City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 27, 2026
Agenda Item: 11.E
1 of 8
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Establishment of a Santa Monica Restorative Justice Program Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council establish the Santa Monica Restorative Justice Program by taking the following actions:
1. Establish a dedicated Restorative Justice Fund by allocating the $3.5 million received by the City following adoption of the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement with the RAND Corporation.
2. Create a formal City Council established Santa Monica Restorative Justice Commission to develop Restorative Justice Program details and criteria.
3. Authorize staff to secure the services of an independent administrator to support the efforts of the Restorative Justice Commission in developing and administering the City’s Restorative Justice Program.
4. Consider a future allocation of the remaining $2 million in funding that the City will receive from the RAND Corporation, which will occur within 3 years based on the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement with RAND Corporation, to the Restorative Justice Fund.
Executive Summary:
Santa Monica has spent the past several years examining its history and policies through an equity lens, particularly with respect to land use, displacement, and exclusionary actions that, while lawful at the time, had lasting impacts on community institutions, residents, and families. This work reflects both a local commitment to equity and a broader national movement recognizing the role municipal governments have played in contributing to racialized harm.
Through this reflective process, it is clear that while historical documentation and public dialogue are necessary, they are not sufficient without an institutionalized mechanism 2 of 8
for equivalently meaningful responses. Before 2022, the City did not have a structured, enduring framework to address claims of historically rooted harm caused by City action.
In the absence of such a framework, responses risk being ad hoc, inconsistent, and dependent on litigation rather than rooted in transparent policy and equitable outcomes.
It was in this context that a specific historical matter – the Ebony Beach Club and Silas White case – became an inflection point for the City.
The Ebony Beach Club (Club) matter grew out of condemnation proceedings more than six decades ago, where the Club, which was intended by Silas White to serve as a significant Black social institution in Santa Monica, lost its leasehold interest following a City condemnation action in the late 1950s. As part of the City’s historical review, staff revisited the complex circumstances surrounding that condemnation, including financial and personal impacts on the Club and its members.
Rather than resolving the matter solely through a one-time settlement, City Council directed staff to pursue a resolution that honored the historical record for the Club and also used the opportunity to put into place a broader restorative justice infrastructure that could serve all residents similarly impacted by past City actions. Restorative Justice Program concepts that were conceived as part of the settlement related to the Club included the following key considerations:
• Establishment of a Citywide Restorative Justice Program, to redress past harms caused by the City’s actions, and fund $3.5 million in one-time monies received by the City through the recent RAND deal approved in mid-2025. • Establishing a formal City Council created Restorative Justice Commission to replace the current Landback + Reparations Task Force in leading the development of Santa Monica’s Restorative Justice Program. 3 of 8
• Engaging the services of a professional administrator who can provide the Restorative Justice Commission with guidance in the development and administration of the Restorative Justice Program.
Council may also recommend direction to allocate an additional $2 million in one-time funds that the City will receive at some point by mid-2028 from the RAND development agreement, recognizing that the formal allocation of these funds to the program can only occur once the funds are received by the City pursuant to the RAND development agreement and Council appropriates the funds for this use.
Ebony Beach Club Settlement Results In Restorative Justice Program Development
Through a mediated process, a settlement was reached with the family of Silas White in late 2025 to resolve matters related to the Club, which included the following terms:
• A $350,000 payment to Ms. White in recognition of her efforts to address alleged wrongs to Silas White’s efforts to create the Ebony Beach Club. • An agreement that Ms. White may file a claim under any future restorative justice administrative claims process established by the City Council to include provisions ensuring priority consideration for claimants 90 years old and above, if the Restorative Justice Program allows for direct payments to confirmed claimants as an alternative to community based-programs that do not entail a claims process.
• A commitment by the City to establish a permanent Silas White exhibit at the Main Library, in collaboration with Ms. White, to memorialize his contributions and the historical context.
• Authorization to rename a portion of Vicente Terrace as Silas White Street (excluding segments used as official mailing addresses). 4 of 8
• A proclamation adopting October 12 as “Silas White Day” in Santa Monica.
Taken together, these terms reflect a hybrid resolution that addresses specific historical considerations related to the Club and Silas White, while also laying the foundation for a Citywide restorative justice program.
Comparative Landscape: How Santa Monica’s Program Stands Out In developing the proposed Restorative Justice Program, staff conducted a careful analysis of other U.S. municipal reparations / restorative justice efforts. While there is no single uniform model across the country, most current programs fall into one of the following categories:
• Incident or population specific programs – these developed programs have been established to address a specific historical injustice or housing discrimination practice.
• Advisory or symbolic reparations commissions – these types of initiatives were identified given that they were developed with little to no dedicated funding for actual implementation of any restorative justice / reparation activities. • Limited pilot or targeted funding efforts – these efforts were developed to address only one aspect of historical harm (e.g., housing remedies).
Below is a summarized comparative chart that highlights the restorative justice / reparations type programs researched and identified by staff.
Jurisdiction Reason For
Reparations
Amount
Allocated No. Claims Amount PerFamily / Person
Los Angeles
County
Bruce’s
Beach $20M 1 family $20M / family
5 of 8
Evanston,
Illinois
Restorative
housing /
reparations
(1919 –
1969)
$10M from
cannabis tax
revenue
As of early 2023,
620 Black
residents applied,
16 received
payments
$25K / eligible
household for
housing assistance or
direct cash payments
Rosewood,
Florida
1923
Rosewood
Race Riots
$2.1M 9 living survivors $150K / each of the
nine survivors
Hayward,
California
Displacement
of black /
Latino
families in
1960s
$900K 1,400 families If distributed equally,
$643 / family
Palm Springs,
California
Forced
eviction of
black / Latino
families in
the 1950s –
60s
$5.91M 300+ families
If equally
compensation,
$19,700 / family
JapaneseAmerican
Internment
Unjust
internment
during WWII
$1.6B paid
out
~82,219 living
survivors
$20K / surviving
internee
Tuskegee
Syphilis Study
Black men
with syphilis
denied
treatment as
part of
government
study
$10M 600
$5K – $37.5K /
person, depending on
circumstances
Chicago,
Illinois
Burge police
torture and
abuse
$5.5M 57 individuals $100K / victim
North Carolina Forced
sterilizations $10M 220 verified recipients $50K / living survivor California Forced
sterilizations $7.5M 600 survivors eligible
$15K - $25K / living
survivor
Virgina Forced
sterilizations $400K - $1M
Fewer than 10
survivors
compensated
$25K / living survivor
From this comparative analysis, staff identified that few jurisdictions have established a general reparations / restorative justice program similar to what is being proposed in 6 of 8
Santa Monica. The program envisioned for our community is intended to be capable of addressing multiple categories of historically rooted harms, supported by substantial dedicated funding, exploring independent administration and formal governance structures.
Moreover, based on this analysis, Santa Monica’s proposed program – funded initially with $3.5 million and potentially including up to an additional $2 million from the RAND development agreement– would represent one of the largest locally funded restorative justice initiatives of its kind, particularly when compared to programs limited by scope, population, or funding.
Program Funding: The RAND Transaction and Fiscal Responsibility In mid-2025, the City adopted a Second Amendment to the RAND Development Agreement. Through that updated agreement, RAND has provided the City with onetime funding in the amount of $3.5 million. Further, subject to the occurrence of certain conditions, an additional $2 million will be paid to the City, with those added dollars due to be paid to the City by mid-2028.
Given the RAND transaction and the one-time revenues being provided to the City, it is recommended that the funding received to date ($3.5 million) be sourced to seed the Restorative Justice Program. This would allow us to establish the overall initiative without drawing upon ongoing operational budgets.
This program funding structure reflects a fiscally prudent approach wherein the City leverages one-time, non-recurring funds for a discretionary but important public policy initiative, rather than relying on ongoing general fund revenues. Given the City’s existing financial circumstances, the proposed Restorative Justice Program funding model will protect core services and operational stability, while also advancing a priority initiative tied to equity, reconciliation, and historic accountability. 7 of 8
Program Design and Structure Overview
As currently envisioned, the proposed Santa Monica Restorative Justice Program is designed around three pillars:
1. A Dedicated Restorative Justice Fund – The program would be established and initially seeded with $3.5 million from the RAND transaction.
2. Creating a Restorative Justice Commission – This new Council created and appointed commission would be charged with developing program criteria, eligibility standards, and oversight mechanisms for the Restorative Justice Program.
3. Independent Administration – Engaging the services of a professional administrator will be critical to support the work of the new Restorative Justice Commission in creating a fair, transparent, and legally defensible claims process.
The program’s Citywide applicability ensures that historically rooted harms tied to City actions – not limited to a single incident – can be documented, evaluated, and, where appropriate, remediated through a consistent framework grounded in equity, transparency, and legal soundness.
If approved, the creation of the Restorative Justice Fund would occur immediately, while staff anticipates the creation of the Restorative Justice Commission and engagement of the administrator would occur by March / April 2026.
Conclusion
The Santa Monica Restorative Justice Program represents a pivotal and structurally sound evolution in how the City acknowledges and addresses historically rooted harm caused by municipal action.
With strong comparative context, robust one-time funding tied to the RAND transaction, with input from a Restorative Justice Commission and independent administrator, staff 8 of 8
recommends that the City Council move forward with formal establishment of the Program, allocation of identified one-time funds, and authorization of the governance and administrative structures necessary to ensure its success.
Prepared By: Oliver Chi, City Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments