LICENSOR ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE AND AGREEMENT
(Soleil Satnam)
THIS LICENSOR ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE AND AGREEMENT (this "Estoppel") is entered into by COMMUNITY CORPORATION OF SANTA MONICA, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (the "Licensor") and •••••••It an individual, d/b/a ••••• (collectively, the "Licensee"), in favor of CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT CORPORATION, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation ("CCRC"), as follows:
RECITALS:
A. The 1819 PICO BLVD., LP., a California limited partnership (the "Landlord"), is the fee simple owner of that certain real property located in Santa Monica, County of Los Angeles, State of California more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property").
B. The improvements located on the Property consist of, among other things, 47 affordable residential units plus one manager's unit, and approximately 4, 174 rentable square feet of commercial space located on the ground floor of the Project (the "Original Premises"). Landlord and Licensor, as tenant, have entered into that certain Nonresidential Lease dated as of March 4, 2021 (the "Master Lease") whereby Licensor is leasing the Premises from Landlord.
C. Licensor has entered into that certain License Agreement executed on September 29, 2023 with Licensee, (the "License Agreement"), pursuant to which Licensor is granting to Licensee a nontransferable revocable right for the temporary use of and right to occupy approximately 100 square feet of the Original Premises (the "Premises").
D. Bank of America, N.A., a national banking association ("Bank"), made a $24,670,349.00 construction loan to Landlord (the "Loan") pursuant to that certain Construction and Permanent Loan Agreement (Affordable Housing - California) dated as of April 6, 2021, by and between Landlord, as borrower, and Bank, as amended by that certain First Loan Modification Agreement dated March 24, 2022, that certain Second Loan Modification Agreement dated January 17, 2023, and that certain Third Loan Modification and Extension Agreement dated October 18, 2023 (as the same from time to time be amended, modified, extended, renewed or restated, the "Loan Agreement"), to finance construction of 47 units of affordable housing and other improvements at the Property. The Loan is evidenced by that certain Promissory Note dated as of April 6, 2021 (the "Note"), made by Landlord to the order of Bank, in the aggregate principal amount of $24,670,349.00, and is secured by, among other things, that certain Construction and Permanent Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing (the "Deed of Trust"), by Landlord for the benefit of Bank, dated as of April 6, 2021 and recorded on April 12, 2021, as Instrument No. 20210570879 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County, California (the "Official Records"), encumbering Landlord's fee interest in and to the Property. The Loan Agreement, Note, Deed of Trust and all other documents executed and delivered in connection with the Loan, as the same may from time to time be amended, restated or otherwise modified, are herein sometimes collectively referred to as the "Loan Documents·.
E. Pursuant to that certain Loan Purchase Agreement dated as of April 6, 2021, as amended by that certain as amended by that certain First Amendment to Loan Purchase Agreement dated as of September 11, 2023 (collectively, the "Loan Purchase Agreement"), CCRC agreed under certain conditions to purchase the Loan made by Bank to Landlord. CCRC, now, intends to purchase the Loan, including, without limitation, Bank's first lien deed of trust encumbering Landlord's interest in and to the Property, at Conversion (as defined in the Loan Purchase Agreement). As such, CCRC desires certain information about the status of the License Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby represent, warrant and agree as follows:
1 Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Increase in Small Prop
Planes Circling East Venice
Update: January 27, 2025
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
4,679
3,455
4,7324,669
5,320
4,3244,411
5,887
4,807
4,038
5,692
4,519
4,232
4,697
5,918
6,569
6,903
5,985
7,2087,186
8,1548,296
6,404
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Jan-24
Feb-24
Mar-24
Apr-24
May-24
Jun-24
Jul-24
Aug-24
Sep-24
Oct-24
Nov-24
Dec-24
Jan-25
Feb-25
Mar-25
Apr-25
May-25
Jun-25
Jul-25
Aug-25
Sep-25
Oct-25
Nov-25
Itinerant Operations Local Operations
SMO Total Operations (Take-offs and Landings)
• Total operations is a function of local (stays within the traffic pattern airspace) and itinerant (leaves the traffic pattern airspace) • YTD Nov-25, total operations are up 38% YoY which is almost 20,000 more take-offs and landings vs. last year or 1,800 more per month • 10 out of the 11 months in 2025 have seen an increase in total operations • The increase is total operations is entirely driven by local operations which are up 102% YoY and have increased every month in 2025 2 Total Operations Operations Data
_________________________________________________________________________________________ Source: Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS)
Note: Report created on Wed Jan 7 17:53:49 EST 2026
(1) Underlying data pulled was operations which includes take-offs and landings.
Itinerant Local Total Change Change Total Operations
Date Operations Operations Operations MoM YoY YTD Nov-24 52,014 Jan-24 3,033 1,646 4,679 26% 9% YTD Nov-25 71,552
Feb-24 2,355 1,100 3,455 -26% -16% Increase (#) 19,538
Mar-24 2,850 1,882 4,732 37% 7% Increase (%) 38%
Apr-24 3,018 1,651 4,669 -1% -14%
May-24 3,121 2,199 5,320 14% -1% Average Operations per Month Jun-24 2,837 1,487 4,324 -19% -22% YTD Nov-24 4,729
Jul-24 3,058 1,353 4,411 2% -14% YTD Nov-25 6,505
Aug-24 3,800 2,087 5,887 33% 12% Increase (#) 1,776
Sep-24 2,815 1,992 4,807 -18% 0% Increase (%) 38%
Oct-24 2,795 1,243 4,038 -16% -19%
Nov-24 2,930 2,762 5,692 41% 36% Maximum Operations in a Month Dec-24 2,695 1,824 4,519 -21% 22% YTD Nov-24 (Nov-24) 5,887 Jan-25 2,432 1,800 4,232 -6% -10% YTD Nov-25 (Oct-25) 8,296 Feb-25 2,571 2,126 4,697 11% 36% Increase (#) 2,409
Mar-25 2,741 3,177 5,918 26% 25% Increase (%) 41%
Apr-25 3,035 3,534 6,569 11% 41%
May-25 2,922 3,981 6,903 5% 30% # of Mos with Incr. in Ops (YTD Nov-25) Jun-25 2,863 3,122 5,985 -13% 38% MoM 7
Jul-25 3,129 4,079 7,208 20% 63% YoY 10
Aug-25 3,326 3,860 7,186 0% 22%
Sep-25 3,332 4,822 8,154 13% 70%
Oct-25 3,409 4,887 8,296 2% 105%
Nov-25 2,542 3,862 6,404 -23% 13%
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Nothing About
Us Without Us
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
4-2 Vote
Dissenters:
• Mayor
Caroline
Torosis
• Dan Hall
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
“I’m really worried about
all the units going up.
There are no units that we
know of that are ADA
approved. They are still
doing offsite affordable
housing.”
Commissioner Gordon
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
“Going back years, when
we’re one seat away and
multiple members would
have signed in because they
have disabilities that
prevented them coming inperson.”
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
“Can other commissions
attend the meeting virtually?
I had a medical condition so
I couldn’t come. I’m still
under treatment.”
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Reasonable Accommodation
”A reasonable accommodation is a
modification or adjustment to a job, the work
environment, or the way things are usually
done during the hiring process.”
-Office of Disability Employment Policy
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Devyn H Cheah <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 2:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Houselessness in Santa Monica, Revoke Municipal Code Sections 4.08.095 and 4.08.097
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
As high school students in Santa Monica, we urge our city officials to end the criminalization of our unhoused neighbors. The criminalization of unhoused people is a widespread issue across the United States, where laws and policies disproportionately target individuals experiencing houselessness.
Criminalization of unhoused people is cruel. It punishes them for poverty and lacking housing. It results in incarceration and destruction of their property. It makes it harder for them to secure employment and housing. Channeling resources towards punitive measures is an economic burden for Santa Monica taxpayers, is ineffective at tackling the core issue of houselessness, and diverts from real solutions, especially permanent housing.
In 2023, nearly 67% of combined Santa Monica Police Department arrests and citations targeted unhoused individuals, mainly for low-level crimes linked to living and survival conditions. Laws like sections 4.08.095 and 4.08.097 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) directly target and criminalize unhoused people, making their survival even harder.
We need legislation that protects, rather than punishes, members of our community. We demand the repeal of SMMC sections 4.08.095 and 4.08.097. We also urge you to support passage of state and federal laws to protect our unhoused neighbors from punitive local laws and policies that effectively criminalize their houselessness. If there are state and federal laws against criminalization, then surrounding cities can’t aggressively criminalize and force their unhoused people into Santa Monica.
It's not just about decriminalizing houselessness—it’s about humanizing our approach to this crisis and ensuring human rights are maintained regardless of housing status. It is a moral and societal obligation for the City of Santa Monica to implement constructive and compassionate solutions that focus on helping already unhoused people get into housing that is permanent, stable, affordable, and meets all the criteria of their human right to housing.
Please, stand with us in demanding justice and fairness for our unhoused neighbors. We have signed this petition to show our support for the repeal of SMMC sections 4.08.095 and 4.08.097 and the passing of state and federal laws prohibiting criminalization of unhouse people.
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Marilyn Minton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 3:27 PM
To: Dan Hall; councilmtgitems
Subject: ICE Response
EXTERNAL
Hi Dan and the rest of City Council,
I'm a concerned citizen in mid-city Santa Monica. Unfortunately I cannot attend tonight's City Council meeting, but I would like to do so in the future. Is there a way I can be notified of the schedule in the future and when the public is able to make comment?
Specifically, I'd like to know what City Council is doing to prepare for ICE Raids in our community. I think we've all been amazed by the bravery, coordination, and community care on display in Minneapolis. However, it's basically been grassroots led, with no protection from elected leaders and local police. ICE has already targeted LA, and beloved community members on Pico were targeted recently. We need a plan for Santa Monica. Will SMPD protect the people against armed agents acting without jurisdiction, blatantly violating the law, assaulting, and now murdering people? If the situation descends to the chaos unfolding in Minneapolis, will we establish a rent moratorium so that our at-risk neighbors, who cannot safely go to work, are also protected from losing their homes? What protections are we setting up for children and our schools? The majority of Americans want to see ICE abolished, and I feel pretty confident the vast majority of Santa Monicans don't want them here terrorizing our neighbors. What are you doing to prepare for this threat?
Thanks so much for your work, and I look forward to your response. --
Marilyn Minton
[email protected]
(443) 955-8401
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Kate Staben <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 10:04 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: 90 minute free parking
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
As a Santa Monica constituent and downtown consumer, I strongly oppose the reduction of free parking from 90 minutes to 30 minutes. This change is already driving consumers and their spending out of Santa Monica and into neighboring cities with more competitive parking policies.
Routine activities like fitness classes, dining, and errands now come with added costs that make downtown Santa Monica less attractive, resulting in lost foot traffic, lost sales, and long-term harm to small businesses and city revenue.
This is an unfair cost put upon residents and business due to poor financial planning and lawsuits that leadership should take responsibility for. Lack of oversight is your problem, not your constituents.
I urge the Council to reconsider this policy and restore parking options that support short, repeat visits and keep local dollars in Santa Monica.
--
Kate Staben
424.212.2891
www.kateleesunday.com
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Kayla Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 9:53 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please reconsider the parking proposal and maintain parking policies that support local businesses
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
As a Santa Monica constituent, downtown consumer, and small business owner, I strongly oppose the proposed reduction of free parking from 90 minutes to 30 minutes.
Even before this change has taken effect, the announcement alone has had a negative impact. My clients have expressed frustration and concern, and many have told us directly that reduced free parking would make them less likely to visit downtown Santa Monica or participate in routine activities such as fitness classes, dining, and quick errands.
This early response is a clear indicator of how sensitive consumer behavior is to accessibility, ease, and convenience.
From a business perspective, this is particularly alarming. January 2026 sales are already down significantly compared to January 2025, even though last year’s numbers were affected by a natural disaster that disrupted normal operations. The downtown core is suffering, and my business—a fitness studio—has been directly impacted by the broader economic downturn in Santa Monica. Introducing additional deterrents to customer visits under these conditions risks further accelerating declines in foot traffic and local spending.
I urge the Council to reconsider this proposal and maintain parking policies that support local businesses, encourage repeat visits, and keep consumer dollars in Santa Monica. My business depends on it.
Sincerely,
Kayla Allen
Owner Pure Barre Santa Monica
Cell (310) 745.8500
[email protected]
www.purebarre.com
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Hattie Chou <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 9:30 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya Subject: New Parking Policy Driving Revenue Out of Santa Monica
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing as a Santa Monica constituent, frequent downtown consumer, and commercial real estate broker (I have brought multiple new retail businesses into Santa Monica as a broker, successfully marketing and negotiating several retail leases that’s resulted in long term signed lease agreements) to express strong opposition to the recent change reducing free parking from 90 minutes to 30 minutes.
This policy is not merely inconvenient — it is actively undermining Santa Monica’s economic competitiveness. Downtown businesses depend heavily on short, repeat visits for fitness classes, personal services, dining, and retail. By eliminating the 90-minute free parking window, the City has effectively imposed a new cost on routine consumer activity, making Santa Monica a less attractive option than neighboring areas.
The impact is already tangible. Many residents, including myself and others in my community, are shifting our spending to nearby cities such as West Los Angeles, where parking policies better align with everyday consumer behavior. For example, groups who regularly attended fitness studios in Santa Monica are now attending studios outside the city. This represents a direct and recurring loss of revenue — not just for individual businesses but for Santa Monica’s broader sales tax base.
At a time when downtown Santa Monica is working to recover foot traffic and stabilize small businesses, policies that discourage local spending are counterproductive. Cities compete for consumers, and parking accessibility is a key factor in that competition. When consumers choose to spend their money elsewhere, Santa Monica loses not only parking revenue but far more significant downstream economic activity.
I urge the Council to immediately reconsider this policy and evaluate it through a revenue and competitiveness lens. Restoring the 90-minute free parking period, expanding validation options, or adopting a tiered structure that supports short visits would better align with the economic realities of downtown commerce.
Santa Monica should be making it easier, not harder, for residents and visitors to spend money locally. I respectfully ask the Council to reconsider this decision before further economic damage is done.
Sincerely,
Hattie
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: kayla sezak <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 9:07 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Parking Policy Is Actively Driving Revenue Out of Santa Monica
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing as a Santa Monica constituent and frequent downtown consumer to express strong opposition to the recent change reducing free parking from 90 minutes to 30 minutes.
This policy is not merely inconvenient —it is actively undermining Santa Monica’s economic competitiveness. Downtown businesses depend heavily on short, repeat visits for fitness classes, personal services, dining, and retail. By eliminating the 90-minute free parking window, the City has effectively imposed a new cost on routine consumer activity, making Santa Monica a less attractive option than neighboring areas.
The impact is already tangible. Many residents, including myself and others in my community, are shifting our spending to nearby cities such as West Los Angeles, where parking policies better align with everyday consumer behavior. For example, groups who regularly attended fitness studios in Santa Monica are now attending studios outside the city. This represents a direct and recurring loss of revenue — not just for individual businesses but for Santa Monica’s broader sales tax base.
At a time when downtown Santa Monica is working to recover foot traffic and stabilize small businesses, policies that discourage local spending are counterproductive. Cities compete for consumers, and parking accessibility is a key factor in that competition. When consumers choose to spend their money elsewhere, Santa Monica loses not only parking revenue but far more significant downstream economic activity.
I urge the Council to immediately reconsider this policy and evaluate it through a revenue and competitiveness lens. Restoring the 90-minute free parking period, expanding validation options, or adopting a tiered structure that supports short visits would better align with the economic realities of downtown commerce.
Santa Monica should be making it easier — not harder — for residents and visitors to spend money locally. I respectfully ask the Council to reconsider this decision before further economic damage is done.
Sincerely,
A Santa Monica constituent and downtown consume
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Hicks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 11:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: OPPOSE Changes to Parking Rates in Downtown
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
As Santa Monica constituents and downtown consumers, we strongly oppose the reduction of free parking from 90 minutes to 30 minutes.
This change makes coming to Santa Monica less attractive for routine activities, dining, fitness classes and shopping.
Please reconsider this policy change.
Sincerely,
Nancy & Wes Hicks
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
5 David Yakobson
From: Karla LeCroix <[email protected]> on behalf of Karla LeCroix <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 11:52 PM
Subject: Free Parking reduction (OPPOSE)
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
As a Santa Monica constituent and downtown consumer, I strongly oppose the reduction of free parking from 90 minutes to 30 minutes. This change is already driving consumers and their spending out of Santa Monica and into neighboring cities with more competitive parking policies. Routine activities like fitness classes, dining, and errands now come with added costs that make downtown Santa Monica less attractive, resulting in lost foot traffic, lost sales, and long-term harm to small businesses and city revenue. I urge the Council to reconsider this policy and restore parking options that support short, repeat visits and keep local dollars in Santa Monica.
Sincerely,
Karla LeCroix
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
6 David Yakobson
From: Joyce Urode <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 7:39 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: OPPOSE REDUCTION OF PARKING
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
As a Santa Monica constituent and downtown consumer, I strongly oppose the reduction of free parking from 90 minutes to 30 minutes.
This change is already driving consumers and their spending out of Santa Monica and into neighboring cities with more competitive parking policies.
Routine activities like fitness classes, dining, and errands now come with added costs that make downtown Santa Monica less attractive, resulting in lost foot traffic, lost sales, and long-term harm to small businesses and city revenue.
I urge the Council to reconsider this policy and restore parking options that support short, repeat visits and keep local dollars in Santa Monica.
Sincerely,
Joyce Urode
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 9:12 AM
To: The Santa Monica Coalition
Subject: SANTA MONICA NEEDS DOGE
EXTERNAL
膆膾膿臀 Santa Monica needs DOGE. Help us stop FRAUD.
@potus @rapidresponse
47 @secscottbessent @USAttyEssayli @stephenM @america @elonmusk Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTx8-Qlgsz9/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== YouTube
https://youtu.be/A4Tz2a2-oms
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2026 8:53 AM
To: The Santa Monica Coalition
Subject: This Week's Homeless Counts
EXTERNAL
This week's 'Point-in-Time' Citizen HOMELESS COUNTS across Santa Monica & LA Cnty: Glorified govt. imitation of what the RAND Corp does EVERY 2 MONTHS. Who's more accurate?
County and City trying to justify WASHING MORE CASH from Federal Government. FRAUD and PR Stunt.
Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DT0eBT3goa_/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== YouTube
https://youtu.be/KWTvnW5SmY4
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026
5 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2026 10:12 AM
To: The Santa Monica Coalition
Subject: One Year Later
EXTERNAL
One year later, John Alle questions LA Fire Chief Jaime Moore about how the Palisades Village Shopping Center had water, yet the nation’s largest fire department did not. Chipotle survived while Corpus Christi Church was sacrificed. Last evening LA's Fire Chief couldn't answer how one man had more water than the entire LAFD.
Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DT3I_MKAqd7/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== YouTube
https://youtu.be/AZFLJ23h_lM
Item 1
January 27, 2026
Item 1
January 27, 2026