1 David Yakobson
From: Kevin McKeown <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 1:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Subject: Item 1 — Main Library parking
EXTERNAL
Perhaps as a bicyclist I shouldn’t be concerned, but this really galls me.
At the same time the City postponed parking charges in downtown structures lest they impact the relative luxury of gym memberships, persons with disabilities — disproportionately low-income because of limited earning capacity — are for the first time going to have to pay to park and use our public library? Kevin
————————————
K e v i n M c K e o w n
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.mckeown.net__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!uehvKBbPVlFxphYNJrE2XoEmgWj 0EhiET_KXkeLa6nxvqzdech5OKZJbaJPAMxpN757XcyVBnundLZwO0Ij0VixSMLo$ Choose to be conscious
————————————
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Paula Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 6:02 PM
Subject: SMO Issues - Noise and Fumes
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Council and City Manager,
Please reduce the level of fuel fume levels that are currently emanating from the airport. Ever since the city manager-enacted robust increase in activity, the fumes take over the business park and neighborhood surrounding the airport. It is really unbearable. I can't walk through; I can't breathe.
The noise is now a constant. It starts at 6-7 a.m. and continues all day. The smell and noise are too much.
It seems you do not care at all for citizens who live near the airport. We have no stop signs on 23rd street which is basically a death alley due to speeding cars. There are people living in their cars all along 25th which is not enforced. No one stops at stop signs or red lights.
We pay taxes too. But it is so bad, I am looking for other places to live.
I simply cannot breath with this constant fuel smell and my hearing is being affected by the incessant noise.
Please help us and reduce operations at the airport or at least reduce the fumes. Some kind of measurement should be required; is the City studying this?
Thanks,
PJ
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2026 9:34 AM
To: The Santa Monica Coalition
Subject: The People Concern's FRAUD and the CITY'S COLLABORATION Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
For the 2024–2025 fiscal year, 98% of the City of Santa Monica's annual grant funding to THE PEOPLE CONCERN's Housing Retention Program went toward salaries, fringe benefits, and overhead. Only one (1) person was helped during the last 6 months of the 2024--2025 fiscal year.
If you have received assistance, or if you were delayed or unable to receive service from The People Concern for any reason, please contact us and tell us your story.
Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUWBq3egkf4/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== YouTube
https://youtu.be/OI-zcsVnQ1c
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Andrew Hoyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2026 9:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Clerk Mailbox; Clerk Mailbox Subject: Feb 10, 2025 Item 1: Park Plan - Turf Ban THANK YOU!
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I wanted to take a moment and thank you for approving the Parks and Recreation Vision Plan as presented to you by city staff. In particular, I was pleased that you chose to ensure that the artificial turf ban remained a key component of the plan. Councilmember Zwick, your amendment to include a provision that any existing artificial turf be replaced with natural turf at the end of its lifespan deserves special commendation for thinking forward towards the parks' (and our environment's) future.
Thinking back to 2014(?) when the Memorial Park Plan was in its infancy, I recall asking what all those buildings were that border the east end of the park and being told that they belonged to the school district for their offices. Even at that time I felt like they should give them up to increase the amount of space for the Memorial Park. Since that time, the school district has abandoned those buildings for offices on 4th Street. I think in any future negotiations you might have with the school district (joint-use agreements? et al.) you should push for them to give up that city property to enlarge Memorial Park. Failing that, could they be converted to affordable housing that is sorely needed in our city? I've heard the greenest building is the one that is already built....
Sincerely,
Andrew Hoyer
SMMCN Board President
There is only one moment in time when it is essential to awaken. That moment is now. - Buddha
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: Andrew Hoyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2026 9:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Clerk Mailbox; Clerk Mailbox Subject: Feb 10, 2025 Item 1: Public Speaking Limitations
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I would have said this at last week's council meeting but I was restricted to one minute and felt that the park plan was more important. It's hard enough to say something meaningful and thought-provoking in sixty seconds.
When the previous changes were made to public input at city council meetings, I had mixed feelings about it as I often see advantages and disadvantages to both sides of almost any issue.
Under the prior rules, I often sat through long discussions about topics I had no concerns over waiting for my opportunity to speak on the item I was there for. So being able to speak early certainly has its value. Previously, staff would give their report prior to any public input. Since I was often writing out my thoughts while they were doing so, I had the opportunity to adjust my comments on the fly if I had misinterpreted the written material or had gained a greater understanding of staff intentions via councilmembers' queries.
But times change and so did the rules.
Given the most recent example of the use of the kiosk prior to the last council session, it is obvious that the software would accommodate what I am about to suggest.
When we, the public, sign up to speak, we should be given the full list of items 7-16 to choose from along with the option of 1, 2, or 4 minutes and a 6-minute total limitation. Then if Item 7-A had over twenty five speakers you could limit their testimony to one minute each but if Item 11-B only has three speakers requesting two minutes each, they would retain their full speaking time. The technology certainly exists to allow for the speakers to be called in the order of the agenda, i.e. all speakers on 7-A, then all speakers on 7-B, then 10-A, and so forth. Thus allowing the council to absorb a more coherent stream of information regarding the session's issues.
This proposal would achieve the goal of shortening the overall time spent on Public Input for items of mass interest but allow for the full expression of opinions on items that will affect a smaller portion of the population.
I also support the concept of moving the Closed Sessions and the idea of having General Public Input return to the end of the agenda. I agree with Councilmember Hall that moving council sessions to the daytime will limit the ability of regular working folk from serving on the City Council.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
5 These are complex issues and there are no easy answers, but those are my thoughts.
Thank you,
Andrew Hoyer
There is only one moment in time when it is essential to awaken. That moment is now. - Buddha
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
6 David Yakobson
From: Stacey Ravel Abarbanel <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 7:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell
Cc: Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Why Building Alone Won’t Solve the Housing Crisis
EXTERNAL
Council members, planning commission members, neighbors: Please see this important report detailed in today’s NY Times. It provides analysis and evidence of something many in our community have been shouting from the rooftops: building alone cannot solve the housing crisis, especially in a higher-end city like Santa Monica. I implore you to read this article and reconsider our city’s building policy. Can we create a housing policy that truly supports our lower-income residents and helps maintain the age, economic, cultural, and social diversity residents cherish? Will you pivot before the city is unrecognizable, and so much that we appreciate about it is irrevocably altered? Thank you for giving this article serious consideration.
Why Building Alone Won’t Solve the Housing
Crisis
nytimes.com
Stacey Ravel Abarbanel
[email protected]
310/736-5300
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
7 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2026 9:36 AM
To: The Santa Monica Coalition
Subject: St. Joseph's Center and its CEO Dr, Ryan J. Smith
EXTERNAL
For the 2024–2025 fiscal year, a massive 86% of the City of Santa Monica's annual grant funding for THE ST. JOSEPH CENTER OLDER ADULT HEALTH & WELLNESS PROGRAM went toward salaries, fringe benefits, and overhead. Barely 14% went to finding housing, food programs and mental health services for low-income seniors in Santa Monica, Venice, Culver City and Inglewood.
Two of Santa Monica's independent auditing firms, Moss Adams and BerryDunn, neither based in Santa Monica or LA, conducted virtual inspections of the books and said St.
Joseph's was "in compliance with Santa Monica's policies." Crooked policies.
St. Joseph's CEO is Dr. Ryan J. Smith. He says his focus is addressing homelessness with an emphasis on "equity," and calls himself a "champion of equity-driven programs." What's that mean?
He knows "charity starts at home." CEO Ryan J. Smith's annual base salary exceeds $750,000.
Please tell us your story about Santa Monica's wasteful spending on homeless service providers.
Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUdu3p4grRx/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== YouTube
https://youtu.be/eymgpFT0w_4
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
8 David Yakobson
From: salgopropar <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2026 11:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: The Economics of Price Gouging, By Jodi Beggs, Updated on September 03, 2018
EXTERNAL
The Economics of Price Gouging, By Jodi Beggs, Updated on September 03, 2018 Price gouging is loosely defined as charging a price that is higher than normal or fair, usually in times of natural disaster or other crisis. More specifically, price gouging can be thought of as increases in price due to temporary increases in demand rather than increases in suppliers' costs (i.e. supply).
Price gouging is typically thought of as immoral, and, as such, price gouging is explicitly illegal in many jurisdictions. It's important to understand, however, that this concept of price gouging results from what is generally considered to be an efficient market outcome. Let's see why this is, and also why price gouging might be problematic nonetheless.
When demand for a product increases, it means that consumers are willing and able to purchase more of the product at the given market price. Since the original market equilibrium price (labeled P1* in the diagram above) was one where the supply and demand for the product were in balance, such increases in demand usually cause a temporary shortage of the product.
Most suppliers, upon seeing long lines of people trying to buy their products, find it profitable to both raise prices and make more of the product (or get more of the product into the store if the supplier is simply a retailer). This action would bring the supply and demand of the product back into balance, but at a higher price (labeled P2* in the diagram above).
Because of the increase in demand, there isn't a way for everyone to get what they want at the original market price. Instead, if the price doesn't change, a shortage will develop since the supplier won't have an incentive to make more of the product available (it wouldn't be profitable to do so and the supplier can't be expected to take a loss rather than raise prices).
When supply and demand for an item are in balance, everyone who is willing and able to pay the market price can get as much of the good as he or she wants (and there is none left over). This balance is economically efficient since it means that companies are maximizing profit and goods are going to all of the people who value the goods more than they cost to produce (i.e. those who value the good most).
When a shortage develops, in contrast, it's unclear how the supply of a good gets rationed- maybe it goes to the people who showed up at the store first, maybe it goes to those who bribe the store owner (thereby indirectly raising the effective price), etc. The important thing to remember is that everyone getting as much as they want at the original price is not an option, and higher prices would, in many cases, increase the supply of needed goods and allocate them to people who value them the most.
Some critics of price gouging argue that, because suppliers are often limited in the short run to whatever inventory they have on hand, short-run supply is perfectly inelastic (i.e. completely unresponsive to changes in price, as shown in the diagram above). In this case, an increase in demand would lead only to an Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
9 increase in price and not to an increase in the quantity supplied, which critics argue simply results in the supplier profiting at the expense of consumers.
In these cases, however, higher prices can still be helpful in that they allocate goods more efficiently than artificially low prices combined with shortages would. For example, higher prices during peak demand times discourage hoarding by those who happen to get to the store first, leaving more to go around for others who value the items more.
Another common objection to price gouging is that, when higher prices are used to allocate goods, rich people will just swoop in and buy up all the supply, leaving less wealthy people out in the cold. This objection isn't entirely unreasonable since the efficiency of free markets relies on the notion that the dollar amount that each person is willing and able to pay for an item corresponds closely to the intrinsic usefulness of that item for each person. In other words, markets work well when people who are willing and able to pay more for an item actually want that item more than people who are willing and able to pay less.
When comparing across people with similar levels of income, this assumption likely holds, but the relationship between usefulness and willingness to pay likely changes as people move up the income spectrum. For example, Bill Gates is probably willing and able to pay more for a gallon of milk than most people, but that more likely represents the fact that Bill has more money to throw around and less to do with the fact that he likes milk that much more than others. This isn't so much of a concern for items that are considered luxuries, but it does present a philosophical dilemma when considering markets for necessities, especially during crisis situations.
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-economics-of-price-gouging-1146931 Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
10 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2026 12:42 PM
To: The Santa Monica Coalition
Subject: Tourism
EXTERNAL
Artem and his girlfriend are from Ukraine. This is their first visit. He said after what they saw yesterday, they are cancelling plans to return to Los Angeles to watch any 2026 FIFA World Cup Matches.
Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUgJlrJAuql/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riLHfVRD3Rs
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Joseph Marasia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 9:14 AM
To: Jing Yeo; Daniel Mick; Sandra Santiago
Cc: Maurice Cochee; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Oliver Chi; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Amy Larkin; Lizzy Acosta; Roxanne Tanemori; Regina Szilak
Subject: Re: Ordinance / Municipal Code Update / Passage Process Request - Marasia
EXTERNAL
Dear Ms. Yeo, Mr. Mick and Ms. Santiago,
@ Ms. Yeo and Mr. Mick
It’s been a little over a month now since I sent my response to your email Ms. Yeo and since both you and Mr. Mick have been back from the holiday break.
I’d really appreciate a response that addresses ALL my questions & concerns about the issue here at 1149-1143 12th Street from either of you, Ms. Yeo or Mr. Mick.
As you all know I’m continually trying and pushing for this process to be as transparent as possible but it continues to be so very opaque.
As a 20+ year resident of Santa Monica I would really appreciate the courtesy of a response and a more collaborative / solution finding process since the issue is affecting the well-being and lives of some of the City’s residents.
What is the City currently doing to find a solution to the issue here at 1149-1143 12th Street or to help mitigate the constant 24 hour noise from 1213-1215 Wilshire Blvd.
As far as I can tell…NOTHING has been done to date.
Will a sound barrier be installed between the buildings blocking the mechanical noise? Do I need to initiate a new Code Enforcement claim to get you to continue your focus on this issue? As I’ve said multiple times, there is a problem here that needs to be address by the City.
As we work our way into the warmer months, having our windows opened throughout the day and into the night will be necessary for air flow!
Having constant, distributive noise 24 hours a day less then 20ft outside our windows and where we sleep has degraded our well-being and livability here at 1149 12th Street. @ Ms. Santiago
Can you let me know the status of my 311 Case #CS0182123 Is it still opened, being researched or looked into by the City or has it been closed? Do I need to open another one so that the City will take action here? Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
2 What if anything has the City Staff our the City Council done concerning this issue? I’m starting to think our issue here has fallen on deaf ears or has fallen into the 311 black hole.
Can you all please give me some feedback and direction here? Should I be talking to or bringing this issue up to someone else in the City of Santa Monica? Again as I’ve been saying all along…Us Santa Monica residents here at 1149-1143 need action by the City to get back to some type of normalcy with the on going 24 hour commercial mechanical noise being produced from 1213-1215 Wilshire Blvd.
If you would rather have a one on one in person meeting, please let me know, as I am open to this at your request.
WE NEED ACTION AND A SOLUTION!
Thank you for your time…I look forward to your responses.
Joey
Joseph Marasia
1149 12th Street #207
Santa Monica, CA 90403
310-699-2383
[email protected]
On Jan 6, 2026, at 9:59 AM, Joseph Marasia <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello and Good Morning Ms. Yeo,
As I wrote prior, I appreciate your email response but find it very disappointing to say the least.
Especially coming from Santa Monica’s Community Development Director who oversees this area for the City and can help enact change for the City’s residents.
This is a HUGH FAILURE, MISSTEP, AND MAJOR DISAPPOINTMENT for the City of Santa Monica.
Code Enforcement certainly has not lived up to their overall mission statement or their core values here in dealing with this issue for us City residents.
Especially the failure to ensure livability and the ”Quality of Residential Life” for the residents here at 1149 12th Street.
As I have stated multiple times…there is an issue/problem here at 1149 12th Street - 1213/1215 Wilshire Blvd. that needs to be address and solved by the City.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
3 For being such a progressive city, or so I thought, it's surprising that the well-being of Santa Monica residents aren’t taken into account or of high importance/concern. It definitely seems like the City has put the commercial & economic interests over the well-being and living conditions of the City’s residents.
I’m not sure where the disconnect happened but it certainly seems like from the project initiation, to the planning/designing and now the permitting of the commercial operation at 1213-1215 Wilshire Blvd., the City overlooked the fact that residents live less then 20 ft away from the newly constructed building, therefore, our well-being and living condition were NEVER taken into consideration at all.
I even had to fight for the City to require the second floor setback on the new construction portion! This just shows how our living and well-being was NEVER truly considered by the City in this infill project from the start.
Has there been a second review of the project/design or permit for false or misleading information from the owner concerning the equipment and location? Are you now saying that since the building is permitted there is nothing that can be done?
If that is the case…Then I would say you are just using that as an excuse for not exploring and understanding the issue and ultimately finding a solution to the problem.
Furthermore, that would be very disappointing and sad that you and the City are just going to put your hands up and say thats it!
I would surely hope that the City would continue to try and find a solution so that its residents life and well-being aren’t affected in a negative way.
Just because someone in the City gave the ok to permit the building shouldn’t end the process…most likely that person just wanted to hit a deadline, get the file off their desk or off their to do list.
They probably never thought about us residents here at 1149-1143 12th Street…They don't have to live with the outcome of their decisions, but, we do 24 hours a day! What then is my recourse here so that the City takes up this issue, finds a solution and acts on the behalf of its residents here at 1149 12th Street? Did the City think the constructed parapet was sufficient to mitigate the noise?…Well, as we know now…it is not!
Why wasn’t a noise/sound mitigation plan or structure not part of the overall rooftop construction plan seeing that apartments are adjacent?
Did the City question the type and location of the rooftop mechanical equipment? Why doesn’t the City mandate equipment to be on a timer and only run(operate) during business hours when adjacent to apartment units?
Why wasn’t the distance to our windows taken into consideration? Why not have the equipment closer to the alley instead of less than 20ft away from the residential units?
Let me pose a question to you and Mr. Mick…
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
4 Do either of you live with constant 24 hour a day commercial mechanical equipment noise outside your windows where you sleep?
If so, then you understand what we are dealing with and how constant noise is very disturbing, discomforting and affects ones overall sleep & well-being.
But I’m assuming neither of you do.
And I’m guessing neither of you would like to live with constant noise outside of your windows.
To be honest, it certainly makes no sense whatsoever that we now have to live with these noises 24 hours a day without having any say in the situation at all.
To be honest, the solution should be pretty easy to find and implement.
Yes, there would need to be some exploration here to exactly identify what is causing the disturbing/disruptive 24 hour noise.
But just off the top of my head…here are some solutions I can think of but I know there are may more!
Why didn't the City not explore and suggest these during the planning process? Some potential solutions could include the following…
Adding a sound mitigation wall or insulated wall on the west side facing our building...tall enough to fully mitigate the sound.
Increasing the height of the parapet.
Insulating the equipment…especially if it is a chimney exhaust making the noise.
Turning the equipment around so that the discharged air/exhaust does not hit the parapet.
Removing a portion of the parapet so that the discharged air/exhaust does not hit a wall or resistance.
Relocating the mechanical equipment further away from the parapet.
In response to your email, here are my comments, concerns and additional questions.
I look forward to receiving your response and answers.
General Comments
Personally, I would suggest you and Mr. Mick have an in person site visit here to get the full picture and to understand the issue first hand.
I’m open to having you visit my apartment and getting permission from my manager for you both to come on site here at 1149 12th Street.
It is important to hear the noise first hand at all hours of the day including the night hours and especially from the space between the buildings.
I’m not sure if you ever read or where forwarded my email to the City Council, so, I have included it below for your knowledge and reference.
Within the email I include an overhead map, noise recordings and sound mitigation examples which I think could help with the situation here. (see the copied email below the header - ***Email to the City Council***) From the start, I’ve been trying to have a more transparent process around this issue but I’ve had to continually push to get answers, replies and action from the City and Code Enforcement.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
5 This is why I continue to push our issue up to the higher levels of the City government…We need the proper people to know what we are dealing with here at 1149 12th Street.
We are looking for a solution and concrete action from the City so that we can get back to some sort of normalcy here.
I’m a little confused on why is seems like no one wants to think outside the box here and find a solution to the problem.
As I mentioned above…the solution seems very straightforward and easy to implement.
Is it because our issue/problem here at 1149 12th street is a one-off situation or one of the only infill builds in the City?
Is it because the building got grandfathered in as a landmark? (If this is the case…It should not have been applied to the back storage portion or the new construction portion)
Is it a sensitive situation for the City due to the property owners connections? Any insight here would be greatly appreciated.
Noise Readings
Look I get it…you all are relying on the noise level constraints in the current municipal code which is short sided.
The noise is only one of the issues here.
You need to work harder, step out of the box and see this total issue for what it is.
The duration, consistent nature, equipment location and proximity to our windows should play a role here in the fact that it disturbs all aspects of our lives.
For some reason, The City has allowed commercial mechanical equipment that runs 24 hours a day to be installed less than 20ft outside of my windows. I live in a studio apartment…so for me personally, the noise is constantly heard, in proximity to where I sleep and has rendered my east windows useless since I have to keep them closed. The overall air flow in my apartment has now been reduced significantly...none of the apartments around the building have central air for air flow. My overall well-being has truly degraded since the City permitted this construction for operation back in April 2025. Yes, we have had problems before with noise but never has it been this bad since the City allowed this new commercial infill project.
Does the City even know what is being released from the chimney/equipment on the rooftop?…Was there any type of environmental review conducted?…Is it also damaging our health?
It just seems to me that with an infill construction project like this the City should have really taken a more holistic view of the surroundings and how the produced mechanical noise would affect those living so close to the site.
Can you give me more detail concerning the noise readings you are referencing? What date and time where these taken…and by whom?
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
6 Does the City ever conduct a 24 hour noise recording/reading? If so, the City should really do one here.
A 24 hour noise recording would help capturing the overall duration, constant nature and intensity of the noise, also capturing the noise levels in the evening/night hours when the ambient surrounding noise has reduced.
The location of the commercial mechanical equipment making the noise makes it less likely that taking noise readings from the alley or the street would ever give you a proper reading. Therefore, to understand the true impact of the noise you must get readings from our property. The site is very unique in that our building does not end at the alley but 10 ft away from the back of 1213-1215 Wilshire Blvd.
Code 4.12.025 states that it is unlawful for "any person to make, produce, maintain, cause or permit to be made any noises or sounds in such manner so as to unreasonably disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of persons of normal sensitivity within the area of audibility or which are so harsh or prolonged or unnatural or unusual in their use, time or place as to cause physical discomfort to any person of normal sensitivity within the area of audibility.” Sections (2), (3), (5) and (8) of this code certainly come into question here with our issue.
Can you explain why these codes where not taken into account? Code 4.12.130 (b) specifically states "Roof locations may be used when the mechanical equipment is installed within a noise attenuating structure.” when installed "adjacent to a residential building”
As far as I can tell…there is no noise attenuating structure on 1213-1215’s roof.
Can you explain why this code was not taken into account? Additionally, Did the owner fully comply with section (c) of Code 4.12.130? Why did the City not mandate or require some type of sound mitigation wall to be constructed on the west side of the new construction facing our building…Furthermore, why wasn't all the mechanical equipment not housed in such a structure?
The building is surrounded by residential units on 2 side…this certainly seems like a failure on the City’s part.
Contacting Bob Lynn (Owner)
I find it hard to believe that Code Enforcement could not contact Bob Lynn.
The restaurant in question, Diner Antonette, is open every day! Does the City not conduct site visits to inspect buildings once constructed…I would think the City has the right to since you are approving the permit? How many times did Code Enforcement try to contact Bob and by what means? Did Code Enforcement physically visit the restaurant?
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
7 Additionally, Bob and his company are located here in Santa Monica on 18th Street…He lives above his offices which he runs out of his residence.
Did Code Enforcement visit his offices/residence?
If you needed a way to inspect Bob's roof…why not ask me to help? Even though Bob has threatened me with legal actions, I would have tried and assisted Code Enforcement in contacting Bob.
This may have resulted in getting his assistance on gaining roof access and possibly finding a solution to the problem.
Additionally, I am willing and able to contact my manager who could give Code Enforcement access to our roof allow you to look at Bob’s roof.
This would allow Code Enforcement to inspect the roof and determine the noise source, ultimately, showing how to mitigate the noise…therefore, finding a solution.
As I stated above…Code Enforcement needs to work harder and think outside of the box here.
Be creative, come up with some ideas and help find a solution to the problem.
It might take a little more effort but that’s why us residents look to the City to help solve problems.
Nest Steps - Future action
What do you suggest I do now?
Continue to call in my complaints daily until someone in the City takes action and fixes this problem?
We have to live with this noise 24 hours a day!
Yes, I would hope the City continues to look into this issue/problem and ultimately come up with a solution.
I’m also looking to the City to change or update the current code to address mechanical equipment adjacent to residential living units.
There really needs to be some type of sound mitigation required or mandated.
As this situation shows.
Are you going to be our advocate and push for new regulations and updates to the ordinances so that the problem gets addressed and fixed? How do you suggest I go about getting the City Council to address this issue and take up my request for a fast and speedy ordinance revision? The City residents at 1149 12th Street are looking for action now and need a solution.
I do encourage you and Code Enforcement to continue to purse access to Bob’s roof and explore mitigation solutions.
I am willing to help you in any way I can since this is a very important issue that is affecting my daily life.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
8 If you want my help, please let me know.
It is promising to hear there is a potential revision to the noise ordinance but not so promising to hear it will take some time.
If possible, I would like to request to be involved in any discussions of new noise or sound mitigation ordinances since I’m on the front lines and deal with this issue 24-7.
You, for sure, should use this situation and issue to help formulate any new updates especially those involving adjacent residential units to protect residential citizens.
I look forward to the City taking action and rectify this issue for its residents.
Additionally, I look forward to your response and answers to all my questions above.
Thank you!
Joey
Joey Marasia
1149 12th Street #207
Santa Monica, CA 90403
310-699-2383
[email protected]
***Email to the City Council***
Dear Santa Monica City Council, Hello and Good Morning! My name is Joseph Marasia and I’m a 20+ year resident of Santa Monica at 1149 12th Street.
I’m writing to you today because we need your help, your assistance and a solution to a noise problem here at 1149-1143 12th Street.
We are requesting your help, assistance and a solution because our current living situation has degraded here at 1149-1143 12th Street due to commercial mechanical equipment that has been installed on a newly constructed 2nd floor infill extension on the back of 1213-1215 Wilshire Blvd. without any sound mitigation or absorbing elements. The mechanical equipment runs non stop 24 hours a day creating constant noises and an unsustainable living/sleeping condition in our apartments. Below are further details on the issue.
For me personally, the equipment is right outside my east apartment windows less than 20ft away, therefore, I get the brunt of the constantly produced noises. Having to hear the constant noises 24-7 is very disturbing, jarring at times, discomforting and has affected my overall well-being, living condition, sleep and air flow in my apartment. Code 4.12.025 General regulation certainly gives me hope that Santa Monica recognizes that disturbing noises do affect an individuals well-being. I certainly agree with this. Each numbered bullet point (1-8) of 4.12.025 certainly outlines what we are experiencing and dealing with here at 1149-1143 12th Street. I do believe something is wrong here and that a solution can Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
9 be found for this issue.
In addition to solving this unique issue and situation, we are asking you to review your current code and create a new ordinance to be researched / drafted and ultimately accepted concerning mechanical equipment located adjacent to or in proximity to a residential building.
We compel the Santa Monica City Council to act and go further to require that sound mitigating elements or absorbing barriers be installed around any mechanical equipment that is adjacent to or in proximity to a residential apartment or building, thus, shielding the residences from the mechanical equipment and the constant unwanted noises produced.
Since this new mechanical equipment has been installed and running we have endured constant noises. The noises are 24-7 day in / day out and include 2 different types of noises. The first noise is some type of compressor / exhaust chimney and the second noise is a more disturbing louder and higher pitched fan revving up / running type noise. Both of these noises are very prominent and I’m the one who gets the brunt of them since my apartment is directly outside of the new 2nd floor infill extension and less then 20 feet away from the mechanical equipment.
Of course we live with other noises throughout the daylight hours by living so close to Wilshire Blvd., but, before the new extension we DID NOT have any issues with the prior restaurants that occupied the location. The difference now is that these noises are louder, disruptive, constant in duration, closer to our residential apartments and running 24 hours a day…I’ve heard these noises every hour of the day…nights and early mornings. During the evening & night time hours when the ambient noise is lower outside these noises are even more louder, pronounced and disturbing. By having a new ordinance that requires the installation of some type of sound mitigation or absorbing barrier will help us get back to a sense of normalcy and will decrease the noises down to a more sustainable and livable sound environment.
There is a lot of history concerning this infill project, but, I’m going to focus on the current situation at hand and not so much on the past since the building is already constructed. But, I will say and what I want you all to know is that from the beginning of this newly constructed addition I’ve always voiced my concerns about the noises coming from the new mechanical equipment. This dates back to 2022 and I voiced my concerns to the Santa Monica Planning Division.
Now to the current situation…
My first complaint (#24COM-2031) with Code Enforcement was on Dec 17th 2024 concerning the noises coming from the roof equipment.
My second complaint (#25COM-0998) with Code Enforcement was on June 26th 2025 concerning the noises coming from the roof equipment.
I started recording the noises in April 2025 so, as you can tell, we have been dealing with the noises now for close to 1 year.
At this time after close to 1 year of working with Code Enforcement on this issue there has been no improvement of the situation.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
10 The noises from the equipment still occur, disrupting our lives here in the surrounding buildings 24-7.
Therefore, this situation needs to be addressed, researched and solved along with a new ordinance to be adopted to address this type of issue.
Personally, I don’t see how The City of Santa Monica would allow for a resident to live next to commercial mechanical equipment that runs 24 hours a day. It's like living in a wind tunnel or like living next to a running exhaust chimney nonstop or even next to an idling street sweeter or airplane. I’m assuming none of you currently live with a constant noise outside of your windows. Therefore, I’m guessing none of you would like to live here either with a constant noise right outside of your windows and I’m not sure why we now having to live with these noises.
Please see the attached overhead map PDF.
As you can see from the attached overhead map, my east apartment windows are basically rendered useless now…I have to close them to sleep and this reduces my overall air flow in my apartment and quality of sleep throughout the night. None of the apartments in our building have AC units, therefore, having the windows open all year round is a must for constant air flow. Even with my windows closed I still can hear the fan and the louder revving fan noise which is jarring and wakes me up throughout the night when it runs. It certainly seems like my apartment and the surrounding area was not taken into account when the new building was planned, designed or permitted.
This is a very unique, sensitive and important issue to me and I know there is a solution out there to be found. I do believe something is not right here and needs to be addressed since the equipment is adjacent to a residential building and less then 20 ft from my apartment windows. I don’t understand why a more robust noise attenuating structure (exterior sound barrier) like the attached pictures below was NOT constructed on the roof around the new equipment seeing that the new mechanical equipment is less then 20 feet outside of my windows and the new construction is basically an infill project surrounded by residential apartments. As far as I can tell, nothing like what I’ve included in the attached PDF has been added to the roof. (See attached PDF below)
Below I have attached 2 recordings as examples of what we deal with here on an hourly basis. The noise recordings are from my apartment windows. The first recording is from 10.29.25 @ 7:15pm and captured both mechanical equipment noises present (the revving up fan and the 24-7 fan). In addition, I’ve included a second recoding of the 24- 7 fan noise from 11.2.25 @ 1:30pm with a decibel reading from my phone. The more disturbing revving up fan noise occurs 1-2 times an hour every hour of the day, the other fan noise is always on 24-7. I have heard these noises for example in the 3am hour, 1pm hour and the 9pm hour, etc.
I’m determined to find a solution to this issue and would love the assistance of The City of Santa Monica since I’m a resident and this is affecting my overall well-being, sleep and living conditions 24-7 here in the City.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
11 At the least, I implore the City of Santa Monica to investigate and remedy this unique and sensitive issue that is affecting our daily lives here at 1149-1143 12th street.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if I need to explain or supply anything further.
Thank you for your time…I look forward to your response.
Have a good day and week!
Sincerely,
Joseph Marasia
***
Overhead Map
<Overhead Map.pdf>
Examples of Sound Mitigating Roof Elements (Sound Barriers) <Sound Barriers.pdf>
Noise Recordings
10-29-25 Recording - Revving fan noise plus 24-7 fan noise <1213-1215 Wilshire noise 7.15 pm 10-29-25.m4a>
11-02-25 Recording - 24-7 fan noise
<1213-1215 Wilshire fan noise 1.30pm 11-2-25.m4a>
(Decibel reading below - 95dB)
11-02-25 Decibel Reading From My Phone
<Decibel Phone Reading Fan Noise 11.02.25 1.30PM.jpeg>
On Dec 22, 2025, at 12:49 PM, Joseph Marasia <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Ms. Yeo,
I appreciate your response email.
I’m currently traveling for the holiday and will fully reply next week.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
12 Thank you,
Joey
Joey Marasia
310-699-2383
[email protected]
On Dec 22, 2025, at 9:09 AM, Jing Yeo
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Mr. Marasia,
Thanks for following up on this issue. I have received
background on this from Code Enforcement staff and
understand this case was initiated in June and is currently closed due to no violation. Code Enforcement has visited the location multiple times to conduct sounds readings at the exterior of the property at 1213 Wilshire Blvd, rear alleyway, adjacent to 1149 12th St and within your unit. The readings have been between 49 dB and 56 dB, which unfortunately is below the allowable threshold in the City’s Noise Ordinance.
We know that you have stated you can heard the mechanical equipment of the neighboring commercial building. As noted above, the noise readings being within the decibel limits means that there is no violation of the Noise Ordinance. Code Enforcement attempted to contact the property owner Bob Lynn several times but received no response. The intent was to gain roof access on private property to be able to explore noise mitigation measures that the property owner might be amenable to. The equipment does not appear to be
malfunctioning and was permitted as part of the addition to the restaurant which was finaled earlier this year.
I understand that you received a written case closure e-mail on October 28, 2025 from Code Enforcement summarizing the
results of the investigation and letting you know that the case is closed. That being said, you are raising a policy question regarding how noise is regulated in the city and there is a comprehensive revision to the Noise Ordinance that is in the works. However, this would be a policy question for the City Council as to whether this kind of situation (where there is properly functioning equipment that as been legally permitted) would be addressed.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
13 At this point, we will continue to make efforts to reach out to the property owner to see if anything can be done voluntarily.
The noise ordinance update is part of the department’s work plan but is not something that can be done quickly.
I’ve copied Code Enforcement Manager Daniel Mick and
Supervisor Maurice Cochee if you require further follow up on this.
Thank you,
Jing
From: Joseph Marasia <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2025 9:02 AM
To: Sandra Santiago <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick
<[email protected]>; Dan Hall
<[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin
<[email protected]>; Barry Snell
<[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya
<[email protected]>; Amy Larkin
<[email protected]>; Lizzy Acosta
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Ordinance / Municipal Code Update / Passage Process Request - Marasia
EXTERNAL
Good Morning Sandra, I hope you have had a good week.
Can you please confirm that you've received my email below that I sent on Monday 12-15?
I’d like to receive a status update before the holiday break on what the City is doing concerning the issue pertaining to the commercial equipment noises coming from 1213-1215
Wilshire Blvd.
If I need to reach out to someone else, contact another City division or do something different to get action on this issue please advise.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.
Happy Holidays,
Joey
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
14 On Dec 15, 2025, at 9:09 AM, Joseph Marasia
<[email protected]> wrote:
Good Morning Sandra, I hope you had a good
weekend!
Can you please give me a status on what’s being
done concerning the constant commercial
equipment noises coming from 1213-1215
Wilshire Blvd.
It's been a month now since our last
correspondence.
As of today, nothing has changed.
Additionally, I’ve not been contacted or received
any emails from Jing Yeo, or anyone from either
the Community Development Department or
Code Enforcement concerning the noise issues.
Is the commercial equipment noise issue even
being researched / investigated?
Is there a solution being worked on and
implemented?
Is a new ordnance being drafted or proposed to
the City Council concerning commercial
equipment next to residential apartments?
As you know my fear is that our issue is out of
sight and out of mind for the City of Santa
Monica.
But as I mentioned, we deal with this constant
commercial equipment noise issue 24 hours a
day and it's affecting our lives, sleep and the
overall well-being here at 1149-1143 12th Street.
I wrote to the Santa Monica City Council hoping
for help, a solution and transparency concerning
this issue.
There is an issue/problem here and I know there
is a solution.
We need action from the City to correct the
problem and allow us to get back to normal here.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
15 I’m here to help in anyway I can…recordings,
meeting with City staff, site visits, connecting
you with our management, etc.
I look forward to your response.
Thank you for your time.
Have a good day!
Joey
Joey Marasia
310-699-2383
[email protected]
On Nov 14, 2025, at 8:36 AM,
Joseph Marasia
<[email protected]> wrote:
Good Morning Ms. Santiago,
Thank you for your response and
for the additional clarification
concerning the staff’s actions
relating to the 311 system.
I look forward to hearing from Jing
Yeo and working with the City to
find a solution to this problem.
I’m hopeful that we will get back to
a sense of normalcy here and a
more sustainable / livable sound
environment soon.
Have a good Friday and weekend.
Thank you for your time and
acknowledging our problem!
Best regard,
Joey
Joey Marasia
310-699-2383
[email protected]
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
16 On Nov 13, 2025, at
11:24 AM, Sandra
Santiago
<Sandra.Santiago@
santamonica.gov>
wrote:
Dear Mr. Marasia,
Thank you for your
message and for
taking the time to
share your concerns
with us and with the
City Council. We
sincerely apologize for
the delay in
responding to your
original complaint and
understand how
frustrating and
disruptive ongoing
noise issues can be to
your quality of life.
We’ve reviewed your
correspondence and
confirmed that your
concerns are part of
your existing 311 case
(CS0182123). Becaus
e your recent message
relates to the same
issue, staff added your
additional information
to that open case to
ensure all
documentation stays
connected. The
matter has been
escalated to Jing Yeo,
Director of
Community
Development, who
oversees Code
Enforcement. You can
expect to hear directly
from her team
regarding next steps.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
17 We appreciate your
patience as staff
review the situation
and coordinate next
steps. Your
engagement as a longtime Santa Monica
resident is valued, and
we want to ensure
your concerns are
being addressed
through the
appropriate channels.
Best,
Sandra
- Sandra A.
Santiago
Assistant to the
City Manager | City
of Santa Monica
cell: 424.280.9820
From: Joseph Marasia
<[email protected]
>
Sent: Thursday,
November 13, 2025
9:08 AM
To: Amy Larkin
<Amy.Larkin@santamo
nica.gov>; Council
Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@sant
amonica.gov>
Cc: Sandra Santiago
<Sandra.Santiago@sant
amonica.gov>; Lana
Negrete
<Lana.Negrete@santa
monica.gov>; Caroline
Torosis
<Caroline.Torosis@sant
amonica.gov>; Jesse
Zwick
<Jesse.Zwick@santamo
nica.gov>; Dan Hall
<Dan.Hall@santamonic
a.gov>; Ellis Raskin
<Ellis.Raskin@santamo
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
18 nica.gov>; Barry Snell <Barry.Snell@santamo
nica.gov>; Natalya
Zernitskaya <Natalya.Zernitskaya@s
antamonica.gov>
Subject: Re: Ordinance
/ Municipal Code
Update / Passage
Process Request -
Marasia
EXTERNAL
Dear Ms. Larkin,
Thank you for your
response and the
follow up info.
I appreciate you
taking the time to
look into the City’s
311 system, seeing
that I have an open
case and adding in
my email I sent to
the City Council as
evidence of the
current issue.
The case you
reference,
CS0182123, is from
July 2025 and I
already received a
response from this
case. Are you saying
this case is still
open? I have not
gotten any response
concerning this case
over the last few
months, so, I guess
I’m a little confused
on your actions here
and if I’ll ever get a
response from this
case again.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
19 I truly hope you took
the time to fully read
my email and
understand why I
was contacting the
City Council.
The purpose of me
emailing the City
Council was to bring
our current issue
here at 1149-1143
12th Street to a
different and higher
level of the City of
Santa Monica
Government. We
want and need
someone in the
Council to take up
our issue and look
into the problem and
help find a
solution. As I said,
we are looking for
concrete action here
concerning this
issue since our wellbeing as residences
is being affected 24-
7. Unfortunately, after
working with Code
Enforcement now
for a year on this
issue, with slow and
minimal responses /
status updates,
there has been NO
action taken to
resolve the current
issue. Therefore, I’m
disappointed in the
fact that all you did
was attach / forward
my sent Council
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
20 email to my open
311 case to Code
Enforcement.
In my opinion and
from my
experiences, the
City’s 311 system is
a black hole where
issues get buried /
not addressed and
only results in a
response from the
City that only gives
additional
information and not
concrete
results. Basically,
the 311 system gives
the City a way out of
doing actual work
that will actually
help the City’s
residence correct an
issue.
Therefore, we are
looking for a better
way forward to
correct this issue
with concrete
action…not just
words.
Why did you not
start a new 311
case?…Why not
create a new case
that would reach
more departments
that can help?
Are you saying that
the Council, our
elected officials,
don’t what to help
their residence with
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
21 an issue that affects
their daily lives?
Are you saying that
my only recourse is
to try and work with
the City Attorney’s
Office to get them to
act in creating a new
proposal for the
Council to review?
What are my options
if Code Enforcement
does not act, closes
my 311 case and we
are now stuck living
with constant
commercial
mechanical
equipment noises
24 hours a day?
As I said in my
email…there is a
problem here that
needs to be
addressed by the
City and I know that
there is a
solution…We need
the City to
acknowledge the
problem, come up
with a solution and
ACT to fix it for us
residents.
Please advise on my
questions above as I
would like to move
forward to the next
step to have the
Council fully grasp
the current issue
here.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
22 I look forward to
your response and
answers to my
questions.
Thank you for your
time,
Joseph Marasia
Joseph Marasia
1149 12th Street
#207
Santa Monica,
CA 90403
310-699-2383
[email protected]
m
On
Nov
12,
2025,
at 4:04
PM,
Counc
il
Mailbo
x
<Coun
cil.Mai
lbox@
santa
monic
a.gov>
wrote:
Dear
Mr.
Marasi
a,
Thank
you for
reachi
ng out
and
for
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
23 sharin
g your
conce
rn. We
appre
ciate
your
longtime
reside
ncy
and
engag
ement
with
our
comm
unity.
We
see
that
you
have
an
open
reques
t in
City’s
311
syste
m, and
all the
items
provid
ed
have
been
added
to your
ticket
CS018
2123 f
orwar
ded to
Code
Enforc
ement
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
24 . It has
been
assign
ed to a
superv
isor in
Code
Enforc
ement
. You
can
expect
to
hear
directl
y from
them
regard
ing
your
situati
on.
Regar
ding
ordina
nces
or
updat
es to
the
munici
pal
code:
Chang
es
genera
lly
begin
with a
propo
sal
review
ed by
the
City
Counc
il. For
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
25 detaile
d
guidan
ce,
you
may
wish
to
conta
ct the
City
Attorn
ey’s
Office
at atto
rney@
santa
monic
a.gov.
Enteri
ng
your
conce
rn into
the
311
syste
m
ensure
s it is
formal
ly
docu
mente
d, and
we
hope
the
Code
Enforc
ement
team
will be
able to
work
with
you
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
26 towar
d a
resolu
tion.
Best,
Amy
Larki
n
Admini
strative
Staff
Assista
nt- City
Council
City
Manag
er’s
Office
amy.lar
kin@sa
ntamon
ica.gov
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
27 David Yakobson
From: Paula Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2026 11:30 AM
Subject: No Insane Asylum in Sunset Park! Every Item on agenda.
Please do not place mentally ill people in a residential neighborhood in sunset park by SMC. This is outrageous.
You bowed to North Santa Monica; they do not have to endure any issues. And so the result is now you will dump on South Santa Monica and place all the mentally ill criminal homeless here to terrorize us? What is wrong with you? This is outrageous.
Homeless are, on a percentage basis, criminals released from jail who come to Santa Monica from outside the area. They are mentally ill, dangerous and do not belong near schools, homes, and regular citizens. They are responsible for the majority of crimes against our citizens and businesses. They have beat up and used gun violence against our children, our police, and our citizens. Why is this acceptable to you? Why are you supportive of our children, police, and citizens being hurt by this group? Expand SamoShell and keep them in one area mandatory. You are ruining our lives.
The gas fumes and noise from the airport have skyrocketed and now you're putting lunatics in our neighborhood to terrorize us and our children. Please stop. Keep our neighborhoods quiet, safe, and clean.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Ashley Oelsen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 11:41 AM
To: Attorney Mailbox; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; councilmtgitems Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: URGENT Follow-Up: Request for Review and Meeting – Development and Disposition Agreements with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (Agenda Item 11A).
Attachments: Third Formal Demand for Corrective Review – HCHC DDAs (Agenda Item 11A).pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Ms. von Tongeln,
We have not received an update on the letter sent on January 8 regarding the issues surrounding agenda item 11.A, nor a response from your office to our meeting request on January 30.
While we acknowledge the City has found itself in a precarious situation, it is one of its own making. Council members operating with significant conflicts of interest have voted on items that serve their own interests, which is unethical. The legal decisions made by the City Attorney's Office have repeatedly exposed the City to significant financial liability, as Santa Monica teeters on the brink of bankruptcy. And now, the City Attorney's Office is poised to do it again.
We understand that council conflicts, FPPC violations, vote recusals, and a potential revote on Item 11.A (the DDA and HCHC project on 14th Street) could once again place the City in significant legal jeopardy. If a revote were to occur, there is serious probability it would not pass. This would be disastrous: the lease and surplus land have been transferred, $13.5 million from the housing fund has been committed, and contracts have been executed. The developer plans to pursue legal recourse against the City for the time and investment HCHC has committed. Once again, our city faces more litigation due to the decisions made by Council and staff.
Rather than acknowledge this predicament transparently, the City Attorney's Office remains silent, hoping to move the HCHC projects forward as quickly as possible before things spiral further. The truth is things are already out of control. Our city continues to dig itself deeper, and residents, businesses, and taxpayers end up paying the price.
Separate from the vote validity issue, it is important to note that the HCHC developments have never been in the City's financial interest. The record shows that the City was Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
2 repeatedly warned of specific financial, legal, and structural risks before approving and executing the HCHC projects.
On September 18, 2025, Santa Monica Renters' Rights submitted a formal technical memorandum to the City Manager and Council accepting the policy goal of affordable housing but rejecting the financial and legal structure, identifying concrete failure modes.
Those warnings were reiterated and sharpened in a September 30, 2025 Council cover letter responding to staff analysis and developer counsel.
Critically for the HCHC projects, SMRR warned that the City's assumed $150,000 per-unit gap financing was not credible for delivering 100% affordable housing. SMRR's analysis indicated a minimum gap closer to $240,000 per unit, which is consistent with HCHC's actual per-unit costs on comparable projects like Euclid and 14th Street. SMRR also warned that the most likely outcome was that the City itself would be required to complete the projects, either directly or through a nonprofit developer, likely triggering prevailingwage obligations not covered by existing escrows and substantially increasing costs.
Additionally, SMRR cautioned that releasing all project security at construction commencement created material risk, and that prudent contract structuring required continuing security until project completion. Finally, SMRR noted that the in-lieu fee figures bore no meaningful relationship to actual affordable unit production costs, raising fee-nexus and unlawful exaction concerns. These warnings directly implicate the financial assumptions and contractual protections embedded in the HCHC DDAs.
SMRR's written record establishes that financial underestimation, subsidy escalation, prevailing-wage exposure, inadequate security, and defective fee logic were all foreseeable risks before the City approved and executed the HCHC agreements. The City nonetheless proceeded, continuing to rely on disputed assumptions despite repeated notice. This combination of procedural defects, financial recklessness, and documented foreseeability significantly elevates the City's exposure to audit findings, legal challenge, and potential invalidation of the HCHC DDAs.
This begs the question: what are we doing and why?
There is clear evidence that the City’s strongest housing ally warned in writing, repeatedly and unambiguously, that the HCHC structure exposed Santa Monica to financial loss, legal liability, and long-term harm to the public interest.
This brings us full circle. The only reasonable conclusion is that Councilmembers were operating under significant conflicts and advancing their own interests, rendering the December 17, 2024 vote invalid.
The conflicts arising from Councilmember Zwick’s private communication with Sarah Lett's from the Dias and Councilmember Zernaskiya’s campaign contributions are well understood under FPPC guidance, and your office is aware of the associated risks. In contrast, Mayor Torosis’s conflicts continue to be dismissed as illegitimate, despite her senior deputy role within Supervisor Holly Mitchell’s office, who is HCHC’s official government partner on housing development projects.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
3 As residents’ concerns continue to be ignored, additional records are likely to emerge that further substantiate the seriousness of Mayor Torosis’s dual-role conflict.
Our ask to your office is for the City to be transparent and act in good faith. This should be an expectation, not a request.
Lastly, our efforts are not disparage your office; we want to trust in City staff to act in the best interest of Santa Monica. We want our City to succeed and flourish. We want to partner and work together. We want to support City staff and have faith in our Council-members. Unfortunately, we are never given that option.
We look forward to your response. Please see the formal letter attached.
Warmly,
Ashley Oelsen
On behalf of Mid-Wilshire Residents
Santa Monica Neighbors
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
1 February 9, 2026
VIA EMAIL
Heidi von Tongeln
Interim City Attorney
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Third Formal Demand for Corrective Review – HCHC DDAs (Agenda Item 11A) Dear Ms. von Tongeln,
We write on behalf of Mid-Wilshire Neighbors and affected Santa Monica residents regarding the City Council’s December 17, 2024, approval of the Development and Disposition Agreements with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (“HCHC”) under Agenda Item 11A.
This letter follows residents’ detailed submissions dated January 8, 2026, and January 30, 2026, which set forth documented conflicts of interest, undisclosed ex parte communications, and procedural defects that fatally compromise the validity of the DDA approval. To date, the City Attorney’s Office has not provided any substantive response or legal determination addressing these issues.
We must emphasize that the legal defects identified are not technical or curable through post-hoc ratification. Under controlling California law, including Petrovich v. City of Sacramento (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 527, participation by even a single conflicted decision-maker in a quasi-judicial proceeding renders the resulting approval voidable. Here, the conflicts are more severe: both the motion-maker and seconder were subject to disqualifying conflicts, compounded by documented ex parte communications during active proceedings.
Further, the City’s continued implementation of the DDAs after receiving notice of these defects raises independent legal concerns. Once placed on notice of credible Political Reform Act violations, Brown Act / due-process issues, and FPPC complaints seeking invalidation, the City has a duty to halt implementation pending legal review and to advise the City Council accordingly. Proceeding despite known defects exposes the City to significant liability.
The DDAs at issue involve extraordinary public commitments, including:
• Approximately $13.5 million in Housing Trust Fund subsidies; • Conveyance of City-owned land;
• Long-term ground leases extending up to 99 years;
• Federal HUD funds and project-based vouchers triggering heightened disclosure and fiduciary obligations.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
2 If the underlying approval is void or voidable, any subsequent delegation to execute implementing agreements is likewise invalid.
Accordingly, we formally request that the City Attorney’s Office:
1. Immediately suspend further implementation of the HCHC DDAs;
2. Provide a written legal determination regarding the validity of the December 17, 2024 approval considering the conflicts and ex parte communications identified;
3. Advise whether the City contends that a subsequent “re-vote” can lawfully cure defects that tainted the motion, deliberation, and decision-making stages;
4. Confirm that no construction, financing drawdowns, or implementing actions will proceed pending resolution.
Residents and Santa Monica Neighbors are prepared to pursue immediate judicial relief to invalidate the City Council’s December 17, 2024, approval of the HCHC Development and Disposition Agreements (“DDAs”). The approval is void or voidable due to pervasive conflicts of interest, undisclosed ex parte communications, and due-process violations in a quasi-judicial proceeding. Our position is supported by controlling precedent, official FPPC determinations, documentary CPRA evidence, and sworn testimony. Continued City or developer action after notice materially increases exposure.
Absent timely corrective action, residents will be forced to consider all available remedies, including injunctive and validation relief, to protect the public interest and prevent further reliance on an unlawfully approved agreement.
We request a substantive response within ten (10) days of this letter.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Elaine Korowitz
Mid-Wilshire Resident
Kazia Schulloff
Mid-Wilshire Resident
Soon Chung
Mid-Wilshire Resident
Vadim “Dima” Volovik
Mid-Wilshire Resident
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
3 Monique Medolovitz
Mid-Wilshire Resident
MID-WILSHIRE NEIGHBORS
Ashley Oelsen
SANTA MONICA NEIGHBORS
On behalf of concerned residents of the Mid-Wilshire neighborhood Cc:
Santa Monica City Council
City Manager Oliver ChiFair Political Practices Commission California Attorney General’s Office
Northeast Neighbors
SM Mid City Neighbors
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition
Friends of Sunset Park
North of Montana Association
Pico Neighborhood Organization
Santa Monica Daily Press
Enclosures:
Letter sent on behalf of Mid-Wilshire Residents on January 8, 2026 “RE: URGENT: Request to Include HCHC Agenda Item 11A in Ratification Proceedings Due to Ex Parte Communications and Council Member Conflicts of Interest”
Letter sent on behalf of Mid-Wilshire Residents on January 30, 2026 “URGENT FOLLOW UP – Request for Meeting and Corrective Review of the Development and Disposition Agreements with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (Agenda Item 11A)” Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
1 January 30, 2026
VIA EMAIL
Heidi von Tongeln
Interim City Attorney
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: URGENT FOLLOW UP – Request for Meeting and Corrective Review of the Development and Disposition Agreements with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (Agenda Item 11A)
Dear Ms. von Tongeln:
I am writing to follow up on the letter submitted on January 8, 2025, on behalf of Mid-Wilshire residents, concerning the Santa Monica City Council’s December 17, 2024 approval of the Development and Disposition Agreements with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (Agenda Item 11A).
As detailed in that submission, the approval of Agenda Item 11A is compromised by documented conflicts of interest, undisclosed ex parte communications, and procedural deficiencies that implicate due process requirements applicable to quasi-judicial decisions. Based on those concerns, we continue to request that the DDA approval be subject to corrective review and re-ratification through a new City Council vote, with all councilmembers with identified or potential conflicts properly recused from participation.
Since submitting our January 8th letter, our understanding of Mayor Caroline Torosis’s professional conflict has deepened. Mayor Torosis serves as Senior Deputy to Los Angeles County Supervisor Holly Mitchell, whose office maintains extensive policy, funding, and partnerships with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation; a relationship cemented by Supervisor Mitchell giving her official government endorsement to the housing developer. These relationships directly intersect with Supervisor Mitchell’s priority initiatives and the County’s affordable and supportive housing portfolio. Given the depth and scope of these intergovernmental partnerships, it is not credible that Mayor Torosis lacked substantial prior knowledge of, or professional familiarity with, HCHC and its leadership.
This concern is not isolated. It reflects a broader pattern in which Mayor Torosis’s County-based professional obligations, insider knowledge, and policy priorities have overlapped with City Council decision-making, including prior controversial development matters involving Countyaligned nonprofit partners. Such circumstances raise serious questions regarding disclosure and recusal obligations, as well as residents’ ability to trust that decisions are being made free from divided loyalties. Transparency and public confidence are undermined when these relationships are not fully disclosed or independently reviewed.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
2 Additionally, we are seeking clarity regarding unresolved questions surrounding the project’s financing and the representations made by Hollywood Community Housing Corporation regarding funding sources. The Development and Disposition Agreements designate 82 units for affordable senior housing and 40 units for permanent supportive housing utilizing project-based vouchers from the Santa Monica Housing Authority. Despite this, state funding designated for fire-victim housing has been applied to support a project that was already well underway prior to the fires.
While we fully support providing housing for individuals displaced by wildfires, including those from our neighboring Palisades community, our concern lies with the material discrepancy between the funding mechanisms represented during the approval process and the financing structure ultimately utilized. This project has received approximately $13.5 million from the Santa Monica Housing Trust Fund, along with the conveyance of a city-owned parking lot valued at approximately $5.4 million, totaling $18.9 million in public assets. Redirecting these limited local resources places long-term senior Santa Monica residents, many of whom have waited decades on the affordable housing list at a clear disadvantage, undermining the purpose for which the project was presented to the community.
Further, we are compelled to note that during the January 13, 2026, City Council meeting, the discussion from the dais did not substantively engage with the conflict-of-interest and procedural issues raised by residents. Instead, those concerns were set aside in favor of generalized policy arguments regarding the importance of affordable housing, without addressing the specific ethics, disclosure, and due process violations identified, particularly those involving Councilmember Jesse Zwick. Based on the dialogue and conduct of the Council during that meeting, which reflected avoidance rather than direct transparency, residents have serious reservations as to whether the issues raised are receiving the thorough, independent legal review their gravity requires.
We are requesting substantive legal analysis and corrective action, not procedural performance or generalized policy justification.
Accordingly, we respectfully request a meeting with your office and City Manager Oliver Chi to discuss:
1. The appropriate corrective and re-ratification process for Agenda Item 11A;
2. The scope of councilmember recusals necessary to ensure an untainted vote; and
3. The legal and policy implications surrounding the project’s funding sources and approvals.
Given the project timeline and the significance of the issues raised, clarity from your office regarding the status of this request is critical to ensuring that Agenda Item 11A receives appropriate corrective review.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
3 Respectfully submitted,
Elaine Korowitz
Mid-Wilshire Resident
Kazia Schulloff
Mid-Wilshire Resident
Soon Chung
Mid-Wilshire Resident
Vadim “Dima” Volovik
Mid-Wilshire Resident
Monique Medolovitz
Mid-Wilshire Resident
MID-WILSHIRE NEIGHBORS
Ashley Oelsen
SANTA MONICA NEIGHBORS
On behalf of concerned residents of the Mid-Wilshire neighborhood Cc:
Santa Monica City Council
City Manager Oliver Chi
Fair Political Practices Commission
California Attorney General’s Office
Northeast Neighbors
SM Mid City Neighbors
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition
Friends of Sunset Park
North of Montana Association
Pico Neighborhood Organization
Santa Monica Daily Press
Enclosure:
Letter sent on behalf of Mid-Wilshire Residents on January 8, 2026 “RE: URGENT: Request to Include HCHC Agenda Item 11A in Ratification Proceedings Due to Ex Parte Communications and Council Member Conflicts of Interest”
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
1 January 8, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Heidi von Tongeln
Interim City Attorney
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: URGENT: Request to Include HCHC Agenda Item 11A in Ratification Proceedings Due to Ex Parte Communications and Council Member Conflicts of Interest Dear Ms. von Tongeln:
We respectfully request that the City Attorney’s Office investigate potential conflicts of interest, undisclosed ex parte communications, and procedural violations related to the Santa Monica City Council’s December 17, 2024 vote approving Development and Disposition Agreements with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (HCHC) for the properties located at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211–1217 Fourteenth Street, and 1402 Wilshire Boulevard (Agenda Item 11A).
We further request that this matter be placed on a forthcoming City Council agenda for consideration of ratification or rescission, consistent with the remedial actions currently being undertaken in response to Councilmember Jesse Zwick’s documented conflict of interest arising from his simultaneous service on the City Council and employment as a housing lobbyist.
City staff has requested that the City Council ratify prior housing-related actions taken since July 2025, when Councilmember Zwick’s conflict arose. Agenda Item 11A involving Hollywood Community Housing Corporation should be included in that ratification review alongside other affected housing-related actions.
I. VOTING RECORD – DECEMBER 17, 2024
The following Councilmembers voted in favor of Agenda Item 11A: Jesse Zwick, Natalya Zernitskaya, Caroline Torosis, Dan Hall, Barry Snell, and Ellis Raskin. As detailed below, substantial conflicts of interest and procedural violations affected at least three of these votes.
II. MAYOR PRO TEM ZWICK – IMPROPER EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS California Public Records Act responses document private communications between Council Member Zwick and HCHC Executive Director Sarah Letts during active City Council proceedings.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
2 June 25, 2024 (CPRA Response R031384):
During an active council meeting while residents provided public comment opposing the HCHC project, Council Member Zwick emailed Sarah Letts from the dais: "I'm writing from council, where 30 mid-city neighbors are angrily denouncing the project and possessed with a lot of misinformation. Hopefully some of it can be cleared up at these meetings… but fair warning I imagine they will be hot."
August 27, 2024 (CPRA Response R033709):
During an evening council meeting, Council Member Zwick sent a private email directly to Sarah Letts asking: "Is this the course of action you want to pursue, or would you prefer to stick to the original proposal?" Ms. Letts replied directly to Zwick: "We are now fully behind this alternate proposal."
Legal Analysis:
DDA approvals are quasi-judicial proceedings requiring impartial decision-makers who base decisions solely on the public record. Under Government Code Section 11430.10 et seq. and established due process principles, ex parte communications are prohibited unless disclosed on the record with opportunity for all parties to respond. Council Member Zwick's communications—characterizing resident concerns as "misinformation" and soliciting the applicant's preferred course of action—were not disclosed on the record and constitute grounds for invalidating subsequent HCHC-related votes.
DDA approvals are quasi-judicial proceedings. When the City Council decides whether to approve a specific contract with a specific applicant, it acts in a judicial capacity—weighing evidence, determining facts, and applying legal standards to a particular matter affecting identifiable parties. Constitutional due process requires that decision-makers in quasi-judicial proceedings: remain impartial and free from bias; base their decisions solely on the record developed at public hearings; avoid private communications with parties about the substance of pending matters; disclose any ex parte contacts on the record so other parties can respond.
Council Member Zwick violated every one of these principles III. MAYOR TOROSIS – UNDISCLOSED PROFESSIONAL CONNECTIONS Councilmember Caroline Torosis serves as a Senior Policy Director for Los Angeles County Supervisor Holly J. Mitchell.1
This employment relationship creates a significant and
undisclosed conflict of interest with respect to the December 17, 2024 City Council vote.
According to HCHC’s own public website and project materials, the Office of Supervisor Holly J. Mitchell is specifically identified as the government partner for multiple HCHC developments operating throughout Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County, acting through Supervisor Mitchell’s office, is also listed as the public sponsor or governmental partner for several of these 1 Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Supervisor Holly J. Mitchell Office, Senior Policy Director role description and policy portfolio, including workforce development and economic opportunity (County organizational materials and public staff listings).
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
3 projects. These designations reflect formal intergovernmental relationships involving public financing, approvals, and County participation.2
As a senior staff member in Supervisor Mitchell’s office, Councilmember Torosis holds policy responsibilities over workforce development and economic opportunity, subject areas that are directly implicated in affordable housing development and related public funding decisions. The intergovernmental financial relationships publicly attributed to Supervisor Mitchell’s office therefore directly intersect with Councilmember Torosis’s professional role and responsibilities.3 During the December 17, 2024, City Council meeting, Councilmember Torosis remarked to HCHC representative Sarah Letts that she had “heard great things about you,” indicating prior familiarity or communications.4
Despite this, Councilmember Torosis made no disclosure on the record of any preexisting professional relationship with HCHC or its representatives, nor did she recuse herself from participation.
Critically, Councilmember Torosis moved the motion to approve the HCHC agreement, which was seconded by Councilmember Jesse Zwick.5 Her direct role in advancing the item, combined with her employment in the office that HCHC itself identifies as its government partner, raises serious questions regarding compliance with Government Code section 87100 et seq.6 and the City’s Code of Ethics7 and warrants immediate review.
IV. COUNCIL MEMBER ZERNITSKAYA – LEVINE ACT VIOLATION
An FPPC complaint has been filed regarding Councilmember Zernitskaya’s potential violation of Government Code section 84308 (the Levine Act).
John Maceri, CEO of The People Concern, contributed $400 to Councilmember Zernitskaya’s campaign ($250 on May 28, 2024 and $150 on June 26, 2024). On December 17, 2024, less than twelve months later, Councilmember Zernitskaya voted in favor of the HCHC DDA. 2 Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (HCHC), Project Descriptions and Partner Listings, publicly identifying the Office of Los Angeles County Supervisor Holly J. Mitchell as the government partner for multiple HCHC developments (HCHC website, project pages). See also Los Angeles County, acting through Supervisor Holly J. Mitchell’s office, listed as public sponsor or governmental partner for HCHC developments involving public financing and intergovernmental participation.
3 See note 2, supra. 4 City of Santa Monica City Council Meeting, December 17, 2024, video recording and meeting transcript, remarks by Councilmember Caroline Torosis directed to HCHC representative Sarah Letts (“I’ve heard great things about you”), reflecting prior familiarity (meeting observation and public record). 5 City of Santa Monica City Council Meeting, December 17, 2024, agenda item record and motion history, reflecting that Councilmember Caroline Torosis moved approval of the HCHC agreement and Councilmember Jesse Zwick seconded the motion (official minutes and agenda materials). 6 Gov. Code § 87100 et seq. (Political Reform Act of 1974) (prohibiting public officials from making, participating in, or influencing governmental decisions in which they have a financial interest). 7 City of Santa Monica Code of Ethics and Conduct, conflict of interest and disclosure provisions applicable to City Councilmembers (City of Santa Monica Municipal Code and ethics policies).
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
4 The People Concern is expressly identified in the staff report as HCHC’s designated supportive services provider for the project, responsible for case management and services for the permanent supportive housing units.
Government Code section 84308 prohibits an official from participating in a proceeding involving a party who has contributed more than $250 within the preceding twelve months. We request that your office review Councilmember Zernitskaya’s disclosures and determine whether her participation violated the statute.
V. PUBLIC TRUST & FINANCIAL COMMITMENT
The HCHC project entails a 99-year commitment of public land and approximately $13.5 million in Housing Trust Fund resources. Residents, particularly those in the Mid-Wilshire neighborhood directly affected by these developments, are entitled to confidence that the decision was made free of undisclosed ex parte communications, prohibited campaign influence, or professional conflicts of interest.
VI. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
1. Government Code section 84308 (Levine Act)
2. Government Code section 87100 et seq.
3. Government Code section 11430.10 et seq.
4. Due Process Clause, U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment
5. California Constitution, Article I, section 7
VII. REQUESTED ACTIONS
We respectfully request that the City Attorney’s Office:
1. Include Agenda Item 11A involving Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (December 17, 2024) in list of City Staff’s recommended ratifications alongside other affected housing-related actions.
2. Investigate Councilmember Zwick’s undisclosed ex parte communications.
3. Investigate whether Councilmember Torosis had undisclosed relationships requiring disclosure or recusal.
4. Provide a written determination regarding whether any votes were legally compromised.
5. If violations are confirmed, declare the approval void and require a new vote with conflicted members recused.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
5 CONCLUSION
If Councilmember Zwick’s housing votes require ratification due to employment-related conflicts, then votes affected by undisclosed ex parte communications, campaign contributions from direct beneficiaries, and professional conflicts warrant equivalent scrutiny.
The documented communications demonstrate conduct incompatible with the impartiality required in quasi-judicial proceedings. Prompt action is necessary to ensure that any corrective measures can be addressed alongside other affected housing-related actions.
Respectfully submitted,
Elaine Korowitz
Mid-Wilshire Resident
Kazia Schulloff
Mid-Wilshire Resident
Soon Chung
Mid-Wilshire Resident
Vadim “Dima” Volovik
Mid-Wilshire Resident
MID-WILSHIRE NEIGHBORS
Ashley Oelsen
SANTA MONICA NEIGHBORS
On behalf of concerned residents of the Mid-Wilshire neighborhood cc:
Santa Monica City Council
City Manager Oliver Chi
Fair Political Practices Commission
California Attorney General’s Office
Northeast Neighbors
SM Mid City Neighbors
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition
Friends of Sunset Park
North of Montana Association
Pico Neighborhood Organization
Santa Monica Daily Press
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
6 Enclosures:
1. CPRA Response R031384 – Email Exchange: Zwick/Letts (June 25, 2024) [attached]
2. CPRA Response R033709 – Email Exchange: Zwick/Letts (August 27, 2024) [attached]
3. HCHC Government Partners: https://hollywoodhousing.org/about-hchc/
4. Supervisor Holly Mitchell’s Team Roster: https://mitchell.lacounty.gov/teammitchell/
5. December 17, 2024 Staff Report, Agenda Item 11A:
https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1421
6. NetFile Campaign Finance Records (Maceri contributions to Zernitskaya):
https://public.netfile.com/pub2/?aid=CSM
7. News articles re: Jesse Zwick FPPC ruling (December 2025):
Santa Monica Daily Press: https://smdp.com/state-regulators-say-councilman-zwick-isconflicted-on-housing-votes/ Westside Current: https://www.westsidecurrent.com/santa_monica/former-bonin-advisorchallenged-over-potential-conflicts-on-santa-monica-council/article_0129454b-0f6c-4a0e-81d4- 595f8c626fb5.html
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
From: Sarah Letts
To: Jesse Zwick
Subject: Re: Wilshire Sites - proposed affordable housing Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 7:41:12 PM
Attachments: image001.png
EXTERNAL
Hello Jesse,
Thank you for letting me know. I’m busy tonight and plan to listen to the public comment tomorrow.
All my best,
Sarah
On Jun 25, 2024, at 6:26 PM, Jesse Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Sarah,
I’m writing from council, where 30 mid-city neighbors are angrily denouncing the project and possessed with a lot of misinformation.
Hopefully some of it can be cleared up at these meetings… but fair warning I imagine they will be hot.
From: Sarah Letts <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 at 3:55 PM
To: Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>
Subject: Wilshire Sites - proposed affordable housing
EXTERNAL
Hello Councilmember Zwick,
I hope you are doing well. I’m reaching out to make sure you’ve heard that Hollywood Community Housing will host two more community meetings to discuss the proposed affordable housing on the city-owned parking lots near Wilshire. Attached is the flyer for the community meetings on Monday, July 8th (in-person at St. Anne’s) and Wednesday, July 10th (Zoom). If you want to share information with your constituents, we are asking people to register for the community meetings via the project website so we can estimate the number of attendees. https://hchcsantamonica.org/community-meetings/ Please let me know if you have questions or would like to schedule a time to talk.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
From: Sarah Letts
To: Jesse Zwick
Subject: Re: Agenda Items 16-J - comment submitted by HCHC Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 8:00:20 PM
Attachments: image001.png
EXTERNAL
Good question and thank you for asking. We are now fully behind this alternate proposal.
Our Gramercy Place Apartments in mid-City LA is 64 units for people 55 and older and half of the units are PSH for seniors aged 55+. Gramercy is serving the residents and the neighborhood really well, and we think our alternate proposal for Santa Monica will also be an excellent project.
On Aug 27, 2024, at 6:55 PM, Jesse Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Sarah,
Is this the course of action you want to pursue, or would you prefer to stick to the original proposal?
Jesse
From: Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 at 6:46 PM
To: Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Agenda Items 16-J - comment submitted by HCHC Doug Sloan
City Attorney
CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED
From: David White <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 3:31:16 PM
To: Heather Averick <[email protected]>; David Martin <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Agenda Items 16-J - comment submitted by HCHC FYI
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
<image002.jpg>
David White
City Manager
santamonica.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates
From: Sarah Letts <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>
Cc: David White <[email protected]>; Victoria Senna <[email protected]>; Kristin Gunther <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Items 16-J - comment submitted by HCHC
EXTERNAL
The following comment is submitted for agenda item number 16 J.
Dear Mayor Brock and Councilmembers,
Thank you for selecting Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (HCHC) as the developer for the Wilshire Sites and for authorizing the City to enter into the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement, signed in May 2024. Through the recent community engagement process, we have received, reviewed and categorized hundreds of public comments during in-person meetings, virtual meetings, public comment during council meetings and via the project’s website and email address. Based upon this feedback, we have explored other ways to configure the proposed project. The latest concept is to follow through with the plan to develop 45 units of affordable family housing located at 1217 Euclid Street, but to modify the proposal for the other 85 apartments.
As we explore alternate scenarios for the 85 apartments, our goal is to both address the needs of Santa Monicans and to bring housing resources to the City by competing for loans and tax credits from the State of California.
To the first point, we agree with community feedback that the development could prioritize low-income seniors aged 55 and over. The 2024 LA County homeless count identified nearly 1,400 people 55 and over experiencing homelessness in Service Planning Area (SPA) 5 which includes Santa Monica. This amounts to 25% of all homeless persons in SPA 5. As noted in the City’s Housing Element, Santa Monica’s senior population has grown to over 16,000 residents aged 65 and above. One of the policy priorities in the Housing Element is support for senior housing. Per state tax Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
credit application regulations Section 10325(g)(2)(A) for senior projects and the California Civil Code, qualifying residents of a senior building utilizing tax credit funding must be aged 55 years or older. This means if the building will include a senior age restriction, all units must be restricted by age not just a portion of the units.
To the second point, public financing from the state to build affordable housing is limited and highly competitive. For projects to successfully secure these resources they must be structured to maximize competitiveness based on funding program and policy priorities. Current public policy is focused on providing funds for developments that include supportive housing units. Projects that don’t include supportive housing units are unlikely to secure state resources. For example, on March 5th California voters passed Proposition 1, a $6.3 billion bond to fund housing for persons experiencing homelessness. There are also state funding programs with special set asides for senior housing that the project could access, but those funding programs also require a certain percentage of the project’s units be set aside for supportive housing. To put it simply, the inclusion of 40 supportive housing units for seniors aged 55 and over will allow HCHC to pursue state resources and minimize the amount of funding needed from the City.
For these reasons, HCHC recommends that in addition to developing 45 units of affordable family housing on Euclid, that the development include 85 units of senior housing, including 40 units of supportive housing for seniors aged 55 and over. We sincerely hope to have the opportunity to contribute to the City’s legacy of addressing the housing needs of all Santa Monicans.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sarah Letts and the HCHC Development Team
Sarah Letts | Executive Director (she/her – what is this?) <image001.png>
5020 Santa Monica Blvd. | Los Angeles, CA | 90029-2412
P: 323.454.6210 | F: 323.454.4677 | E: [email protected] www.hollywoodhousing.org | Facebook | Instagram
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Arroy Lincoln <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 3:51 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]; councilmtgitems; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Tati Simonian; City of Santa Monica; Code Enforcement; Planning; [email protected]; Parking; [email protected]; [email protected]; Housing and Human Services Department; [email protected]; Attorney Mailbox; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Urgent: Disabled Tenants Trapped by Developer Alley Closure — Immediate Action Required
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council Members, City Officials, and Members of the Press, What is currently happening at 1626 Lincoln Blvd in Santa Monica should alarm anyone who cares about civil rights, disability access, and basic human dignity.
A wealthy, out-of-town developer at 1650 Lincoln Blvd, next to Mel’s Drive-In, has been permitted to close the alley that provides the only access to underground parking for a residential building For THREE WEEKS starting today. The result is the complete elimination of ADA-compliant access for more than 12 disabled tenants and over 65 families.
These are elderly, disabled, and medically fragile residents — people who rely on wheelchairs, walkers, canes, and oxygen simply to move through daily life. Cutting off their parking access is not a scheduling inconvenience. It is dangerous, discriminatory, and degrading.
The building sits on a busy downtown corridor with zero street parking. The so-called “alternative parking” being discussed is reportedly ¼ mile away.
Asking disabled and chronically ill people to walk a quarter mile — often carrying medical equipment — is not an accommodation. It is a denial of access.
Observers are rightly asking:
How is this legal? How is this humane? And why is the City allowing it to continue? What stands out most is the power imbalance. A rich developer appears to have been given priority, while low-income and disabled residents absorb the harm. This looks less like routine construction management and more like wealth and influence overriding civil rights protections.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
2 Permits do not override the Americans with Disabilities Act, California accessibility law (Title 24), or fair housing protections. Temporary approvals do not justify weeks-long disability discrimination.
Allowing this situation to persist exposes the City to serious legal, ethical, and reputational consequences.
Tenants, community members and advocates are calling for immediate corrective action, including:
Immediate restoration of ADA-compliant access
Truly accessible, nearby parking, not a quarter mile away, and not for three weeks Transparency and accountability for the decisions that enabled this harm This is not a technical dispute.
It is a civil rights failure playing out in real time.
Disabled residents are being effectively told that their safety, health, and independence are secondary to a developer’s construction timeline. That message contradicts everything Santa Monica claims to stand for.
Photos, videos, documentation, and residents willing to speak publicly are available. The harm is ongoing, visible, and entirely preventable.
The question now is whether the City will act to protect disabled residents, or continue allowing wealth and convenience to outweigh the law and basic human decency.
Members of the press are copied on this email for transparency and public accountability.
Sincerely,
Tenants of 1626 Lincoln Blvd and Concerned Community Members and Disability Rights Advocates Santa Monica, CA
긒긓 818-425-2637 | 213-373-4256
긼긽긾긿김깂깁 [email protected]
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Arroy Lincoln <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 4:15 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]; councilmtgitems; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Tati Simonian; City of Santa Monica; Code Enforcement; Planning; [email protected]; Parking; [email protected]; [email protected]; Housing and Human Services Department; [email protected]; Attorney Mailbox; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Urgent: Disabled Residents Abandoned While City Sides with Wealthy Developer — ADA Crisis on Lincoln Blvd
EXTERNAL
Dear Members of the Press,
This is a story about power, neglect, and people being harmed in plain sight—and it is happening right now in Santa Monica.
A wealthy, out-of-town developer at 1650 Lincoln Blvd, next to Mel’s Drive-In, has been allowed to close the alley that provides the only access to underground parking for a residential building at 1626 Lincoln Blvd for three full weeks . As a result, ADA access has been effectively eliminated for more than a dozen disabled residents and over 65 families.
These are not abstract policy impacts. These are real people—elderly residents, people with disabilities, people undergoing medical treatment—some using wheelchairs, walkers, canes, or oxygen just to function day to day.
The building sits on a busy downtown corridor with zero street parking. The “alternative” being discussed is parking a quarter mile away.
For healthy people, that’s an inconvenience.
For disabled and medically fragile residents, it is dangerous, humiliating, and impossible.
What makes this story so disturbing is not just the hardship—it’s the imbalance of power.
A rich developer’s construction schedule has been allowed to outweigh the civil rights, safety, and dignity of vulnerable residents. City approvals appear to have been granted without regard for the Americans with Disabilities Act, California accessibility law, or fair housing protections. Whether intentional or not, the effect is the same: disabled people are paying the price.
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026
2 Residents are reporting:
Being unable to safely enter or leave their homes
Increased medical risk
Anxiety, fear, and distress
Loss of independence and basic mobility
This is not a “construction inconvenience.”
It is a civil rights failure unfolding in real time.
The City has been notified. Officials are aware. And yet, the situation continues.
That raises urgent questions the public deserves answers to:
Why was ADA access allowed to be cut off for weeks?
Why were disabled residents expected to absorb the harm? Why does a developer’s timeline matter more than federal and state law? This is a story about who gets protected and who gets ignored. About wealth and influence versus disability and vulnerability. About whether civil rights mean anything when they become inconvenient.
Photos, videos, documentation, and residents willing to speak publicly or on camera are available immediately.
Sincerely,
Tenants of 1626 Lincoln Blvd and Concerned Community Members and Disability Rights Advocates Santa Monica, CA
긒긓 818-425-2637 | 213-373-4256
긼긽긾긿김깂깁 [email protected]
Item 1
February 10, 2026
Item 1
February 10, 2026