1 David Yakobson
From: Nina Fresco <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 5:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Nina Fresco; Oliver Chi
Subject: Item 16b: Aligning Study of Aspects of the Landmarks Program Attachments: 2026-0210-CityCouncilLetter-Item16DelayingMillsActStudy.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council and City Manager,
The attached letter includes the recommendations of the Santa Monica Conservancy regarding Item 16b:
Request of Councilmember Raskin, Mayor Torosis, and Councilmember Hall to direct that the City Manager Deprioritize and Pause Analysis on Mills Act and Structure of Merit Revision Considerations, and to align Landmarks work plans with the implementation of the Landmarks Commission’s recommendations in “A Place for Everyone in Santa Monica’s History.”
Sincerely,
Nina Fresco
Nina Fresco
Vice-President
Santa Monica Conservancy
Item 16-B
February 10, 2026
Item 16-B
February 10, 2026
2520 SECOND STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
310-496-3146
www.smconservancy.org
Re: Item 16 Regarding the Mills Act Study and Other Historic Preservation Program Matters February 10, 2026
Dear City Council,
The Santa Monica Conservancy supports the pause and deprioritization of the Mills Act Program study proposed in the 16 Item tonight. Taking it one step further, we strongly advise against any more piecemeal changes to the Landmarks Ordinance or its associated programs and policies until the city can allocate sufficient resources to review the program holistically and restore the currently skewed balance between incentives and regulations.
Recently, hearings at the Landmarks Commission and City Council have brought to light a number of additional aspects of the preservation program that warrant review. The Conservancy has been aware of these issues for many years. Going forward the city needs to invest sufficient resources to examine the whole Landmarks Ordinance and its associated programs and policies to ensure that the balance between incentives and regulations is restored and the program becomes functional again.
The 16 Item proposes putting the discussion off for one year to allow implementation of the preservation equity recommendations in the A Place for Everyone in Santa Monica History report to begin. These recommendations are intended to bring access back to the program and so acting on them alone would not necessarily be in contradiction with this request. But, if the ordinance is subsequently changed, the work on the preservation equity recommendations would have to be realigned, duplicating efforts and wasting resources.
Best practice would be to update our ordinance and embed new programs and policies, so everything works together to ensure that our qualifying historic places are preserved according to the values and priorities of the City of Santa Monica. Let’s create a program with a balance between incentives and regulations that inspires broad participation.
Sincerely,
Mario Fonda-Bonardi
Board President
Santa Monica Conservancy
Item 16-B
February 10, 2026
Item 16-B
February 10, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Mike Terranova <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 11:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete
Subject: Agenda Item 16B
EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, and Councilmembers, We don’t need to continue the Mills Act analysis to know what to do here. Just pause the Mills Act program, as other cities already have. Long Beach paused its program when there were financial and resource constraints in the past, and Berkeley recently (as of Nov 2025) did the same amid budget shortfalls and growing concern that Mills Act tax relief primarily subsidizes wealthy property owners rather than addressing real financial distress. Berkeley’s pause was driven by fiscal reality and equity, not hostility to preservation, and it was the right call. (See:
https://www.dailycal.org/news/city/city-government/budget-crunch-prompts-city-council-toreconsider-tax-relief-for-historic-preservation/article_d6544d09-b6e7-44c9-afe7-e8233b683f38.html )
A temporary hiatus is a responsible, common-sense step when public resources are strained.
Continuing to approve new Mills Act contracts today simply locks in inequitable tax subsidies while diverting revenue from services that benefit everyone.
Item 16-B
February 10, 2026
Item 16-B
February 10, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Connor Webb <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 12:15 PM
To: Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Item 16B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Council,
I strongly oppose item 16B, which seeks to kick the can on Millis Act reform. The Mills Act likely costs the city and the school district millions of dollars per year. These subsidies include things like renovations on mansions worth $10M+.
The city has the audacity to subsidize these wealthy homeowners and simultaneously suggest a flat parcel tax that is the same for the ultra-wealthy with multi-million dollar mansions and lower income homeowners with modest homes on small lots.
The message is clear, Santa Monica supports tax breaks for the richest members in one of the wealthiest communities in the country while fighting for regressive taxes to fund the education of our children. That is not a message I am willing to tolerate, and I do not believe it is reflective of our city's values.
Millis Act reform cannot wait, especially in the current fiscal context of the city and school district.
Please vote no on item 16B.
Sincerely,
Connor Webb
Mid-City, 90404
Item 16-B
February 10, 2026
Item 16-B
February 10, 2026