like firefighters.
Also, as this is unlikely to get the 67% votes in favor, please stop wasting time and money in pursuing this any longer.
I wish I was able to speak at the meeting but I am half the way around the world.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Karen Melick
Item 11-B
January 27, 2026
Item 11-B
January 27, 2026
11.B.b
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Written Comments (7468 : 11.B Polling Results On Potential Parcel Tax Ballot Measure) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026
Agenda Item: 11.C
1 of 20
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Architecture Services Subject: 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and
2. Receive and approve the 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan.
Summary
The Parks and Recreation Vision Plan (PRVP) is a long-term plan that responds to today’s physical conditions, community needs, values, and opportunities and offers a vision for the evolution of Santa Monica’s system of parks, open space, community facilities, and recreation and arts programs. Parks and Recreation Master Plans are typically 20–25-year visioning documents. The 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (Attachment C), the City’s last adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan, served as a source for recommended actions to meet the objectives of the Open Space Element, with a vision of “City as Park”—expanding open space opportunities by establishing greener recreation corridors throughout the City and linking open space destinations.
Almost 30 years later, as park acreage continues to be challenged, the 2025 PRVP advances “City as Habitat” as its fundamental vision, establishing the City’s new longrange park planning tool.
The community, as represented by the City Council, will reference the PRVP for the next 25 years when making strategic open space decisions especially in consideration
11.C
Packet Pg. 700
2 of 20
of park planning projects like the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project which presents the largest parkland expansion opportunity in the City’s 150-year history. The Parks and Recreation Vision Plan establishes actionable recommendations for facilitating acquisition, expansion, improvement, outreach, and funding strategies for parks and open space, demonstrating Santa Monica’s commitment to sustainability, resiliency, the environment, and wellness of its community.
Discussion
The 1997 Open Space Element (Attachment B) of the City’s General Plan references parks and open spaces as providing “vital opportunities for recreation, relaxation, and contemplation, as well as habitat for plants and animals that are integral parts of our local ecosystem and outlines objectives and policies to create a meaningful and diverse park system, improving its character and quality with a focus on reinforcing the social, environmental, cultural, and recreational role of open space.
Project background
The City’s current Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) was adopted in 1997. As PRMPs are typically 20- to 30-year visioning documents, the 1997 Plan is due for an update. In 2017 the Community and Cultural Services (CCS) Department recommended the award of a 2-year contract to MIG, Inc. to update the City’s PRMP. On December 12, 2017, City Council approved a contract award of $488,706 to MIG, Inc. and the contract was executed on January 29, 2018 (Attachment A).
Community outreach established 8 strategies that would become the foundation of the 2020 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (Attachment E).
Throughout the draft process between February and November of 2019, staff coordinated with MIG, Inc. and a Recreation and Parks Commission ad hoc committee.
A draft was presented to the ad hoc committee in November 2019 and comments were incorporated. The revised draft was set to be presented to the Recreation and Parks Commission in March 2020. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the
11.C
Packet Pg. 701
3 of 20
presentation was postponed indefinitely. Furthermore, the Community and Cultural Services Department was restructured, and the project was paused. The 2020 draft had not been presented publicly, and no action was taken with respect to City Council adoption. Additionally, open space needs, post-pandemic, needed to be reassessed.
In April 2024, the PRMP update process resumed with an approved project budget of $450,000, per the Fiscal Year 2024-26 Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget.
The 2024 process was built upon the foundation of the 2018-2019 process, and the Senior Park Planner engaged a Recreation and Parks Commission ad hoc committee.
The goal of this committee was to review the 2019 consultant draft and 2020 staff draft, discuss comments, and meet monthly, through winter 2025, to review staff updates. The 2025 PRVP update project was presented to the following groups to integrate their comments as “Companion Narratives” within the 2025 update. • Recreation and Parks Commission
• Planning Commission
• Arts Commission
• Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment • Urban Forest Task Force
• Santa Monica Aquatics Advisory Committee
• Field Sports Advisory Committee
• Community Gardens Advisory Committee
• Friends of Sunset Park
• North of Montana Association
• Ocean Park Association
• Pico Neighborhood Association
• Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors
• Santa Monica Northeast Neighbors
• Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition
11.C
Packet Pg. 702
4 of 20
Through the engagement process, Public Works, in collaboration with the Recreation and Arts Department (RAD), worked with PROS Consulting and ETC Institute to conduct a demographically representative survey and general population survey—the Community Recreation and Arts Needs Assessment—in the spring of 2025, to align community recommendations with existing and projected data on levels of service. The representative survey required a minimum of 250 participants and received 418. The general population survey was then released, publicized (SaMo News, City social media outlets, a Community Recreation email blast, and posters) and garnered 203 participants. (Attachment G).
Though high in park need, 96% of respondents visit a park, arts, or recreation facility in a typical year – 15% above the national average. Additionally, 49% of respondents participate in a City program or event in a typical year – 13% above the national average. The survey also demonstrated that community priorities for facilities and amenities align with City needs when current inventory is measured against National Recreation and Parks Association metric recommendations for levels of service.
Walking loops and trails, community parks, large regional parks, neighborhood parks, aquatics facility, pocket parks, and community gardens were top priorities for the community. Arts, culture, city-sponsored events, and beach house events were program and activity priorities. Art in public spaces, theater programs and events, art galleries, fine art and visual art, youth and adult camps and classes, art studios, and performing arts were arts and culture priorities.
The 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan
The 2025 PRVP (Attachment H) is intended to be a planning and long-range visioning document outlining actionable acquisition, expansion, improvement, outreach, and funding recommendations for the future of Santa Monica’s park network. Though the PRVP does not define particular project scopes, the 2025 plan identifies short-, medium-, and long-term planning opportunities, positioning the City to make responsible decisions for the park network that are informed by continued community engagement, facilities and level of service data analysis, fiscal responsibility, and regular status
11.C
Packet Pg. 703
5 of 20
updates. As a visioning plan, no particular projects are identified, feasibility studies are proposed, and timeframe and costs are estimated with future projects resulting from the PRVP requiring City Council review and approval. The 2025 Plan provides for implementation flexibility under an organizational framework and, as such, does not define types and designs of future interventions, quality of materials and installation, manufacturer and type of equipment selected, field conditions, or market conditions.
The 2016 Los Angeles Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment (Attachment D) classifies Santa Monica (Study Area #182) as “Moderate” in terms of park need with, at the time, 1.4 park acres per 1,000 residents.
This classification is based on park acre need, distance to parks, and population density. Though classified as moderate, many neighborhoods within Santa Monica are “High” or “Very High” when considering park acre need. Furthermore, the 2022 Los Angeles Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment Plus (Attachment F) notes several neighborhoods of Santa Monica as “Priority Areas for Increasing Access to Regional Recreation”. Understanding these metrics and classifications is important as numerous grant opportunities rely on this data as part of award criteria, reinforcing project narratives that emphasize citywide need and speak
11.C
Packet Pg. 704
6 of 20
deliberately to the artistic, cultural, recreational, and environmental benefits a park project will deliver to local and regional communities should a grant be awarded.
One of the goals of the 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan was to increase park acreage from 113 acres to a range of 143 to 170 acres. At the time of the PRVP update, the park acreage inventory demonstrates that the City has met that 30-year benchmark, providing approximately 144 park acres with 72% of the population living within one-half mile of a park, 23% above the county average. Almost 10 years later, the 2025 Santa Monica Community Recreation and Arts Needs Assessment confirmed that Santa Monica continues to need an additional 132 park acres to meet the 2016 Countywide Assessment average of 3.3 park acres per 1,000 residents. This county average does not include beach acreage. Though Santa Monica has approximately 202 acres of beach (2.17 acres per 1,000), not all cities within the County of Los Angeles have a beach to provide recreational amenities. Within this assessment, regional destinations such as Griffith Park and Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area are not counted as park acreage for those cities directly adjacent. Typical planning recommendations target 5.0 park acres per 1,000 residents and Santa Monica would need to target the integration of an additional 292 park acres to meet this recommendation. In 2025, the National Recreation and Parks Association recommended a target of 6-10 park acres per 1,000 residents for cities with a population of 100,000 to 250,000. This recommendation does take beach acreage into account. Based on the 2020 Census, Santa Monica has a population of just over 93,000 and the City website’s “About Us” page highlights Santa Monica’s daytime population as approximately 250,000. The NRPA does note that “park and recreation agencies are as diverse as the communities they serve, what works well for one agency may not be best for all.”
The PRVP recommends that a goal of 5 park acres per 1,000 residents be included within the Plan. This goal looks beyond foreseeable park expansion opportunities and study innovative strategies to secure more parkland to address the needs of a growing population.
11.C
Packet Pg. 705
7 of 20
This Plan’s vision – “City as Habitat” – proposes reinforcing the City’s parks, open spaces, and streets as nourishing habitat for people, plants, animals, and programming, amplifying the 1997 Plan’s vision of City as Park. The “City as Habitat” vision was inspired by a commitment to prevent harm to the natural environment and human health, benefit environmental justice, and secure the equitable social and economic well-being of the community. The PRVP identifies eight overarching principles that are validated by five strategies and supported by thirty-two actions.
During the Research and Analysis phase, staff identified strategies in the 2019 Santa Monica Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment that were redundant with the City Council priorities established in 2023. The strategies were therefore distilled and emerged as the five strategies of the PRVP update:
1. Strengthen access to parks, facilities, and the beach
2. Rethink streets with park potential
3. Foster social interaction
4. Optimize existing parks and beach experiences
5. Create new parkland
The strategies establish a framework for making decisions that nurture the further evolution of the city’s parks as settings for sustainability, celebrating the resilience of community through safe, connected, and equitable opportunities for education, recreation, and arts programming that reinforces an individual’s connection to nature.
Further, 2025 City Council Priorities for –“Clean Streets and Safe Neighborhoods”, “Affordable, Livable, and Secure Housing for All”, and “Economic Opportunity and Growth” – have been utilized to help guide actionable recommendations to incrementally implement the vision.
The eight principles of the PRVP represent a network-wide call to action in support of the “City as Habitat” vision. Each principle is characterized by primary actions, supported by actionable recommendations, positioning the City to make informed, datadriven decisions on open space.
11.C
Packet Pg. 706
8 of 20
1. Nourish existing parks and facilities
2. Expand new parkland and open space
3. Raise new facilities
4. Ideate Santa Monica State Beach
5. Connect open space and the community
6. Gather recreation and arts programming
7. Sustain parks and facilities sustainability and maintenance
8. Support funding and meaningful partnerships
Actions within the PRVP are accompanied by incremental implementation timeframes, long-range planning, and development costs based on industry standard assumptions.
Actions further identify supporting City departments and documents, facilitating a comprehensive approach to collaboration among the community, staff, and consultants when addressing recommendations to realize the “City as Habitat” vision and celebrate Santa Monica as a world-class leader in resiliency and its commitment to prevent harm to the natural environment through reinforcement of citywide goals to achieve water self-sufficiency, zero waste, and carbon neutrality.
Though the actions in the PRVP are linked to implementation timeframes, the Plan proposes three status categories – active, pending, and future – for tracking the status of recommendations within five, four-year reporting cycles. Additionally, as actions note estimated costs associated with actions that support long-range incremental implementation planning and development of network-wide vision principles, the Plan acknowledges both capital and operational costs must be considered as part of responsible fiscal planning. These considerations have been highlighted in the PRVP through a demonstration of the Capital Improvement Program process, signifying how vital project narrative, schedule, and capital and operational budget are to decisionmaking. In advancing the vision, the PRVP establishes six criteria to frame the reporting on status, determining prioritization of actions within the plan. These criteria represent a commitment to community benefit through advancing big ideas, capturing quick wins,
11.C
Packet Pg. 707
9 of 20
realizing multiple benefits, embracing opportunity, spreading benefits, and identifying support channels.
Advancing the “City as Habitat” vision is incremental. Some actions are relatively simple to move forward, while others are complex and may be contingent on the outcomes of other efforts or initial phases. Implementation depends on the availability of city and outside funding, staff capacity, and taking swift advantage of emerging opportunities. In all instances, it remains vital for the city to continue to prioritize the implementation of sustainable policies and champion ongoing biodiversity and energy resilience opportunities within parks to combat the impacts of climate change. The PRVP provides an opportunity for flexibility in prioritization of feasibility, planning, and spending while maintaining systematic accountability in measuring progress through referencing “City as Habitat” principles, actions, and recommendations and “checking things off the list.” Six criteria are proposed to help prioritize interventions.
1. Advance big ideas: The project or initiative makes one or more steps to implement big future opportunities for Santa Monica.
2. Capture quick wins: The project or initiative can be quickly or easily implemented.
3. Realize multiple benefits: The project or initiative can achieve multiple strategies identified in this Plan, as well as goals, projects, and directions of other adopted City efforts.
4. Embrace opportunity: The project or initiative will take advantage of a limited duration resource, utilize unique and available funding sources, find economies of scale with other projects or is supported by a strong partnership, and reflects current community goals.
5. Spread the Benefits: The project or initiative helps distribute a similar mix of experiences and high-quality features across the City and prioritizes investment in areas with the greatest need.
6. Within available resources and capacity: Funding is identified or secured and/or the project or initiative can be supported by existing City staff capacity.
Recreation and Arts Department staff and supporting City departments have an established capacity.
11.C
Packet Pg. 708
10 of 20
The Community Recreation and Arts Needs Assessment reinforced that the Santa Monica community thrives within city parks, emphasizing that parks serve as habitat for connected communities. Viewing decision-making through this lens helps to define a network vision that places nature first. As the city continues to grow, it is vital that parks grow with it, addressing needs and providing open spaces, programming, and events that animate the urban environment, reinforcing Santa Monica as a regional, national, and global destination that celebrates nature as a vital component of its identity.
Nurturing the environment, through responsible park planning, secures a healthy and resilient future for Santa Monica, continuing to position the city at the forefront on sustainability.
The 2025 Plan Appendices
Appendix A - The Implementation Actions Matrix - collects all the principles, actions, and recommendations, referencing estimated timeframes and costs associated with each recommendation. Appendix A reinforces the 2019 comment to address userfriendliness, providing a location for ease of reference in determining prioritizations and reporting.
Appendix B – Existing Amenity and Component Action Matrix – represents interdepartmental collaboration on 5-year, 10-year, and 20-year work plans associated with ongoing maintenance of existing park amenities and components, representing investment in the resiliency of Santa Monica’s park network identity. Departments, with a Recreation and Parks Commission ad hoc, reviewed a comprehensive list of existing amenities and components within the park network and prioritized maintenance strategies based on amenities providing high-volume recreational use, parks providing those amenities, and components that support the function of the amenity.
Estimated costs shed light on the vital need for investment in maintenance. In summarizing The Trust for Public Land’s 2025 Park Score Report for Los Angeles, a park system with a “significant backlog of deferred maintenance and a need for new parks and amenities” results in “the public losing faith in the system, and eventually
11.C
Packet Pg. 709
11 of 20
public support for investment.” To highlight one example of estimated costs, the fiveyear work plan to address playground maintenance alone is approximately $2.8 million ($560,000 per year), not including staff administration costs, and assumes adequate staffing to address the work within the work plan timeframe. If projects are not addressed, costs are deferred to the following year within a work plan, or to the next work plan, with costs increasing exponentially.
Appendix C – Community Recreation and Arts Assessment – defines Santa Monica’s level of service with respect to park amenities and population served. The survey notes a required increase in particular amenities to meet the National Recreation and Park Association’s metrics on amenities provided. For example, in 2025, Santa Monica needs one additional rectangular field and nine dedicated pickleball courts (not striped on a tennis court). Adequate amenities and green space equate to increased health and fitness, supporting connected communities and investment in nature as a habitat and source for ecological well-being.
Appendix D – Potential Funding Sources and Strategies – provides descriptions of various outlets for funding park investment whether capital or operational funding.
Strategies seek to advance vision goals, as well as the citywide budget framework priorities.
Appendix E – Siting Criteria for Select Amenities – describes key considerations for implementing select amenities, positioning network expansion for long-term success.
Acreage and square footage, availability of utilities, access, and security are examples of information provided within Appendix E.
11.C
Packet Pg. 710
12 of 20
Appendix F – Open Space History – provides readers with the opportunity to learn more about the city’s parks and open spaces, helping to increase awareness of opportunities to connect with nature and promote park advocacy.
Appendix G – Airport to Park Conversion Report – was identified as a deliverable within the original PRVP scope in 2018. In advancement of the Airport Conversion Project, this report was released to the public in spring 2024. As the Airport Conversion Project represents Santa Monica’s largest opportunity for expansion of parkland, integrating this report within the PRVP was vital.
Appendix H – Related Plan and Program Documents – links readers to a comprehensive glossary of citywide plans and program documents that support the incremental implementation of actions within the PRVP. As actions within Chapter 3 note supporting documents, providing this user-friendly resource reinforces that advancing the PRVP requires understanding that this Plan is part of a collection of
11.C
Packet Pg. 711
13 of 20
initiatives that serve in the advancement of the city’s commitment to preventing harm to the natural environment and securing the well-being of the community.
Companion Narratives
The Airport Conversion Project, running in parallel with the PRVP update, provided additional insight into community sentiment around parks. This gave way to the integration of “Companion Narratives”, which amplify advocacy for particular amenities, facilities, and enhanced outreach strategies; describing parallel projects; showcasing divisions and task forces that support our parks; defining funding mechanisms; and creating awareness of growth that will inevitably impact the carrying capacity of Santa Monica’s parks.
Summer 2025 Outreach
The PRVP project website went live on July 22, 2025, sharing the PRVP draft update with the public in both English and Spanish translation. Social media posts followed.
11.C
Packet Pg. 712
14 of 20
The first public outreach of the draft plan was conducted on August 21, 2025, at the Recreation and Parks Commission meeting. Subsequent outreach opportunities were posted on the project website, and the summaries below represent comments shared by the community.
Recreation and Parks Commission – August 21, 2025
The commission was encouraged that the PRVP outlined a plan to address park acreage and amenity needs without relying solely on the 192 acres of Santa Monica Airport. Much discussion took place around the right metric of park acreage per 1,000 residents, as this is a standard point of reference when considering county and national parks and recreation assessments. The commission noted that it was necessary to be reasonable when putting forward a metric recommendation that does not rely solely on the Santa Monica Airport, joint-use agreements, and development agreements, and considers how the recommendation addresses Santa Monica State Beach. It was also
11.C
Packet Pg. 713
15 of 20
noted that, as schools expand, open spaces in schoolyards constrict—demonstrating a responsibility for the city to provide open spaces to recreate.
Understanding that the county average is 3.3 park acres per 1,000 residents (not including beach acreage), planning practice recommend 5 park acres per 1,000 residents, and that the National Recreation and Park Association recommends 6-10 park acres per 1,000 residents (for a population range of 100,000 to 250,000 and includes beach acreage), the commission passed a motion (4 to 1) to recommend targeting 5 park acres per 1,000 residents, not including the beach acreage. Santa Monica Airport, freeway capping, and vertical green open spaces were suggested as opportunities to reach this target.
Community Garden Advisory Committee – September 2, 2025 The Committee unanimously passed a motion recommending five park acres per 1,000 residents. A second motion was also unanimously passed proposing no new artificial turf be integrated in the city and calls for removal of existing artificial turf, citing integration of artificial turf impacts the PRVP vision as well as the Sustainable Rights Ordinance.
Field Sports Advisory Committee – September 3, 2025
Public comment called for natural grass to be integrated in the city’s fields and parks, instead of artificial turf, citing injuries associated with artificial turf, sanitation concerns, inconsistencies of scientific data related to the impact of artificial turf on the environment, and the cost of replacing artificial turf. A community member recommended utilizing the “precautionary principle” when considering the debate between artificial turf and natural grass. The committee passed a motion recommending five park acres per 1,000 residents and proposed studying the number of fields the city needs to meet current and near-term level of service against the number of fields needed to accommodate regional tournaments, harnessing the revenue-generating potential of active recreation. As part of that study, the committee proposed continuing to analyze the maintenance requirements of natural grass and artificial turf to gain a data-driven understanding of how the choice impacts the city’s ability to provide program.
11.C
Packet Pg. 714
16 of 20
Disabilities Commission – September 10, 2025
The Disabilities Commission provided comment recommending that park acreage per 1,000 resident goals include accessibility within the goal description. Commissioners recommended continued collaboration with the Commission and the ADA Coordinator to help define those priorities, study the ability to highlight accessibility priorities earlier within the Actions chapter, and establish concrete recommendations that might be implemented within park and open space projects moving forward. No motions were put forward.
Urban Forest Task Force – September 10, 2025
Members of the Urban Forest Task Force had no comments after the presentation and passed three separate motions. The task force passed the first motion recommending five park acres per 1,000 residents. The second motion was passed recommending a preference for natural grass, instead of artificial turf, in all parks and amenities. The third motion passed supporting the PRVP, extending appreciation for reference to the Urban Forest Master Plan within the document and for referencing parks as an opportunity to help achieve goals outlined in the Urban Forest Master Plan.
Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment – September 15, 2025
Public comment recommended 5.0 park acres per 1,000 residents, advocated for natural grass over artificial turf, and proposed studying the opportunity to introduce educational opportunities, such as internships and apprenticeships, as a component of the actions outlined in the PRVP. Commissioners recommended expanding partnerships that promote micro-forests within the city, increasing biodiversity awareness, and protecting dune restoration projects when considering large events at the beach. Additionally, commissioners expressed interest in PRVP recommendations to study the expansion of community gardens, the feasibility of park streets, and ability to establish a dedicated park maintenance fund, through the city or philanthropic channels. The Commission passed a single motion recommending 5.0 park acres per 1,000 residents; recommending continued study on natural grass and artificial turf, with
11.C
Packet Pg. 715
17 of 20
preference for the most sustainable, healthiest, climate-friendly, low-waste, fiscally responsible, and playable solution; and, supporting the PRVP to be presented to City Council.
Planning Commission – September 17, 2025
The Planning Commission highlighted that the PRVP champions expansion by proposing the study of numerous creative strategies, acknowledging that as the city grows, opportunities to acquire and expand land for parks will not be as abundant.
Some creative strategies discussed included the study of traffic patterns, finding opportunities to calm traffic and reclaim portions of streets for green space, and depaving to create more green spaces—championing permeability. Regarding the “City as Habitat” vision, commissioners discussed viewing all open spaces as opportunities for habitat; investigating opportunities to reduce grass areas to introduce more native plantings; and integrating the community’s preference in the debate on natural grass versus artificial turf. Regarding establishing a park acreage goal, commissioners discussed prioritizing high need areas within the city; defining not only an acreage goal but a distance-to-parks goal; continuing to balance the trade-offs of city growth, park need, and the realistic opportunities to meet an established goal; existing and proposed landmark parks and the process; restoring neighborhood connections when studying freeway capping; balancing how the city self-funds its parks and the opportunities for philanthropic partnerships to acquire, expand, and improve parkland; and making it easier for the community to want to program current parks. No motions were passed.
Airport Commission – September 24, 2025
The Airport Commission acknowledged that the City’s push to increase housing comes with a need to increase parks to provide open space for those residents. It was noted that as population grows, without additional park acreage, the City’s average of 1.55 park acres per 1,000 residents will decrease, potentially shifting our 2016 need classification from ‘moderate’ to ‘high’. Public comment recommended targeting 5.0 park acres per 1,000 residents, and the commission’s subsequent motion noted this to be a reasonable goal when considering opportunities to cap segments of Interstate 10.
11.C
Packet Pg. 716
18 of 20
Questions related to cost of the PRVP recommendations were addressed by acknowledging that costs included within Appendix A of the PRVP are estimates, and the goal of the vision plan is to establish proactive acreage and amenity feasibility studies to help the city to make informed planning decisions that would further define the goals, objectives, scope, and estimates of project implementation. The Commission passed a single motion, with 4 ayes and 1 abstention, recommending 5.0 park acres, excluding beach acreage, per 1,000 residents and supporting the PRVP to be presented to City Council.
Arts Commission – October 20, 2025
Members of the Arts Commission requested additional clarification on the considerations associated with park acres per 1,000 residents, what transitioning portions of streets into informal park spaces might look like, and how the Beach and Pier might contribute to a comprehensive approach to arts programming, citywide.
Commissioners appreciated that previous PRVP recommendations made by the Arts Commission were integrated into the draft and supported a motion to draft a letter to City Council supporting the PRVP and recommending the maximum amount of green space.
Santa Monica Aquatics Advisory Committee (SMAAC) – October 21, 2025 SMAAC members continue to champion the need for a city-owned aquatics facility, referencing the need was part of the 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Members asked for clarification on how the city’s level of service correlates with recommendations provided by the National Recreation and Parks Association, citing Santa Monica, as a regional destination beach city, should consider local and regional needs when planning aquatics facilities and related recreation, health, and water safety programming.
Members also discussed a park acreage goal recommendation for the lifespan of the PRVP, understanding beach acreage is not included in the average put forth by the County Assessment. SMAAC passed a unanimous motion supporting 5 park acres per 1,000 residents, excluding beach acreage. The motion also included support of the PRVP for presentation to City Council.
11.C
Packet Pg. 717
19 of 20
Staff recommended edits based on Summer 2025 outreach are included in 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan Staff Recommended Edits (Attachment K).
Environmental Review
The Parks and Recreation Plan is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines which states that CEQA does not apply “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The plan is a planning tool and long-range visioning document, and, at this stage, does not define or commit the City to particular projects or project scopes.
Therefore, the plan would not result in a significant effect on the environment and, as such, is exempt from CEQA.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
12/12/2017
(Attachment I)
City Council award of contract to MIG, Inc. for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
06/25/2024
(Attachment J)
Adopted FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget Parks and
Recreation Master Plan Project #C0897
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended actions in this report. Staff will return to Council if any specific fiscal and budget actions are required in the future.
11.C
Packet Pg. 718
20 of 20
Prepared By: Tony Lopez, Senior Park Planner
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. MIG PSA Executed
B. Open Space Element (Web Link)
C. 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan
D. 2016 Los Angeles Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment (Web Link)
E. Santa Monica Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment Report 2019 (Web Link) F. Los Angeles Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment Plus (Web Link)
G. 2025 Community Recreation and Arts Needs Assessment - Community Interest and Opinion Survey (Web Link)
H. 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan (Web Link)
I. December 12, 2017 Staff Report (Web Link)
J. June 25, 2024 Staff Report (Web Link)
K. 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan Staff Recommended Edits L. ADD-TO_Letter Commission on Sustainability_ 1_21_2026 M. Written Comments
N. PowerPoint Presentation
11.C
Packet Pg. 719
Contract No. 10604 (CCS)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Professional Services Agreement ("Agreement"), entered into as of~-~-' 2018 ("Execution Date"), by and between the City of Santa Monica ("City") and Moore lacofanco Goltsman, Inc. ("MIG"), a California corporation, is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS,
A. The City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City.
B. MIG is qualified to do business, and is doing business, in the State of California. MIG represents it has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise necessary to provide the services set forth in this Agreement.
C. T11e City and MIG now desire to enter into an agreement for MIG to provide professional services to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Term. This Agreement begins on the Execution Date and terminates on December 31, 2019, unless sooner terminated in accordance with Section 14.
2. MIG Services, MIG will perform all of the services ("Services") described in Exhibit A, Scope of Services. MIG will complete the Services in accordance with Exhibit B, Budget.
3. City Services. The City agrees to:
3,1 Make available to MIG any currently existing documents, data or information required for the performance of the Services.
3.2 Designate a representative authorized to act on behalf of City.
3.3 Promptly examine and render findings on all documents submitted for staff review by MIG.
4. Compensation. The City will compensate MIG for the Services performed in an amount not to exceed Four Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Six Dollars ($488,706), as set forth in Exhibit B.
5. Invoices. MIG will invoice the City for the Services in accordance with Exhibit B and the City will pay any undisputed amount within 30 days of receipt. 1 January 2018
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: MIG PSA Executed [Revision 1] (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) 6, Notices. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement, must be in writing and will be deemed served when delivered personally, by email, or on the third business day after deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as follows:
6, 1 All notices, demands, requests or approvals to the City:
Community & Cultural Services, Administration & Planning City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 210
Santa Monica, California 90401
Attention: Karen Ginsberg, Community & Cultural Services Director Re: Contract No. 10604
with a copy to:
Santa Monica City Attorney's Office
1685 Main Street, Third Floor
Santa Monica, California 90401
Attention: City Attorney
Re: Contract No. 10604
6,2 All notices, demands, requests or approvals to MIG:
Moore lacofanco Goltsman, Inc.
800 Hearst Avenue
Berkeley, California 94 710
Attention: Daniel lacofano
Re: Contract No. 10604
7. Independent Parties. Both parties to this Agreement will be acting in an independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint venturers of one another.
Neither the City nor its officers or employees will have any control over the conduct of MIG or anyofMIG's agents, employees, or subconsultants, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement.
8. Integrated Contract. This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties. Any preliminary negotiations and agreements of any kind or nature are merged into this Agreement. No oral agreement or implied covenant may be held to vary the provisions of this Agreement.
This Agreement may be modified only by written agreement signed by City and MIG, and approved as to form by the City Attorney.
9. Insurance. Prior to commencing work, MIG must procure, maintain and pay for insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services by MIG or MIG's agents, 2 January 2018
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: MIG PSA Executed [Revision 1] (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) representatives, employees or subconsultants for the duration of this Agreement. MIG 1nust obtain insurance that, at a minimum, meets the require1nents for insurance set forth in Exhibit C, Insurance Requirements and Verifications.
10. Defense and Indemnification.
10.1 Indemnification. As to MIG's Services produced under this Agreement, MIG agrees to defend, indemnify, protect, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, boards and commissions, and employees (collectively, "City") from and against any and all liability, claims, demands, damages, or costs, including but not limited to attorney's fees, or payments for injury to any person or property (collectively, "Losses") caused or claimed to be caused by the acts, errors and/or omissions of MIG, or MIG's employees, agents, officers, and subconsultants.
MIG's responsibilities under this Section 10.1 include liability arising from, connected with, caused by, or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the City, which may be in combination with the acts or omissions of MIG, its employees, agents or officers, or subconsultants; provided, however, that MIG's duty to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless shall not include any Losses arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Notwithstanding MIG's obligation to defend City hereunder, City has the right to conduct its own defense and seek reimbursement for reasonable costs of defense from MIG, if City chooses to do so,
10.2 Enforcement Costs. MIG agrees to pay any and all costs the City incurs enforcing the indemnity, defense and hold harmless provisions set forth in Section 10 .1.
11. Prohibition Against Transfers.
11. 1 MIG may not assign, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without the City's consent will be null and void, and any assignee, hypothecatee or transferee acquires no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer.
11.2 The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of MIG or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of MIG, if a partnership or joint venture or syndicate exists, which results in changing the control of MIG, will be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means 50% or more of the voting power of the corporation.
3 January 2018
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: MIG PSA Executed [Revision 1] (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan)
12. Permits and Licenses. MIG, at its sole expense, must obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement all required business and professional permits, licenses and certificates.
13. Waiver. A waiver of any breach of this Agreement may not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement.
14, Default and Termination.
14,1 IfMIG fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement, and if the default is not cured within a period of five days after the City's written notice of default specifying the nature of the default, City may immediately terminate this Agreement by written notice to MIG.
14.2 The City has the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving ten days' written notice to MIG. Upon termination of this Agreement, City will pay MIG any compensation earned and unpaid up to the effective date of termination.
15. Compliance with Law. MIG must comply with all laws of the State of California and the United States, and all ordinances, rules, and regulations enacted or issued by City.
16. Discrimination. MIG may not discriminate in the provision of services hereunder because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, sexual orientation, marital status, AIDS or disability.
17. Nuisance. MIG may not maintain, commit, or permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement.
18. Records.
18.1 MIG must maintain complete and accurate records with respect to costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by the City for any services provided where compensation is on the basis of hourly rates, subconsultant costs, or other direct costs. MIG must keep the records, together with supporting documents, separate from other documents and records and maintain them for a period of three years after receipt of final payment.
18.2 MIG must maintain records in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of the Services and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. MIG must clearly identify all records and make them readily accessible to the City.
At the City's request, MIG must provide records in an electronic format and, if necessary, access to any proprietary software to view such electronic records.
18.3 MIG must allow the City to have free access to MIG's books and records and to inspect all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. The City has the right to examine or audit MIG's records, and 4 January 2018
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: MIG PSA Executed [Revision 1] (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) MIG agrees to cooperate with any examination or audit of its records. If a City audit discloses an error of 5% or more in information reported by MIG, MIG agrees to pay the cost of the City's audit computed on the basis of four times the direct payroll of the audit staff completing the audit and audit report.
19. Work Product; Reports.
19.1 Any work product prepared or caused to be prepared by MIG or any subconsultant for this Agreement will be the exclusive property of City. No work product given to or prepared by MIG or any subconsultant pursuant to this Agreement may be made available to any individual or organization by MIG without prior written approval by City.
19.2 At the City's request, MIG must furnish reports concerning the status of the Services.
20. Standard of Care. MIG agrees to provide all Services, including services performed by any subconsultant, in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members ofMIG's profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions.
21. Subconsultants.
21.1 IfMIG proposes to have any subconsultant perform any part of the Services, MIG must submit a request for approval in writing, describing the scope of work to be subcontracted, the name of the proposed subconsultant, and the total price or hourly rates used in preparing an estimated cost for the subconsultant's services. The City, in its sole discretion, may grant or deny the request.
21.2 MIG will be responsible for the quality of any subconsultant's work. Every subcontract or agreement of any kind entered into between MIG and any subconsultant (or between any subconsultant and others) must contain the following provision:
This agreement is consistent with all terms and conditions of the Agreement No. 10604 (CCS) entered into between the City of Santa Monica and MIG on ____ _
22. Governing Law. The laws of the State of California, without regard to any choice of law provisions, will govern this Agreement.
23. Venue and Jurisdiction. The City and MIG agree that the Services will take place in Los Angeles County. Any litigation arising out of this Agreement may only be brought in either the United States District Court, Central District of California, or the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, West District, as appropriate.
The parties agree that venue exists in either court, and each party expressly waives any 5 January 2018
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: MIG PSA Executed [Revision 1] (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) right to transfer to another venue, The parties further agree that either court will have personal jurisdiction over the parties to this Agreement,
24. Survival of Provisions and Obligations. Any provision of this Agreement, which by its nature must be exercised after termination of this Agreement, will survive termination and remain effective for a reasonable time. Any obligation that accrued prior to termination of this Agreement will survive termination of this Agreement.
25. Exhibits. The following exhibits are incorporated by reference into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Scope of Services
Budget
Insurance Requirements
In witness whereof, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.
ATTEST,
~ J/utiut,µi/.iJ1L
DENISE ANDERSON-WARREN
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM,
LANE DILG
City Attorney
6 CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
a municipal corporation
C tyManager
MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN, INC.
By,
Na
January 2018
'
6 11.C.a
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: MIG PSA Executed [Revision 1] (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Exhibit A
Scope of Services
The overall goal of the Plan update is to establish a framework for long-range guidance and planning of parks, open space, beach, and community recreation for the next 20 years.
MIG will provide consultation services to the City related to the PRMP update as follows,
TASK 1: Project Management and Coordination
• Project Initiation:
o 1 project kick-off meeting with City staff.
o Create project schedule.
o Gather list of internal contacts and stakeholders with City Staff. o Designate communication and review protocols with City staff. o Determine list of required documents with City staff to be provided. • Ongoing Project Management Measures:
o 5 in-person project management team meetings with City staff over the course of the project.
o 36 bi-weekly project management teleconferences with City staff for the duration of the project (assumed to be 18 months) with more frequent coordination at key project milestones.
o 18 monthly written progress reports.
TASK 2: Research and Analysis
• Community Demographics Analysis:
o Create a community profile and correlations to park and recreation demands by reviewing and summarizing demographics, survey responses from the city's Wellbeing Project, and the City's recreation reservations webpage.
• Park Inventory and Analysis Report:
o Spend one day touring park sites and unique opportunities with City staff followed by additional fieldwork without City staff to quantitatively assess and inventory Santa Monica's parks and recreational opportunities and facilities existing conditions with representative graphics produced for each park.
• Transportation and Connectivity Analysis Summary:
o Evaluate and review existing pedestrian, bike paths, routes/lanes, bus routes, light rail, and other mass transportation modes data, and produce maps highlighting connectivity and transportation access to existing parks.
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: MIG PSA Executed [Revision 1] (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) • Programs and Services Evaluation Report:
o Identify gaps and opportunities in programs and services citywide, and provide an updated inventory of current recreation programs offered by the city.
o Create a report analyzing existing recreational programming with accompanying graphics for each community facility.
• Per Capita Spending Analysis:
o Analyze current per capita spending investment for parks operations, maintenance, programming, staffing, administration, and capital improvements.
o Comparative analysis of Santa Monica's financial performance to other urban park agencies.
• Expansion Opportunities Analysis:
o Identify and inventory publicly and privately owned land suitable for acquisition and development for park purposes.
• Planning Document Summary:
o Analyze potential effect on or opportunity for parks, recreation, and cultural services (presenting graphically).
TASK 3: Community Engagement and Public Hearings
• Outreach Strategy and Communication Plan:
o Develop a detailed plan and schedule for public participation activities and project communications, including social media strategy and publication schedule.
• Community and Stakeholder Engagement:
o Conduct stakeholder interviews taking place over one entire day (at least 4 interviews) to identify issues and perceived needs.
o Conduct intercept surveys, popup outreach activities at a minimum of five park locations and at the beach, at least 6 different sessions each approximately two hours in length.
o Conduct online surveys and use Mapita tool to geo-tag responses. o Provide social media outreach.
o Design and facilitate a minimum of two (during the research and needs assessment phase) in-person community workshops with an online version that will continue for two weeks.
o Prepare an online comment form to facilitate community feedback of the Draft Plan.
o Produce a community and stakeholder interview summary. • Create Public Involvement Support Materials:
o Create outreach support materials, including content for the project webpage which the City is creating, a graphic banner or project identity for a unified look, a project hashtag and social media content, and collateral materials such as business cards.
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: MIG PSA Executed [Revision 1] (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) o Develop a community workshop kit for City staff to conduct additional outreach without MIG, using stakeholder interview instrument, pop-up display boards, and workshop materials.
o Produce five interactive and graphic display boards for pop-ups. • City Council and Commissions and Boards Meetings:
o Attend five meetings with an Ad Hoc Committee of the Recreation and Parks Commission, providing status reports for distribution to the full Co1nmission.
o Attend three Recreation and Parks Commission meetings. o Attend two City Council meetings.
o Design and facilitate two staff focus groups.
TASK 4: Needs Assessment
• Comparative Analysis Summary:
o Conduct a comparative analysis of Santa Monica's parks, open space, and recreation system to learn from other cities and identify mettics, case studies, and practices that address issues and opportunities identified. • Needs Assessment Summary Report:
o Produce a needs assessment summary report to summarize needs and potential opportunities to meet those needs.
• Gap Analysis:
o Conduct a gap analysis to interpret public engagement results to determine what the community perceives as lacking or needed.
TASK 5: Conversion of Airpott to Park
• Airport Conversion Issues and Opportunities Analysis:
o Identify a framework of issues and opportunities for airport conversion following closure in 2028.
• Approaches to Urban Park Development Memo:
o Present approaches to urban public park development and case studies from other cities.
• Airport Conversion Report and Recommendations:
o Document the recommended framework for airport conversion, including timing of steps leading up to 2028, and a summary of options in a report.
TASK 6: Vision, Goals, and Objectives
• Vision, Goals, and Objectives Summary Memo:
o Develop a vision.
o Develop a set of goals.
o Establish specific objectives.
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: MIG PSA Executed [Revision 1] (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) TASK 7: Recommendations
• Recommendations Summary Memo:
o Summarize the organizing principles of the Plan with key components. o Prepare preliminary recommendations applicable to the entire Santa Monica park system.
o Prepare recommended policy changes to meet needs, promote connectivity, and maximize assets in parks.
o Develop recommendations for each existing site and proposed sites, including a recommended program of activities (including graphic illustrations for 5 key sites or right-of-way conditions). o Develop recommendations for programs and services.
TASK 8: Implementation Strategy and Funding Sources
• Implementation Plan:
o Develop a strategy for phasing priorities and programs identified in the Plan.
• Constraints, Challenges, and Solutions Memo,
o Evaluate implementation challenges and financial con_straints, identifying potential solutions to each challenge to be provided in a memo format. • Funding Analysis and Recommendations:
o Prepare an analysis of funding options and make recommendations on potential funding sources.
• Capital and Operations Cost Model:
o Develop a cost model to summarize the costs to complete the recommendations, including planning costs of design, construction, operation, and maintenance of individual projects.
TASK 9: Administrative Draft Plan and Final Plan Adoption • Plan Outline and Document Format:
o Develop a detailed outline and prepare document format for review and approval.
• Administrative Draft:
o Prepare an Administrative Draft Plan for initial City staff review. o Revise the Administrative Draft Plan based upon the consolidated comments gathered by City staff.
• Draft Plan:
o Produce Draft Plan for public review.
o Participate in Commission and City Council hearings as needed for adoption of the Plan.
o Revise Draft Plan after comments are received from the public, boards and commissions, and City Council.
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: MIG PSA Executed [Revision 1] (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) • Final Plan:
o Produce Final Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Resources to be provided by City staff,
• Requested data and background information, including but not limited to:
o 1997 Open Space Element
o 2005 Civic Center Specific Plan (amended 2017)
o 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE)
o 2011 Bike Action Plan
o 2013 Bergamont Area Plan
o 2016 Pedestrian Action Plan
o 2017 Downtown Community Plan
o Available ActiveNet data
• Create a project webpage on the City website
• Provide consolidated comments after deliverables are reviewed • Meeting logistics and refreshments
• Manage project contact list
Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Expected Schedule, • Winter 2018
o Project kick-off
o Background analysis
o Community engagement for Needs Assessment
• Spring - Summer 2018
o Needs Assessment summary completed
• Summer 2018 - Winter 2019
o Draft Plan released for public review and input
o Initial study/mitigated Negative Declaration or negative Declaration (IS/MND or ND) released for 30-day public review
o Refine Draft Plan based on public comments
o Plan review by community, boards and commissions, and City Council adoption of Plan and the Is/MND or ND
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: MIG PSA Executed [Revision 1] (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) ExhibitB
Budget
TI1e City agrees to Pay MIG for services performed in accordance to the following budget:
• Direct costs or project expenses are charged at cost, plus 10%. These may include:
o photocopying (large-quantity), plotting, and printing (black and white, color);
o communications including long-distance telephone (excluding cell phones), and facsimile;
o postage, courier, and other delivery costs; and
o All reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, including standard travel expenses and airfare in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the City of Santa Monica's Administrative Instructions IV-2-1, will be reimbursable and billed separately from the monthly rate.
• The mileage charge for personal autos will be the currently applicable mileage rate established by the Internal Revenue Service.
• All Services, including but not limited to, the direct costs, travel, and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed the amount of Four Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Six Dollars ($488,706) for the Agreement Term. • MIG will send monthly invoices including, if applicable, documentation to support any reimbursable expenses invoiced.
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: MIG PSA Executed [Revision 1] (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Exhibit C
Insurance Requirements and Verifications
MIG shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the MIG, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
Minimum Scope/Limits of Insurance
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering COL on an "occurrence" basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal and advertising injury, with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability, Insurance Services Office Form CA 00 01 covering Code 1 (any auto), or if the MIG has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and Code 9 (non-owned), with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers' Compensation: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits and Employers' Liability Insurance with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease (see footnote #l).
If the MIG maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City of Santa Monica requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the MIG. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City of Santa Monica.
Other Insurance Provisions
1. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
a. Additional Insured Status (CGL): The City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the COL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of MIG including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the MIG's insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form CG 20 10 11 85.
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: MIG PSA Executed [Revision 1] (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) b. Primary Coverage (CGL and Auto): For any claims related to this Agree/llent, the MIG's insurance shall be primary as respects the Ciry of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be in excess of the MIG's insurance and shall not contribute with it. c. Notice of Cancellation (all policies): Each insurance policy required herein shall state that coverage shall not be cancelled except after notice has been given to the City of Santa Monica,
d. Waiver of Subrogation (all policies): MIG hereby grants to the City of Santa Monica a waiver of any right of subrogation which any insurer of said MIG may acquire against the City of Santa Monica by virtue of payment of any loss. MIG agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City of Santa Monica has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer, Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City of Santa Monica. The City of Santa Monica may require the MIG to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide satisfactory proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention.
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current AM. Best rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City of Santa Monica.
Verification of Coverage
MIG shall furnish the City of Santa Monica with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language providing the insurance coverage required herein. All cerrificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City of Santa Monica before work commences. However, failure to obtain required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the MIG's obligation to provide them. The City of Santa Monica reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including the endorsements required herein, at any time.
Failure to Maintain Insurance Coverage
If MIG, for any reason, fails to maintain insurance coverage which is required pursuant to this Agreement, the same shall be deemed a material breach of contract. The City of Santa
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: MIG PSA Executed [Revision 1] (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Monica, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from the MIG resulting from said breach, Alternatively, the City of Santa Monica may purchase such coverage (bur has no special obligation to do so), and without further notice to the MIG, the City may deduct from sums due to the MIG any premium costs advanced by the City for such insurance.
Subcontractors
MIG shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein. All exceptions must be approved in writing by the Risk Manager.
Footnotes
# 1: Workers' Compensation insurance coverage is not required if the MIG does not have employees. The MIG must, however, execute the City's Workers' Compensation Coverage Exemption Declaration Form.
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: MIG PSA Executed [Revision 1] (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Parks and Recreation
Master Plan
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
MARCH 1997
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan)
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Parks and Recreation
Master Plan
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Table of Contents
Introduction .............. ........1
Recreational Themes .........5
Trends and Community Preferences ....................9
Master Plan Strategies-Parks and Open Space .................... 11 Master Plan Strategies-Recreational Programs ....................33 Financing and lmplementation .........47
Appendices
l. Existing Resources-Parks ........ .............. A-1 ll. Existing Resources-Recreation Programs ............ A-21 lll. Community Demographics A-27
lV. Recreational Trends A-29
V. Community Priorities............ ............. A-31
Acknowledgements
List of Tables
1. Existing and Proposed Parks ........ 11
2. Existing and Proposed Gardens, Greens and Habitat............... .......21
3. Existing and Proposed Public Cathering Places .............23
4. Existing and Proposed Creen Streets, pathways and Community Forest............................27
5. Continuum of Existing Sports/Recreation Programs ........35
6. Preliminary Phasing of improvements ..........50
7. Preliminary/Conceptual Estimate of lmprovement Costs .................55 B. Eras of Development........ ......... A-2
9. Existing Park Acreage ............ .... A-4
10. Public Schools ..... A-11
11. Existing Parks and Park Facilities ............ A-12
12. Comparison of Intensity of Use of Recreational Facilities .......... ................ A-24
13. Current Sports/League Participation ........ A-25
14. Potential Collaboration Partners ............. A-29
15. Community Priorities lmprovement or Expansion of Facilities ............ ....... A-36
16. Favorite Leisure Activities ...... A-37
Table of Contents
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Introduction
This is Santa Monica's first Parks and
Recreation Master Plan and it is intended to
guide the improvement of the City's parks and
recreational facilities over the next twenty years.
The Master Plan is based upon the Open Space
Element, which was prepared simultaneously,
and it sets forth specific actions to help
implement Open Space objectives and policies.
The nature of recreation is changing in the United
States. It plays a much different role in American
life today than it did at the outset of the recreation
and parks movement in the mid-I800's. That was
a time of large scale industrial transformation in
cities and early park-building efforts focused on
the introduction of nature in urban settings. The
development of Central Park in New York was a
historic act, because it advanced the premise that
parks and recreation were for the working as well
as leisure classes. Early efforts in New York and
elsewhere resulted in the creation of municipal
parks and recreation commissions entrusted with
the responsibility to provide public parks in cities
throughout the country. These efforts established a
tradition ofinnovation and advocacy that set the
standard for parks and recreational master planning
in the U.S. today.
Over the past couple of decades, the U.S. has
experienced an explosion of interest in
recreation. There has been a tremendous srowth
lntroduction
in demand for recreation, even though - contrary
to the projections of sociologists - leisure time
does not appear to be increasing for the average
American. Major changes in the economy and
working world have brought about a redefinition
of recreation. Now, recreation is framed not so
much in terms of leisure past-times, but in terms
of meaningful experiences that contrast the
everyday environment of work and school, add
to personal skill and competency and heighten
an awareness of the larger community.
In this Master Plan, recreation is not conceived
in terms solely of sports. Rather, it embraces the
broad range of experiences that are undertaken
in leisure and which bring pleasure to the city's
residents. These include active recreation, as
well as walking, sitting, viewing art, participating in cultural events, experiencing nature, and visiting with friends and neighbors. In the most
fundamental sense, recreation within a town like
Santa Monica has to do with establishing ties
between people and building a sense of
community by creating opportunities for
physical, social and cultural interaction.
Since its inception as a city, Santa Monica has
had a strong recreational identity, tied to yearround outdoor activities. This Master Plan reinforces these activities by proposing
improvements to serve a broad range of
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) {l
;'i
Since its inception as a city, Santa Monica has had a strong recreational identity. Pictured above: Santa Monica Beach and the Arcadia Hotel at the turn of the century.
ffi;i";rq
Recreation and Parks Master PIan, March 1997
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) residents and a wide diversity of interests.
While the early investment in local recreation
was primarily aimed at promoting the City and
attracting new visitors and residents, this Master
Plan is oriented to the range of public
improvements which will add to the livability of
the City now and in the future.
Today, there is a host ofproviders ofrecreation
within the City - including not only public and
private organizations but also nonprofit entities,
and the schools. This Master Plan focuses on
the public realm, and the role which the City can
play in the provision of services and facilities,
on its own as well as in cooperation with other
entities. It focuses on activities that the City can
best support within the limitations of space and
budget. The emphasis is placed on activities
which serve the greatest number and best
represent the recreational priorities of residents.
In the future, there are likely to be fewer and
fewer opportunities for park expansion. Land is
at a premium today, making expansion of public
lands increasingly difficult. As a consequence,
it is likely that the recreational role of existing
facilities will need to broaden in the future.
Public parks and recreational areas will need to
become more flexible, with the capability of
accommodating multiple uses. Increased
efficiency in the programming and scheduling of
activities will also be emphasized. Shared
arrangements with the schools and nonprofit
recreational providers will be more commonplace.
Never before has the City embarked upon such
an ambitious effort to preserve and enhance its
parks and plan new facilities and programs. This
Master Plan sets forth a comprehensive program
of improvements that recognizes that change
itself is one of the more predictable characteristics of recreation in America.
The challenge of the Master Plan is to set forth a
long range vision for the provision ofparks and
Introduction
Muscle Beach, 1950s.
recreation within a flexible framework that can
be responsive to changes in technology, life style
and recreational preference. This framework is
physical in nature and relates to the structure of
the City and the location and distribution of
parks; it is also social in nature and relates to
the composition of the population and its
specific needs for recreation. Together, the
places for recreation and the activities which
they support comprise the fundamentals of a
park and recreation program for the future.
This Master Plan is organized to first summarize
themes, trends, and community priorities and
then present strategies for parks and open spaces
as well as recreational programs. The Master
Plan is followed by five appendices which
provide background on existing resources (both
parks and programs) and more fully elaborate
upon community demographics, recreational
trends and community priorities that form the
basis for this planning document.
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Recreation and Parks Master Plan. March 1997
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Recreational Themes
Santa Monica has a strong recreational identity
that comes from its urban traditions, warm and
sunny climate, beachfront setting and the
recreational preferences of its residents. In the
early years of the City, recreation was focused
almost exclusively at the beach and along the
water's edge. The shores of the City were
intensely used by beach-goers and swimmers,
who flocked by the thousands to spend their
days in leisure. The attraction, for most, was
sitting, strolling, viewing, relaxing and
socializing in the sun. The most popular active
sport was swimming and, in addition to the
beach, salt water pools and bathhouses were
built along the coast. Recreation at the beach
was promoted in the late 1800s to help market
the City as an attractive resort and residential
destination, in much the same way that suburban
communities today have invested in major sports
complexes on large expanses of land at the
urbanized edge.
Today, recreation in Santa Monica is not
dominated by a single activity or set of
activities to the degree it was in the past.
Rather. over time. the nature of recreation has
become increasingly complex, diverse and
specialized, appealing to specific segments of
the population. As land has become more
limited, new forms of recreation have come
into being. These are not derivatives of more
Recreational Themes
traditional games brought to the U.S. from the
British Isles, but rather more modern
inventions, uniquely urban and uniquely
American. Such newer sports as skating,
jogging, and skateboarding are not confined to
a playfield or park, but rather embrace the
entire City as a playground.
City as Park
In this Master Plan, the "city as park" is
advanced as a fundamental theme, having
major implications on the role of the street
environment to meet the recreational needs of
residents and visitors. This idea is not directed
solely to the new urban sports, but to the
oldest and most popular recreational activity
in Santa Monica - walking. The Master Plan
takes a strong stance toward the improvement
of streets to accommodate the large and
growing number of linear recreational pursuits
- walking, bicycling, jogging, in-line skating.
The plan recommends that all streets be
designed as "pedestrian-friendly" with a
balance between roadway, pathways and
landscaped areas. Specific streets would be
designated as primary linkages to parks in
order to make the experience of getting to the
park as enjoyable as the experience of being
there. Through the redesign of City streets,
the plan can advance opportunities for social
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) This Master Plan places emphasis on recapturing the beach-the City's most valuable natural resource. interaction, resulting in a friendly community
comprised of residents that know one another
and are comfortable spending time in the
spaces along a street.
Reclaiming Lost Space
There are a range of other public spaces that can
also be reclaimed for greater park and
recreational use in the City. Some of these, like
Goose Egg Park or the sequence of parks
planned in the Civic Center, are conceived as
"punctuation marks" adding interest and
complexity to the urban pattern. Others may
involve the use of "lost space" or underutilized
public lands for recreation, such as the nonaviation lands at the Municipal Airport, the Mt.
Olivette reservoir, Woodlawn Cemetery, surface
parking lots and portions of the City Yards. The
Master Plan advocates the broader recreational
use of underutilized public properties, with more
6 efficient configuration of land and new
recreational facilities sharing space with other
City functions, while not compromising these
other essential public services.
Recapturing the Beach
While the Master Plan looks to urban recreation
within the context of the City as a whole, at the
same time, it places an emphasis on the city's
most valuable natural recreational resource - the
beach. The beach has grown through accretion
over time. To better capitalize upon this
valuable resource the Master Plan proposes the
addition of grassy lawn areas that can be used
for field sports, picnic areas, children's
playground and sitting and viewing areas. In
addition, access improvements are proposed to
facilitate getting to the beach from inland areas.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, March 1997
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) A Central "Seam" of Recreation
The Master Plan also recognizes and builds on
the large concentration ofpublic land centrally
located within the City and organized around the
City Yards and Stewart Street Park in the eastern
part of the City; the Memorial Park and Olympic
corridor connecting to Woodlawn Cemetery,
Santa Monica College and John Adams Middle
School in the center of the City; and the Civic
Center, Santa Monica High School and Municipal
Pier at the beach. It focuses on the intensification
of recreational activities and expansion of park
lands within this public framework.
There are a number of pathways and green
streets proposed to tie together these three
focal points of recreational activity in the
City. A number of streets and transportation
corridors will be improved to better link the
City as a whole with these centrally located
recreational facilities.
Enhancing the Role of Schools as
Neighborhood Park Sites
For many years (and still today), the schools
played a major role in youth sports. Santa
Monica established a reputation for excellence
and achievement, with many Olympic Gold
Medalists graduating from Santa Monica
High. Track, field, football, baseball and
swimming are all sports that residents have
learned through their school experiences,
developing physical competencies as well as
social skills through working together as part
of a larger team.
Many of the city's recreational facilities are
located in schools. For instance, all of the
Santa Monica public swimming pools are
within a school setting as are all of the
running tracks and football fields. In
addition, more basketball courts (23 versus 16
in parks) and gymnasiums (5 versus 3 in
Recreational Themes
parks) are located in the schools; and more
than one-third of the community's soccer
fields and tennis courts are located on school
sites. Since more than 90Vo of the families in
Santa Monica send their children to public
schools, the schools have taken on a role as
important focal points within the school
community and its neighborhood. In
partnership with the School District and the
community, the Master Plan calls for a greater
use of schools both for active sports as well as
social and cultural gathering places, helping
to satisfy neighborhood recreational needs.
This Master Plan advances strategies which will enhance the role of schools and streets for recreational activity.
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Parks and Recreation Master Plan, March 1997
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Trends and
Community Preterences
This chapter highlights key facts and findings
that are presented in greater depth in the
accompanying appendices and in the
separately bound Community Voices report
(February 1996). Much of the information in
this chapter is summarized from documents
prepared by the City of Santa Monica, in
particular, work undertaken in the first phase
of this planning effort, including surveys of
recreational preferences and needs.
Santa Monica is a fully developed community
that is not expected to change significantly in
population size in the future. Looking toward
the next twenty years in the life of the City,
projections indicate relatively little population
growth. Currently, there are 89,194 people
living in Santa Monica and the population is
anticipated to grow by 4,000 residents (or a
population of 93,400) by the year 2OlO.
Although the town is not expected to grow
significantly, the demand for recreation is expected
to continue to increase. The following are some of
the factors influencing increased demand:
. As traffic congestion and mobility continue
to worsen within the Los Angeles basin,
access to natural resources and open spaces
will become increasingly difficult. Santa
Monica will gain in desirability as a place
Trends and Community Preferences
for recreation, not only for residents, but for
tourists as well.
There is increasing recognition throughout
the country and in Santa Monica in
particular of the role that parks and
recreational facilities play in contributing to
the quality of life in cities. The amenity of
Santa Monica - its streets and open spaces -
add value to the community as a whole. The
City is gaining national acclaim as one of
the best places to walk in the Los Angeles
region - not only at the popular Third Street
Promenade and along the beach but also on
the city's tree-lined streets.
Participation in sports is continuing to
expand, as a result of the growing popularity
of certain sports such as soccer and the
increasing participation of young women in
all forms of recreation.
There is a heightened awareness of and
commitment to good health and physical
fitness, that has focused greater attention to
exercise and recreational activity.
Improved health and longevity is enabling
older residents to participate more fully in
sports once more closely tied to
younger people.
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Recreation Preferences
The following summarizes the results of a
community outreach effort involving over
3,000 residents, and undertaken in the first
phase of the master planning process.
Parks and Open Space. Santa Monicans are
active and frequent users of the City's public open
spaces and parks--on average, 3out of4 residents
visit the City's parks almost twice a week. Ninetythree percent of households with children are park users. Parks which are most used by the
community as a whole include Palisades Park,
Lincoln Park, Clover Park and Douglas Park.
High school students indicate somewhat different
park preferences, generally favoring the more
active parks, specifically Clover and Memorial,
then Douglas, Lincoln and Marine Parks.
Favorite recreational pastimes: walking and bicycling.
10 TheThird Street Promenade, the beach and the
Pier are the most used open space areas for all
age groups. Nine out of ten Santa Monicans
visit these venues regularly.
Recreational Activities. Walking is the most
popular recreational activity of Santa Monica
residents. Other favorite past-times include
bicycling, shopping, eating out, running/jogging
and playing tennis. Youth reveal somewhat
different leisure time preferences--while high
school students also rate walking highly, they
show a strong involvement in more active
recreational activities, such as swimming,
playing basketball, bicycling and skating sports.
Leisure activities that promote opportunities for
social interaction are also popular amongst high
school students--the most popular leisure activity
among this age group was "hanging out"
followed by eating, socializing and shopping.
Younger children preferred visualized field sports
and the demand for more playing fields was clearly
articulated during the projects outreach.
Recreation Facilities.In a telephone survey of
residents, improving existing parks and facilities
was identified as the top priority. Developing
more pedestrian-oriented streets and open
spaces was second, followed by developing new
parks and open spaces, and fourth, developing
more plazas and public gathering places.
With respecto specific facilities, bicycle paths,
swimming pools, offleash dog areas and
children's play areas are the facilities most often
identified as needing expansion.
Recreation Programs. Santa Monica residents
are very supportive of developing or improving
recreation programs, particularly those for
children and youth. The most highly rated
programs for children and youth are structured
summer programs at parks, disability services,
swimming programs, and structured after school
programs at the schools. For adults, cultural
events topped the list, followed by programs for
individuals with disabilities.
Park and Recreation Master Plan, March 1997
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Master Plan StrategiesParks and Open Space
This Master Plan sets forth recommendations
that will significantly increase the opportunities
for recreation in Santa Monica. It calls for the
largest expansion of the park and recreational
system in the history of the city. In the next
decade or so, up to about 57 acres of park will
be added - which represents more than a fifty
percent increase of the parks inventory. Adding
in the proposed public gathering places and
gardens, greens and habitat areas would bring
the total park and recreationalands to a total of
slightly more than 64 acres. Finally, the existing
length of pathways and green streets in the city
is expanded to more than 19 miles. Along these
streets and elsewhere in the city will be planted
7,000 trees, planned to become a part of Santa
Monica's communitv forest.
Parks and Recreation Facilities
There are currently about I 13 acres in parks.
Proposal would increase the total by up to 57
acres (see Table 1).
Expand the Community Park System
lmplement the open spaces planned at the
Civic Center. As part of the Civic Center
Specific Plan, approximately 13.2 acres of
Master Plan Strategies-Parks and Open Space
Table 1
Existing and Proposed Parks
Park
Subtotal Existing Park
Proposed Parks
Airport Nonaviation Lands
Virginia Avenue Park ExPansion
Civic Center'
School Parks3
New Parkland Acquisition4 -
Stewart Street Park Expansion'
Beach Parks"
Acres
Existing Parks
Existing Park r2.71
112.7
1.0-25.0
2.9 13.2-15.4
8.0 5.0
1.0 6.0
Subtotal Proposed Parks 31.1-s7.3
Total 143.8-1 70.0
Notes:
1. See Table 9, Existing Park Aireage.
2. Assumes 13.2 acres specified in the Civic Center
Specific Plan plus 1.7 acres associated with possible
relocation of the parking structure to Santa Monica
High School.
3. Acreage includes field area only.
4. fusumes purchase of five acres of land.
5. Assumes acceptable relocation of some city yard
facilities; the feasibility of this action is being
considered as part of the City Yards Master Plan.
6. Assumes two parks at 250'x 500' on Santa Monica
State Beach. While this expands field space, it does
not add open space acreage.
11 11.C.c
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Water is an important feature of the Civic/Cultural Park. land are designated for park purposes. These
parks include:
. The Main Street Triangle (0.6 acres)
. The Arroyo (2.1 acres)
. City Hall Square (1.6 acres)
. Courthouse Lawn (1.6 acres)
. Main Street Circle (0.6 acres)
. Civic/Cultural Park (6 acres)
. Village Green (0.7 acres)
Consideration should also be given to fuither
expansion ofthepark acreage to include nearly
two additional acres of land at the site of a
proposed parking structure, which could be
relocated across the street, occupying a site at
Santa Monica High School under the existing track
and field (which would be rebuilt in its existing
1)
location). Further study would be required to
determine the feasibility of expanding park use and
building parking on an adjacent site.
Build two North Beach greens. North of the
Municipal Pier, the beach is much wider than it
is to the south, with the sand extending several
hundred feet from the Pacific Coast Highway to
the water's edge. This area is less used than the
South Beach area, because there are fewer parks
and it is relatively isolated from the surrounding
City by the bluff and fast-moving traffic on the
Pacific Coast Highway. To better utilize this
area, two new beach parks, each approximately
three acres in size, are proposed, extending the
character and more inviting scale of South
Beach into the broad open areas to the north.
Improvements to the Beach Parks would
Park and Recreation Master Plan , March 1997
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) generally consist of new lawn areas that can be
used for informal field games, kite flying,
children's play, picnicking and a wide range of
activities. The new parks would further provide
another destination for bicyclists, joggers and
skaters on the Beach Trail. Implementation of
this recommendation would require
continuation of the long-term lease with the
State and would be undertaken along with
improvements to the pedestrian bridges over
Pacific Coast Highway to make the facilities
more accessible to local residents.
Develop new recreational facilities within
the nonaviation lands at the Municipal
Airport. Up to 25 acres of land are proposed for
new recreational functions on lands identified as
surplus to aviation purposes at the Airport.
Because of the site location at the southerly
limits of the city with limited access from
surrounding streets, it is not envisioned that this
new recreational complex would be oriented to
neighborhood use or pedestrian access, but
rather would serve citywide recreational needs,
in particular for new field sports. The study is
currently underway and altematives are
currently being examined; however, at the very
least, a recreational pathway is proposed which
would extend through the site, providing
facilities for walking, jogging, and cycling
within a well-landscaped setting. At the other
extreme, the most extensive alternative includes
the development of 5 new sports fields as well as
multiuse paved areas for court games, skating,
events and parking, and a l-ll2 acre off-leash
dog park with a jogging loop and programmable
indoor recreationaVcommunity spaces and
children's play areas.
Develop school parks at up to five locations
within the city. Given the key role that the
schools play in the life of families within the city
and their cenffal location within neighborhoods, it
is recommended that the school park concept be
implemented, focusing on five school sites within
Master Plan Strategies-Parks and Open Space
the city. This concept should involve the
development of new fields on the school sites as
well as public gathering places (in front entry
areas), and would also potentially open up ce(ain
buildings to a broader community use in
afterschool hours. Essentially, the improvements
would result in a significant "greening" of each of
the campuses through the conversion of paved
areas into fields. In exchange for making available
their sites and facilities, the City and School
District would negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement with the City paying costs of
improvements as well as the added costs of
operations and maintenance.
Proposed Beach Park
North of Santa Monica Pier
t3
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Existing Conditions
Proposed lmprovements
Replace portion of asphalt play area
wiih multipurpose pliyfi elds
Prototypical School/Park
Virginia Avenue Park and Expansion Area at Cloverfield
and Pico Boulevard.
Expand Virginia Avenue Park. A 2.9-acre site
at the intersection of Pico and Cloverheld is
being developed for recreational use, thus
expanding Virginia Avenue Park and providing
an opportunity for new facilities that will better
serve the surrounding community. The design
process is about to begin for this site and will
more specifically identify the recreational
program for the site, including the potential for
the continuation of the farmer's market use in
conjunction with a community outreach effort.
Expand Stewart Street Park. Stewart Street
Park is adjacento city-owned property at the
City Yards, and in fact, was originally a part of
this facility. To make the park more usable and
visible, the park should be enlarged by about 1.5
acres, if city functions can be consolidated or
relocated elsewhere. A City Yards Master Plan
process is currently underway and this proposal
is being evaluated in that context.
Convert street ends to park use. When the
freeway was built over the city grid, it
fragmented existing streets and made remnants
of blocks. It is recommended that these
fragmented streets be reclaimed for more
effective recreational and park use. On the south
side of the freeway, the street ends are somewhat
longer and are surrounded by residential uses.
On the north side, along the freeway the street
ends could expand the recreational opportunities
for urban sports associated with the recreational
pathway improvements. In both places, the
streets would be closed off, allowing only local
access as required.
Acquire new parkland. Acquisition of property
for parks would be undertaken as funds are
available or as opportunities allow, consistent
with the objectives and policies set forth in the
Open Space Element. Priority would be placed
upon centrally located parcels, which are
accessible by the broadest cross section of
residents. In particular, sites adjacento
t4
Park and Recreation Master Plan. March 1997
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Slope
igseaBgr
Santa Monica Freeway
c6
c)
'o- U
E
.
^
It
rll IVI
lil
Itl f
o
6 .99
-c
z
l,tl
ltl
lAr It
lll
North of Freewav Street Ends
. Community C'ardens
. Basketball Courts
. Skating Facility
Slope
Converted Street Ends
existing parks or schools would be desirable in
order to capitalize upon existing resources and
broaden recreational opportunities.
The acquisition of private property for new
parklands is very costly in a community such as
Santa Monica, where land values are among the
highest in the region. Currently, there is very
little vacant land within the city, and available
parcels are generally small - less than 10,000
square feet in size. Acquisition should be
targeted to larger parcels or towards the
assembly of larger properties. Sites in excess of
one acre and adjoined on at least two sides by
streets would increase functionality as well as
accessibility. New parks should be further
targeted for multiple use, not for the exclusive
use of a single recreational activity.
Reinvest in Existing Parks
Maintenance and Security
lmplement an ongoing parks facility
maintenance and repair program that ensures
the highest standard of care of parks and
recreation facilities. For many years, parks and
open spaces in Santa Monica have suffered from
Master Plan Strategies-Parks and Open Space
deferred maintenance and from intensive use.
Recently public funds have been committed to a
program of improvement. The City is also
developing a long term maintenance program for
all of its public facilities, including parks and
recreation buildings. The current years Capital
Development Program reflects this commitment.
Replace restrooms and concessions in
existing parks. All of the public restrooms
within city parks are in serious need of
maintenance and repair. The concession stands
are also in need of repair. It is proposed that a
replacement program be established and
implemented. One possibility would be to
surround the restrooms in the larger parks with
concessions, creating a "presence" that could be
a deterrent to vandalism as well as provide a
possible source of revenue to help pay for
ongoing maintenance. Another possible
approach would be to consider the strategy used
in public spaces in San Francisco - which is to
contract with a private entify to build freestanding,
state-of-the-ar1 restrooms with a guaranteed high
level of maintenance funded through a negotiated
agreement to provide a specified number of
advertisements kiosks throughout the city.
t5
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Looking north accross the Santa Monica Freeway to Memorial Park.
Enhance park lighting and signage to
increase user safety and access. Pedestrianscale lighting and signage are necessary not only to add to a sense of security and safety, but also
to allow for evening use of the parks. All parks
should be evaluated to ensure that park edges
and pathway lighting is adequate to increase
user safety. Signage should be used for
orientation to the parks system within the City.
lncrease the presence of park-based staff
teams in community and neighborhood park.
Successful experiences at Lincoln, Memorial
and Mrginia Avenue Parks indicate that the
presence of staff in the parks enhances the park
experience for all users. Park-based teams
become more invested in the condition and
programming of the park and the park staff
become a valuable source of "information and
referral" forpark users. This plan proposes an
16 incremental expansion of these teams to other
parks (for example, Joslyn Park).
Create an ongoing and systematic play
equipment inspection and repair program.
This plan proposes the maintenance of children's
play equipment at the highest standard of care.
Specialized training will be instituted for park
personnel and procedures developed for park users
to identify safety problems; response time
standards will be developed.
lmplement a comprehensive Turf Management Program to ensure a high level of field maintenance and renovation Fields should
on average be allowed to be taken out of
recreational use one year out of every four (or
three months out of every year). With an
increased field inventory, this plan proposes a
comprehensive program to achieve this standard.
Park and Recreation Master PIan . March 1997
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Continue and expand field monitoring and
field scheduling. Develop computer system to
assist in the assignment of fields and to better
track maintenance requirements based on actual
field usage. Also, provide additional staffing as
required to assist in the task of assigning fields
during peak periods.
Park Revitalization
I mplement proposed improvements to
Douglas Park. There are a number of
improvements proposed for Douglas Park,
including restoration of the ponds and
watercourses, replacement of the irrigation
system and renovation of the play area and park
pathways which are slated to begin in the
coming year. Given its significance in the park
system, this should be a top renovation priority.
lmplement the improvements to Palisades
Park and South Beach parks. Planned
improvements as set forth by the Beach
Improvements Group (BIG) project should be
implemented as adopted by the City.
Lincoln Park Edge lmprovemenfs. Improvements to the edge of Lincoln Park along Wilshire Boulevard should include expansion of landscaped
areas to create a more open and welcoming
appearance along this major boulevard.
Develop a system of interpretative signage at
Palisades, Douglas and Lincoln parks. These
parks are the oldest parks within the City.
Signage and interpretative materials which
describe the histories of these parks and their
changes over time, consistent with changes in
recreational use in the City, should be
implemented to provide the community with a
larger understanding of their role in the
evolution of the communitv.
Park Redefinition
Redefine the role of Memorial Park. Memorial
Park does not currently live up to its potential as
a central focal point of park activities within the
City. It is necessary to consider the redefinition
and expansion of its role to better serve the
community and be more accessible by pathway
improvements in both the east/west and north/
south directions.
Redefine the role of Joslyn Park. Joslyn Park
is one of the hilltop parks developed along the
Ocean Park ridge. Over time, buildings and
structures have been constructed that obstruct
views and diminish a sense of place. A master
plan for this park would look to building upon
its intrinsic value as a hilltop setting, with scenic
views and with special recreational opportunities
for families and neighbors along the slope.
Redefine the role of Crescent Bav and Pacific
Street Parks. When a perrnanent location for
the dog park is identified (on nonaviation lands
at the airport or elsewhere) and this activity is
relocated from its temporary site at Pacific
Street Park, a defined neighborhood role should
be considered for this location. This could be
contemplative in nature or include more active
recreation. Crescent Bay Park should be
considered for staging small or informal cultural
events tied to activities at the beach.
Views of the City from Joslyn Park
Master PIan Strategies-Parks and Open Space 't7
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) lmprove and Expand Sports and
Recreation Facilities
Aquatics
Develop a new competitive and instructional
pool complex at the site of the Municipal
Pool. Ttre Municipal Pool was built nearly fifty
years ago and is currently in serious need of
repair and reconstruction. Located within Santa
Monica College, generally on axis with lTth
Street, the pool is owned by the City of Santa
Monica and is used for summer swim lessons as
well as by swim teams. Building a new 50-
meter pool at Santa Monica College would
provide an opportunity to share the significant
costs of development as well as ongoing
maintenance and operations.
It is recommended that the existing two pools -
the 25-yard by 33-meter pool and adjacent 35 by
60-foot diving pool - be demolished, and within
the existing site, a new 5O-meter (by 25-yard)
pool and instructional pool (approximately
2,000 square feet) be developed with added
bleachers and new pool building (including new
lockers, showers, and other support facilities).
Develop a new recreational pool in one of
the centrally located parks within the city. It
is recommended that a new community pool be
built along with associated lockers, showers and
support facilities. This park-based pool would
be an outdoor facility, and potentially could be
built with children's water play areas and
sculpture garden. It is envisioned as one of the
most exciting new additions to the complement
of community-oriented recreational facil ities -
the first aquatics facility to be built outside a
school setting within the city. Suggested sites
have included Memorial Park. the civic center or
the Pico/Cloverfield site.
Foster collaborative programming of all
commun ity-based pools. Collaborative
programming of all existing community pools
should be undertaken to ensure maximum access
by the community..
Children's Play Areas
Create children's play area that emphasize ageappropriate play opportunities and a range of p I ay expe ri ences. This plan proposes immediate
renovation of play areas at Douglas, Marine,
Clover Park
T8
Park and Recreation Master PIan. March 1997
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) renovations should include input from children
and parents and may include a public artist on
the design team, promoting these areas as active
and creative focal points of Santa Monica's
parks. A long-range plan for all park play area
renovations is recommended.
Field Sports
Develop additional playing fields in existing
park sites. Through reconfiguration of existing
park sites, a more efficient use of field space can
be achieved and additional ballfields placed,
with minimal overlays on other fields. New
ballfields are proposed at Clover, Los Amigos,
and at John Adams Middle School, contingent
upon School District approval.
Add playing fields at new community sites.
At the nonaviation land at the Municipal Airport
Master Plan Strategies-Parks and Open Space
Recreational facilities in the Citv.
and on school sites, a number of possible new
fields have been identified. A total of four to
nine new fields could be accommodated at
existing school sites and at the Municipal
Airport, which could be shared-use or singlepurpose facilities. The additional fields would help satisfy the existing need for periodic
"resting" of turf. The overall increase in the
field inventory would allow for the expansion of
soccer, baseball, softball, flag football, rugby,
field hockey, and other such sports.
Skating
Develop a youth skating program at rotating
sites throughout the community. In a joint
effort with the Boys and Girls Club, a skating
facility is proposed accommodating roller
hockey and skateboarding, in roving locations
throughout the City.
19 11.C.c
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Use South Beach parking lot areas for offseason roller hockey. Roller hockey is proposed within one of the beach parking lots in
the South Beach area during off-seasons.
Improvements include bollards and simple
pavement repair.
Court Games
Replace basketball courts in specific parks.
A number of basketball courts have been
identified within the City as in need of repair
and replacement. These include courts within
Clover, Joslyn, Ocean View and Marine Parks.
Build additional new courts throughout the
City. Alrhough locations have not yet been
identified, these may be well placed at the
beach, along the "street ends," in Pacific Street
Park, and in new neighborhood parks. In
addition, tennis and basketball could be
incorporated on rooftops over public parking
structures if and when they are built.
Build one new City gym. Currently there are
three gymnasiums in the City parks, and there is
a need for one additional facility to be located in
a centrally situated park. Expansion of the
Police Activities League (PAL) gym should be
considered in the parks master planning process.
Miles Playhouse at Lincoln Park
20 Off-Leash Dog Areas
Relocate the dog park from Pacific Street
Park to a permanent site. A potential
permanent location for the off-leash dog parks
has been identified at the Municipal Airport, at
the easterly edge of the property. Off-leash dog
facilities would be greatly expanded from .42
acres at Pacific Street Park to about one and a
half acres.
Enliven Parks and Open Spaces with
Cultural Facilities and Communitv Centers
Renovate Miles Playhouse.A hig; priority for
early action is renovation of Miles Playhouse at
Lincoln Park. This structure was damaged in
the earthquake and should be immediately
repaired and made operable again.
Construct cultural facilities identified in the
Civic Center Specific Plan. The Civic Center
Specific Plan calls for 55,000 square feet of new
cultural/community uses to be located on the
east side of Main Street. These uses should be
implemented and integrated with potential new
park lands at these sites.
Develop open air performance spaces in park
settings. As part of the landscape improvements
within existing and proposed parks, it is
recommended that consideration be given to the
location of open air performance spaces for
outdoor musical and theatrical events of a small
and informal nature, with stages and backdrops
built into the natural landscape of the parks. These
do not necessarily need to be permanent
installations, but spaces reserved with appropriate
support facilities to enable both performance and
viewing. Although specific locations would need
further study, it would appear that locations in the
grassy lawn adjacent to the Miles Playhouse in the
planned Civic Center parks adjacent to the Civic
Auditorium, adjacent to Bergamot Station or at
Crescent Bay Park, might be appropriate.
Park and Recreation Master PIan , March 1997
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Renovate and expand park-based community
centers. Many of the existing community
centers were built in the early 1960s and are in
need of renovation, modemization and
expansion to better serve current needs. It is
proposed that improvements to existing facilities
be undertaken along with a programming effort
to determine how well they currently meet
neighborhood and community needs.
Evaluate future demand for new community
centers in collaboration with other community service providers. New community facilities are currently planned within the Civic
Center area and by several nonprofit providers in
the City. Future demand for community
facilities in the Civic Center and other areas of
the city should be identified as part of a demand
analysis and in conjunction with community
service providers. One goal in this effort should
be to site a community facility with a spring
wood floor, an essential amenity for popular
dance programs and classes.
Gardens, Greens and Habitats
There are currently about 34 acres in gardens,
greens and habitats, which would be increased
by the following actions to a total 39 acres (see
Table2).
Realize the Full Potential of Nonpark Open
Spaces to Support Gardens and Greens
Open Mt. Olivette to public use and scenic
enjoyment Mt. Olivette reservoir is a cityowned water reservoir site which is located below grade and is capped and covered with
open lawn. The reservoir consists of slightly
more than 2 acres of land atop a high ridge in a
residential neighborhood overlooking Los
Angeles. While it provides visual and scenic
value for passersby, it could be enhanced for
Master Plan Strategies-Parks and Open Space
Table 2
Existing and Proposed
Cardens, Greens and Habitat
location Acres
Existing Gardens, Creens and Habitat
Main Street Community Carden
Park Drive Community Carden
Civic Center Demonstration Carden
Ocean Park Blvd. Demonstration Cardens
Mt. Olivette Reservoir
Woodlawn Cemetery
0.5 0.3
0.6 2.4
30.0 Su btotal Exi sti ng Carde n s,
Creens and Habitat
Proposed Cardens, Greens and Habitat
Riparian Wash Restoration
23rd Street Nature Carden
Street End Parks
s3.B
0.3 3.0
2.O
Subtotal Proposed Cardens,
Creens and Habitat
5.3 Total 39.1
Mt. Olivette Reservoir
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Woodlawn Cemetery
even greater public enjoyment if the fences were
removed and seating provided.
Open views to the Woodlawn Cemetery.
The Woodlawn Cemetery is a 3O-acre Cityowned site that comprises part of the public properties extending from Santa Monica College
and John Adams Middle School all the way to
Memorial Park north of the freeway. As an
important part of this composition, the cemetery
affords an opportunity for open space continuity
and for recreational experiences of a scenic and
contemplative nature. Proposed for the
cemetery are the removal of portions of the
fence, in order to provide better views into the
cemetery, and the addition of benches and tall
trees to heighten the visual prominence of the
cemetery within the City.
lntegrate publicly accessible greens into the
design of renovated or new public facilities
fronting on City streets. There are a number of
new or renovated public facilities planned within
the community, including the Main Library
expansion, Madison School fronting Santa
Monica Boulevard, affordable housing projects,
and improvements to the Transportation Yard on
Colorado. All of these facilities should
incorporate a green or public commons area that
is accessible for use as a place for visual
enjoyment and when feasible, social gathering.
Expand Community Gardens. Additional
community gardens are proposed at the street
ends, adding up to one acre of additionaland
for this purpose. With three additional sites for
community gardens, the target set forth in the
Sustainability City Program would be met.
22 Park and Recreation Master Plan . March 1997
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Celebrate the Natural Environment by
Establishing Demonstration Cardens
and Habitats
Create a Riparian Wash adjacento Marine
Park. To the east of Marine Park is an open
drainage - basically, a storm drain that has
"daylighted" before it drops into a culvert
beneath the Penmar Golf Course. It is
recommended that this drainage be restored and
become a part of Marine Park, with interpretative exhibits related to the natural environment underlying the city. This proposal would
involve coordination with regional as well local
stormwater and flood control officials.
Establish a special nature garden on the 23rd
Street Slope at the Municipal Airport. A
three-acre parcel of undeveloped slope adjacent
at the Municipal Airport (adjacent to 23rd
Street) should be developed as an enclosed
natural area for native plantings and butterflies.
Stabilize and restore Palisades bluffs.
Contingent upon federal funding, this plan
proposes the preservation and stabilization of
this important natural area and the introduction
of appropriate plantings to preserve its role as
the City's only significant plant life habitat.
Public Gathering Places
Create New Neighborhood Gathering Places
As illustrated in Table 3, the plan would add
two acres to the existing ten acres in public
gathering places.
Convert public areas in the Sunset Park
neighborhood to create a Campus Promenade. At the entry to John Adams Middle School, there is approximately one acre of
grassy flat lawn that is used on occasion as a
Master Plan Strategies-Parks and Open Space
Marine Park Riparian Wash
Table 3
Existing and Proposed
Public Gathering Places
Cathering Place Acres
Existing Public Gathering Places
Third Street Promenade
Santa Monica Pier
2.4 8.5
Subtotal Existing Public Cathering Places
Proposed Public Gathering Places
Campus Promenade*
'10.9
2.O
Subtotal Proposed Public Cathering Places 2.O
Total
*lncludes Pearl Street plus the northwest corner
of John Adams Middle School, contingent upon
collaborative planning with the college and
school district.
12.9 23
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Right-of-Way
Pearl Street at Santa Monica College - Existing
and Vehicular Access
100' Right-of-Way
Proposed lmprovements
Contingent on provision of additional parking elsewhere at Santa Monica College Proposed Campus Promenade
24 Park and Recreation Master Plan. March 1997
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Existing Conditions
Pearl Street at Santa Monica College
place for family gatherings, picnics, and
informal or impromptu games. The restructuring of this green area with the possible addition of pathways, lighting, children's play equipment
and benches could establish a more meaningful
role for passive recreation and public gatherings.
Such improvements could help to satisfy the need
for parks and open space within this intensely
developed area of the Sunset Park neighborhood.
It is also recommended that the Pearl Street be
narrowed adjacent to the College to create a
Campus Promenade linked to the larger public
gathering space at John Adams Middle School.
This action would be contingent on the provision
of additional parking to serve college needs and
collaborative planning between the City, School
District, College and neighborhood residents.
Design the expansion of Virginia Avenue
Park at Pico and Cloverfield boulevards to
promote neighborhood gatherings and
events. The design process and community
Master Plan Strategies-Parks and Open Space
Proposed lmprovements
Contingent on expanded parking at college
involvement effort for this site is about to beein
and will more specifically identify the
recreational program for the site, including the
potential for the continuation of the farmer's
market at the site.
Green Streets, Pathways and the
Community Forest
There are approximately 8.2 miles of green
streets and pathways in Santa Monica; the
following proposals add 13 miles and 7,000
trees to the community forest (Thble 4).
Develop a Comprehensive System of Green
Streets and Recreational Pathways
Make all streets pedestrian friendly. All of the
streets within the city should be improved to
make them more pedestrian friendly through a
dedication of a more significant area within the
25 11.C.c
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) Carriageway
80'
Righrof-Way
Typical City Street - Existing
Carriageway
BO'
Proposed Pathway
Proposed lmprovements
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) right-of-way to landscape improvements. Very
often on local streets, ten feet or more can be
taken out of the roadway dimension without
reducing traffic lanes or taking away parking.
While the specific locations for street
improvements need to be considered, this
Master Plan calls for the improvement of ten
linear miles of "green" streets.
Develop a Recreational Pathway along the
MTA Corridor. The MTA corridor is located
within the Olympic corridor and extends along
residual rail lines from the City of Los Angeles
to Memorial Park. It is owned by the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority and is
planned as a light rail linkage into Santa
Monica, which is a long-range future project. In
the interim, it presents opportunities for
recreational use, in particular, for linear
recreation. The continuity of the easement is
particularly well suited for walking, jogging,
skating and cycling, and improvements are
recommended for the corridor which enable
these recreational activities without diminishing
the future potential of the corridor for transit. It
is recommended that a pathway be built along
the corridor within an allee of tall trees. such as
Table 4
Existing and Proposed
Green Streets, Pathways
and Community Forest
Creen Street, Pathway,
Community Forest Miles
Existing Creen Streets,
Pathways and Community Forest
Beach Promenade and Bike Path
San Vicente Boulevard
Olympic Boulevard
Fourth Street
Communitv Forest
4.2 2.0
1.5 0.5
28,500 trees
Subtotal Existing Creen Streets,
Pathways and Community Forest
Proposed Green Streets,
Pathways and Community Forest
Pathways
Street Medians and Parkways
Expanded Community Forest
8.2 miles
28,5O0 trees
3.0 10.0
7,000 trees
Subtotal Proposed
Creen Streets, Pathways
and Communitv Forest
'13.0 miles
7,000 trees
Total 21.2 miles
35,000 trees
la'1.
Pe0estrian Fath Rieht-of-W
Width Varies
Proposed MTA Corridor
Master Plan Strategies-Parks and Open Space 27
11.C.c
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (7203 : 11.C 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan) 60'Carriageway
74'
Right-of-Way
Typical Freeway Bridge - Existing
Proposed lmprovements
Carriageway
74'
Right-of-Way
Proposed Freeway Bridge
2B Park and Recreation Master PIan. March 1997