Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, March 24, 2026

March 19, 2026
City of Santa Monica
City Manager’s Office
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
On behalf of Film Santa Monica, I am pleased to provide our support for the proposed waiver of the City’s portion of film application fees as outlined in the March 24 Realignment update.

This initiative represents a meaningful and strategic step toward strengthening Santa Monica’s brand and competitiveness as a premier and full-service filming destination. As production activity across the region becomes increasingly mobile and cost-sensitive, jurisdictions that proactively reduce barriers and offer targeted incentives are best positioned to attract and retain film and television projects.

The proposed fee waiver aligns directly with the incentive framework developed by Film Santa Monica, which emphasizes accessibility, high touch services, efficiency, and cost competitiveness. Comparable jurisdictions throughout California and beyond are actively implementing similar measures to incentivize production, and this action ensures that Santa Monica remains competitive within that landscape.

Beyond the immediate financial relief to productions, this policy will serve as a catalyst for broader economic impact supporting local businesses, generating hotel stays, increasing restaurant and retail activity, and reinforcing Santa Monica’s role as a film-friendly city.

Film Santa Monica is committed to our mutual goals and working in close partnership with City staff to maximize the effectiveness of this initiative. We believe this proposal sends a clear and compelling message to the industry: Santa Monica is open for business and ready to welcome production to our community.

We appreciate your leadership in advancing this effort and recommend its approval.

Evan Edwards Misti Kerns
Chief Operating Officer Chief Executive Officer
Film Santa Monica Film Santa Monica
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Debbie Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 7:12 PM
Subject: Agenda Item 11C: DTSM Entertainment Zone Expansion Support Letter Attachments: DTSM EZ Expansion Support Letter 3.23.26.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, and Honorable Council Members, As Council considers the expansion of the Entertainment Zone (EZ) in Downtown Santa Monica, the Board of Directors of Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM, Inc.) respectfully requests that the City Council support the proposed expanded boundaries, while ensuring that the operations and programming for such expansion remains at the full discretion of Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. The Board voted to support expansion of the program and recognizes the EZ’s potential to further strengthen Downtown Santa Monica’s economic recovery efforts.

DTSM, Inc. will continue to work closely with the SMPD to monitor activity levels, evaluate trends, and prioritize safety. Maintaining strong coordination with law enforcement remains central to the program’s continued success.

Most concerns raised centered on customer understanding of program rules rather than operational ones, indicating that clearer and more frequent marketing can strengthen the program.

The pilot EZ has been particularly effective as a tool to support organized Promenade activations.

During key events, results were significant. Oktoberfest doubled foot traffic on comparable dates, and the Dodgers World Series watch parties tripled attendance on event nights. These outcomes demonstrate that the EZ can serve as a flexible economic driver when strategically deployed.

At the same time, six months of data represents an initial phase, not a final evaluation. Continued operational refinement, business participation growth, rule clarity, staffing coordination, cost management, and ongoing collaboration with public safety partners will be essential to ensure the program delivers maximum yield and sustained return on investment. Additional time paired with careful management will allow DTSM, Inc. to evaluate how best to activate the EZ on both event and non-event days. With major global events approaching, including FIFA and the Olympic Games, Santa Monica has a rare opportunity to showcase itself on an international stage. Thoughtful expansion of the EZ will allow us to capitalize on these special moments and position Downtown as a vibrant and well-organized destination.

While the ordinance expansion allows for more business participation, the implementation should remain discretionary to DTSM, Inc. Expansion carries direct financial costs, operational management Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
2 responsibilities, safety oversight obligations, and liability considerations. In FY 2025/26, DTSM, Inc. budgeted over $200,000 to deploy Ambassador and Safety personnel, procure wristbands and signage, and promote the pilot EZ activations on Third Street Promenade. If the City expands the program to encompass the Downtown core, DTSM, Inc. must retain the authority to determine when and how the expanded district is activated to ensure the program is deployed responsibly and safely, while meeting clear success markers.

DTSM, Inc. is committed to working alongside City staff to evaluate participation levels, staffing capacity, security needs, insurance exposure, signage clarity, and overall program costs before deploying boundary adjustments. We foresee that any activation within new boundaries would need to occur incrementally, in coordination with the City, and only when DTSM, Inc. determines that appropriate operational safeguards and funding mechanisms are in place.

Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. looks forward to working collaboratively with the City to responsibly evolve the Downtown Entertainment Zone in support of our community’s continued recovery and long-term success.

In partnership,
Debbie Lee
CEO
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
1351 Third Street Promenade, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 393-8355 ext. 402
[email protected]
www.DowntownSM.com
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
March 23, 2026
Santa Monica City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: March 24, 2026 Council Meeting Agenda Item 11C
DTSM Entertainment Zone Expansion Support Letter
Dear Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, and Honorable Council Members, As Council considers the expansion of the Entertainment Zone (EZ) in Downtown Santa Monica, the Board of Directors of Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM, Inc.) respectfully requests that the City Council support the proposed expanded boundaries, while ensuring that the operations and programming for such expansion remains at the full discretion of Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. The Board voted to support expansion of the program and recognizes the EZ’s potential to further strengthen Downtown Santa Monica’s economic recovery efforts.

DTSM’s support is informed by performance data from the limited pilot phase on Third Street Promenade. Over the past six months, we’ve gained operational experience on how to encourage participation, while maintaining a safe and carefully managed environment. Early data indicates that the EZ, when actively monitored, is a viable program which is reflected in the public safety data provided by the Santa Monica Police Department (SMPD) and our Legion private security team. DTSM, Inc. will continue to work closely with the SMPD to monitor activity levels, evaluate trends, and prioritize safety. Maintaining strong coordination with law enforcement remains central to the program’s continued success.

Initial stakeholder feedback further supports the program’s potential. Thus far, businesses, residents, and visitors have responded positively. Food and beverage operators reported meaningful economic benefit. Still, due to the newness of the program, retail impacts have been mixed and limited in scope. Most concerns raised centered on customer understanding of program rules rather than operational ones, indicating that clearer and more frequent marketing can strengthen the program.

The pilot EZ has been particularly effective as a tool to support organized Promenade activations. During key events, results were significant. Oktoberfest doubled foot traffic on comparable dates, and the Dodgers World Series watch parties tripled attendance on event nights. These outcomes demonstrate that the EZ can serve as a flexible economic driver when strategically deployed.

Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
At the same time, six months of data represents an initial phase, not a final evaluation.

Continued operational refinement, business participation growth, rule clarity, staffing coordination, cost management, and ongoing collaboration with public safety partners will be essential to ensure the program delivers maximum yield and sustained return on investment.

Additional time paired with careful management will allow DTSM, Inc. to evaluate how best to activate the EZ on both event and non-event days. With major global events approaching, including FIFA and the Olympic Games, Santa Monica has a rare opportunity to showcase itself on an international stage. Thoughtful expansion of the EZ will allow us to capitalize on these special moments and position Downtown as a vibrant and well-organized destination.

While the ordinance expansion allows for more business participation, the implementation should remain discretionary to DTSM, Inc. Expansion carries direct financial costs, operational management responsibilities, safety oversight obligations, and liability considerations. In FY 2025/26, DTSM, Inc. budgeted over $200,000 to deploy Ambassador and Safety personnel, procure wristbands and signage, and promote the pilot EZ activations on Third Street Promenade. If the City expands the program to encompass the Downtown core, DTSM, Inc. must retain the authority to determine when and how the expanded district is activated to ensure the program is deployed responsibly and safely, while meeting clear success markers.

In partnership,
Debbie Lee
Chief Executive Officer
CC: DTSM, Inc. Board of Directors
City Manager Oliver Chi
City Attorney Heidi von Tongeln
Interim City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
Assistant City Manager Susan Cline
Deputy City Manager Peter James
Police Chief Darrick Jacob
Community Development Director Jing Yeo
Economic Development Manager Jennifer Taylor
Acting Planning Manager Ross Fehrman
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Deepa Subramanian <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 6:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Realignment plan

EXTERNAL
Dear Sir,
I want to begin by acknowledging the critical goals of the Realignment Plan. Public safety, essential city services, and fiscal stability are undeniably the foundation of our community's recovery. However, I am here to urge that arts and culture be given equal weight within this framework.

Our cultural landscape is not a luxury; it is a primary engine of our economic vitality and a cornerstone of our civic identity.

As we look to 'Activate Economic Opportunity' and 'Achieve Safe Neighborhoods,' we must recognize that a thriving arts scene fills our storefronts, supports our small businesses, and makes our public spaces feel truly welcoming.I look forward to working with you to ensure that Santa Monica’s 'Renaissance' is defined by its creativity as much as its stability.

Also, I request you to elevate the role of cultural affairs so that they , be included in planning discussions, etc) and consider support for local arts and artists and not just arts for tourists.

Regards
Deepa Subramanian
Arts Commissioner
Former Chair , PAC
Santa Monica
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: James Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 7:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Oliver Chi; Carter Rubin; Randi Parent; David Newberg; Misti Kerns; Peter Trinh; Julieta Giner; Nicholas Rolston
Subject: Letter from SM Pier Corporation Board of Directors Regarding City Council Agenda Item

11.C.

Attachments: City Council Support Entertainment Zone 03-10-26.docx.pdf Santa Monica City Council Members;
Attached please find a letter from the Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board of Directors in support of the Entertainment Zones on the Pier as defined in the March 24, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 11.C. Santa Monica Realignment Plan Update.

Thanks, and all best regards,
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
March 17, 2026
Mayor Caroline Torosis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: March 24, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 11.C. - Entertainment Zone for Events on Santa Monica Pier
Dear Honorable Mayor Torosis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council:

At its February 9, 2026 meeting, the Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board of Directors received a presentation from Santa Monica City Staff regarding the City’s plans to establish Entertainment Zones on the Santa Monica Pier’s parking deck and west end venues as part of special events. The Pier Corporation Board of Directors unanimously voted to support this proposal.

In May 2025, the SMPC adopted a resolution (attached) regarding efforts to support economic recovery in the Santa Monica community, which included our support for designating the Santa Monica Pier as an Entertainment Zone, pursuant to SB 969 (Wiener, 2024), with the geographic extent, hours of operation, and other parameters to be determined in consultation with Pier tenants, stakeholders, and the City.

We look forward to working with City Staff on implementing the Entertainment Zones during special events in a way that enhances the Pier experience for visitors, tenants, stakeholders and the City.

Respectfully,
Carter Rubin, Chair
Santa Monica Pier Corporation
Jim Harris, Executive Director
Santa Monica Pier Corporation
200 SANTA MONICA PIER, SUITE A, SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
1 Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Keenan McCardle <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 1:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Proposed Changes to City Staff Remote Work Policy Good afternoon Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
My name is Keenan McCardle, a current City employee. I'm writing today with regards to the proposed changes to the City's remote work policy that we've been told will be presented at the Council meeting on March 24th.

While I do not know the full language of the final proposal, as that has not been shared with staff ahead of time, I have thoughts on what information has been shared so far.

First, I fully support the idea of providing additional benefits for staff who do not or cannot work remotely due to either personal preference or job requirements. Many City jobs require personal interaction with the public and the people who have chosen those roles deserve both recognition and support.

However, I do not support almost anything else in the proposed policy changes. Under the current policy, remote work scheduling is flexible and coordinated with the worker's supervisor. This flexibility allows staff to work on days that they might otherwise need to take time off for, scheduling around children or health concerns while still being able to complete their work. Furthermore, there are some jobs that simply do not require time to be spent in an office. Allowing staff with those roles to work remotely whenever their supervisor feels that is appropriate has numerous proven benefits; from reduced traffic and pollution to better mental health and work life balance for the employee. There is significant evidence that allowing flexible remote work is beneficial to both employer and employee, often improving productivity overall.

I also strongly disapprove of the way the new policy has been created. The policy was developed almost in secret, with little to no input from staff who will be the most impacted. The policy has also not been officially announced to staff, it was shared with leadership from the bargaining units and it was up to them to share the details with everyone else. That that sharing only happened about a week prior to the Council meeting shows that the City Manager is aware of how unpopular the changes will be and that he is not interested in hearing feedback. Additionally, by including an offer that amounts to "if you don't like it, there's the door" for staff who have made life decisions based on the current policy is both cruel and antithetical for an organization that claims to value its employees and the work they do.

I urge you all to consider the negative impacts these policy changes will have to both staff and the City in general and to direct the City Manager to reconsider the proposal. If the current remote work policy needs to be adjusted it should be done so with the input of City staff and maintain options for flexibility.

In today's world, finding ways to reduce traffic, pollution, and other resources while improving worker's lives is paramount. It's hard enough and expensive enough as it is.

Thank you.

Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Brigette Garay
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 4:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell
Cc: Oliver Chi; Sarah Rebensdorf; Dana Brown; Heidi von Tongeln Subject: Item 11-C; Urgent Request for Flexibility in Proposed Remote Work Policy- Realignment Plan Update
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing as a City employee regarding the Santa Monica Realignment Plan Update scheduled for your consideration on March 24. While I support the City’s broader goals of improving public safety, strengthening operations, and achieving fiscal stability, I urge you to reconsider the proposed changes to the Remote Work Program and direct staff to incorporate greater flexibility.

As a long-time employee with approximately 19 years of service to the City, I have seen firsthand how workplace policies impact employee retention, morale, and the City’s ability to sustain an effective workforce.

For approximately six years, many employees have successfully worked under hybrid arrangements without any decline in productivity or service delivery. Departments have continued to meet operational goals, and in many cases, performance has improved.

The proposed shift to a standardized Tuesday–Thursday in-office schedule represents a significant rollback of a system that has already proven effective.

From a personal standpoint, this change would have a meaningful impact. I live approximately 17 miles from the office, and my commute during peak traffic ranges from about one hour on a good day to up to two hours on a bad day, each way.

My current hybrid schedule allows me to manage that commute while maintaining productivity and fulfilling all job expectations. Just as importantly, it allows me to be home with my child in the evenings and maintain a healthier work-life balance. That balance has had a significant positive impact on my overall well-being and ability to sustainably perform in my role.

I would also note that changes of this nature may disproportionately impact employees with caregiving responsibilities. Hybrid schedules have allowed many employees to better manage family obligations while continuing to meet their professional responsibilities.

Reducing that flexibility may create additional challenges for working parents and caregivers, which could have broader impacts on employee retention and workforce stability.

Additionally, I am concerned that the proposal, as currently structured, creates an imbalance in how workplace equity is being applied. Many employees who work fully in person do so because their job duties require it, not by choice.

Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
2 While those roles absolutely deserve recognition, the current proposal results in those employees receiving an additional benefit—96 hours of leave annually—while remote-eligible employees are being asked to give up an existing benefit that has been in place and working successfully for years.

I also note that the inclusion of an opt-out program suggests that the City anticipates some employees may find the proposed structure incompatible with their circumstances. This raises concerns about potential impacts on retention—particularly among experienced staff—and reinforces the importance of ensuring the policy is as balanced and flexible as possible before implementation.

This approach risks creating unintended consequences, including decreased morale, perceptions of inequity, and increased turnover among experienced staff.

At a time when the City is working to stabilize operations and retain talent, reducing flexibility for a significant portion of the workforce may undermine those goals.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Council to direct staff to revise the proposal before adoption, including:
 Allowing department-level flexibility rather than imposing a rigid citywide standard  Preserving existing hybrid schedules where they have proven effective  Reassessing how equity measures are structured to avoid disadvantaging remote-eligible employees
 Implementing any changes as a pilot program with measurable outcomes, rather than a permanent shift
Maintaining flexibility is not simply a workplace preference—it is a critical component of employee retention, recruitment, and long-term organizational stability. Many public agencies continue to rely on hybrid models for this reason, and Santa Monica has already demonstrated that such models can work successfully.

I respectfully ask that you take these impacts into account and ensure that any policy changes reflect both operational needs and the realities facing your workforce.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Brigette Garay
Senior Legal Analyst
City Attorney’s Office
1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Tel: 310.458.8318 Fax: 310.395.6727
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Juan Matute <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 8:29 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell
Cc: Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: Moving Safe Streets From Analysis Paralysis to Action

EXTERNAL
Hello Mayor Torosis and City Council Members,
Tomorrow, as part of the re-alignment plan update, you will consider moving the mobility division into the Department of Public Works. I support this reorganization, as it aligns with best practices identified by the National Association of City Transportation Officials. In moving mobility planners from the DOT to Public Works, the city has an opportunity to move from slow-moving, waterfall-based planning processes to a more agile approach to safe streets that benefits more Santa Monicans more quickly.

I have published a new piece in Santa Monica Next on Why Santa Monica Needs More Agile Streets, in which I argue for rapid and widespread deployment of "quick build" style traffic safety treatments, which will produce evidence of where hardening is needed, resulting in a data-driven, city-wide approach to traffic safety and transit priority infrastructure.

Thank you all for your hard work on council.
-Juan
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Gina Gribow <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 9:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Letter of Support Item 11C - Anheuser-Busch
Attachments: Letter of Support Item 11C.pdf

EXTERNAL
To whom this may concern,
On behalf of Anheuser-Busch, please find a letter attached in support of Item 11C – Santa Monica Realignment Plan Update.

Thank you.

All the best,
Gina
Gina Gribow
Senior Vice President
[email protected]
Office: 213.741.1500 x547
Cell: 925.999.5896
2335 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 115
Pasadena, CA 91107
www.ekapr.com
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Genevieve Fenster
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 10:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Proposed Changes to Remote Work Policy
Dear City Council,
I hope everyone is doing well.

I live in West LA, so the remote work policy isn’t really an issue for me, and I don’t have kids.

I just wanted to point out that most of my workmates have a commute of over an hour. While Covid was a worldwide disaster, I do believe that it inadvertently created a way to a better quality of life for many people. We are in the office 10 hours a day, so with their commute, some of them are gone for 13 hours. I think they miss breakfast, lunch and dinner with their kids. It would be nice to give them some flexibility on hours so that they don’t miss the whole evening with the kids.

As for productivity, our caseload is really heavy, so everyone has to be online working no matter what and where we are. Otherwise, we would absolutely not be able to keep up.

Best Regards,
Genevieve Fenster
Paralegal
City Attorney’s Office
1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Tel: (310) 458-8392
[email protected]
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 10:13 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Support 11C: Santa Monica Forward Support for the Santa Monica Realignment Plan

EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers,
Santa Monica Forward supports the continuation of the Santa Monica Realignment Plan and the associated budget, personnel, fee, and policy actions that enable its implementation. The Realignment Plan is already showing results, according to the staff report: serious criminal offenses are down 12.5% and traffic citations more than doubled between 2024 and 2025, the city’s budget is on track to run a surplus by fiscal year 2027-2028, and building plan check performance is at 92.5% for on-time first round reviews. Reorganizational moves reflect a commitment to operational efficiency and deliver better results for the city.

The economic indicators - elevated retail and office vacancy and declining restaurant and hotel sales - demonstrate that more needs to be done to drive economic recovery. We support the proposed Economic Development Fund, Entertainment Zone expansion and major event programming such as music festivals to catalyze private reinvestment.

We also urge the City to continue to prioritize road safety and consider the creation of a dedicated Vision Zero czar in the City Manager’s Office and a formal Mobility Commission that would provide the cross-department accountability this issue requires. Additionally, the city should consider ways to achieve the goals of the Transportation Demand Management program that are less burdensome for businesses, such as leveraging location data.

Thank you for your leadership,
Sam Shapiro-Kline and Brad Ewing
Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward
--
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.

SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 10:18 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi
Subject: City Cnl. Mtg. - 3/24/26 - Item 11C - Santa Monica Realignment Plan Update - Where is the Realignment Plan budget and actuals reporting promised when this was rolled out?

EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and City Councilmembers,
The Realignment Plan is described as a plan to transition towards operationalizing performance gains as new service delivery standards for public safety renewal, revitalization of key public spaces, and achievement of organization stability and fiscal balance. With the large plan I have yet to see the budget and actual reporting to ensure we are going in the right direction. We have used cash reserves and other one time funding to kick-start the program as well as establishing higher labor and operating costs e.g., police pensions from additional police hires.

I would request a budget be developed for the plan to show how we viewed this plan would generate additional revenue in support of increased ongoing cost as well as the costs we incurred and sources so we can review on a quarterly basis whether the actuals are tracking to the plan or not. In government, the budget is the key guiding tool to ensure we are moving to fiscal balance. If we have issues, then adjustments can be made. A key question for me, have we identified or developed enough sustainable revenue i.e., beyond one time sources to cover the additional ongoing costs that we have put in place eg., police pensions or have we cut costs enough to not need new sustainable revenue. I'm sure you've done the numbers and I'd appreciate a modified income statement with a budget to show the ongoing results (once a quarter).

Thank-you for your feedback and consideration on this recommendation that I think the entire city will benefit from to be able to see how we are doing on the Realignment Plan vs. reading a 57 page staff report and 14 attachments sent out last Friday. A cost accounting basis with budget and actuals of this plan would give greater visibility to residents and achieve the city council's goal of greater transparency and accountability since the Realignment Plan has become the omnibus of city actions. I also believe this was promised in the initial presentation to neighborhoods. This Realignment Plan budget and actuals can be the ongoing tool to show the successful implementation or need for readjustment as necessary on an ongoing basis. I want the Realignment Plan to be successful and would appreciate a simpler presentation to show that success or need for update, change or deletion of items.

I still am against the parcel tax. Condo and single family homeowners will bear the burden of this ongoing regressive tax. Why should I as a condo owner, pay the same as the Fairmont Miramar or as a 20 unit apartment building?
Many thanks,
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
3 Elizabeth Van Denburgh
837 Lincoln Blvd., Unit 11
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: Ashley Olson
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 10:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Criminal Division Operational Considerations – Proposed Remote Work Policy Changes
Hello City Council Members,
Re: Criminal Division Operational Considerations – Proposed Remote Work Policy Changes This is intended to provide some context regarding how the proposed remote work changes could impact the Criminal Attorney Division. Equity should reflect operational realities rather than impose uniform standards on divisions with fundamentally different functions.

The Criminal Attorney Division operates under a distinct intake and deadline structure. Our work relies on digital intake of police reports from the Police Department on a 24/7 basis. Case review, charging decisions, subpoena issuance as needed, discovery requests for each case, and court filings are document-based processes governed by statutory deadlines and court calendars.

The division is currently experiencing increased demand. In December 2025, referrals to the Criminal Division increased by approximately 40% compared to December 2024, as noted in the City Manager’s report. Arrest data further reflects this pace of intake: 119 arrests (Jan 25–31), 107 (Feb 1–8), 100 (Feb 8–14), 96 (Feb 15–21), and 114 (Feb 22–28), totaling 732 year-to-date compared to 426 during the same period last year.

Each arrest generates documentation requiring legal review, case preparation, data entry, deadline tracking, and coordination as appropriate. Reports from approximately 232 sworn officers are funneled through a single Legal Analyst before distribution among four Legal Assistants and six attorneys. This concentrated intake structure requires sustained coordination and efficiency to manage the steady flow of cases generated by increased enforcement activity.

Attorneys and staff may be required to work beyond traditional business hours to accommodate court calendars and urgent filings. The division’s workflow is continuous and time-sensitive; case volume accumulates regardless of staffing levels, including when employees take leave, requiring redistribution of work to maintain continuity. If employees were to retire or separate, the resulting loss of institutional knowledge and caseload redistribution would further intensify operational strain.

Requiring three full eight-hour in-office days would reduce the flexibility that has supported workflow management under these conditions. Over the past several years, the current hybrid structure has supported sustained productivity and continuity of operations. Based on the division’s experience, this model has functioned effectively and aligned with operational needs.

The division remains committed to delivering timely, high-quality services in support of public safety.

We respectfully request that operational distinctions and current workload realities be considered in evaluating any changes to remote work policy.

Thank you,
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
5 Ashley Olson
Legal Assistant, Criminal Prosecution Unit
City Attorney’s Office
1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Tel: 310-434-2623 | Fax: 310-395-6727
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
6 David Yakobson
From: ME Michaels <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 10:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Realignment Plan (Item 11C) – Keeping Santa Monica’s commitment to ensuring a vibrant arts and cultural landscape for locals and visitors alike Attachments: Public Comment Realignment Plan (Item 11C) - Mary-Elizabeth Michaels.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick and City Councilmembers, I write as a member and immediate past chair of the Santa Monica Arts Commission and 25+ year resident of Santa Monica. As you consider the proposed Realignment Plan (Item 11C) tonight, I encourage you to do so with a goal of keeping Santa Monica’s commitment to ensuring a vibrant arts and cultural landscape for locals and visitors alike.

I specifically encourage you to consider the following as you deliberate:
 Ensure arts and culture are explicitly included in economic development investments, including a dedicated allocation from the proposed Economic Development Fund to support local artists, cultural organizations, and community-based programming.  Embed Cultural Affairs in the planning and implementation of Entertainment Zones and major event activations, including the FIFA World Cup, Olympic programming, and Downtown initiatives, to ensure local cultural voices and artists are centered. Santa Monica has extremely experienced and professional leaders and staff in the Cultural Affairs division. Please make sure to include them in the room where decisions are made to ensure the best outcome for Santa Monica.
 Require that City-supported events and activation programs include paid opportunities for local artists and cultural producers, recognizing the creative workforce as an essential part of Santa Monica’s economic recovery.
 Balance large-scale, tourism-driven events with sustained investment in local arts programming that serves residents and reflects Santa Monica’s diverse communities and cultural identity. Santa Monicans pay taxes to live in the city and we are the ones here everyday – please help to ensure that Santa Monica remains an art forward city.  Protect and invest in cultural spaces and venues, including community-serving sites like the Miles Playhouse, as essential infrastructure for ongoing cultural activity and public engagement.  Incorporate cultural metrics into the City’s Realignment performance framework, ensuring that arts and culture are measured, valued, and sustained as part of Santa Monica’s long-term revitalization strategy.

And though not specific to tonight’s discussion, I also want to note my support for ensuring that the Airport Conversion Project remains committed to the creation of a public space that reflects the city’s values across culture, sustainability, and community. And, as the citizens of Santa Monica have voted and advocated on multiple occasions, NOT include housing.

Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
7 Sincerely.

Mary-Elizabeth Michaels
Santa Monica Arts Commission

Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
8 David Yakobson
From: Ariel Pepper
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 11:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda 11C Public Comment
Attachments: Public Comment - Agenda 11C.pdf
Good Morning,
Please see the attached document for public record concerning Agenda 11C regarding Remote Work Program Modifications.

Sincerely,
Ariel Pepper
santamonica.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
3/24/26
Public Comment for City Council Meeting March 24, 2026 – Agenda 11C: Remote Work Program Modification Dear City Council Members and City Manager,
As a City employee and City of Santa Monica resident, while I commend the efforts to promote safety and stability, and to elevate city services, there is choice language within the latest Realignment Staff Report and direction that does not seem to consider the ground-level perspective of the employee. Specifically, the Tuesday through Thursday mandated inperson policy creates tension with existing employees, impacts the ability to retain and attract talent, doesn’t align with operational realities for the diverse positions throughout the City,and will put stress on limited physical resources.

Colleagues have been diligently reconsidering practices and adopting new policies in effort to meet City leadership’s vision that has been communicated with us. We do this despite the budget reducing staffing compared to pre-Covid level, and currently being unable to fill open roles for extended periods of time. My own division within Department of Transportation has been actively recruiting for multiple positions for months, while colleagues execute the duties of multiple roles.

We are human, so we can empathize with community goals and try to provide excellent service. We are human so we have human limits as well. A healthy work-life balance allows us to navigate the mounting tasks with vigor. A healthy work-life balance requires consideration that not everyone has the privilege to live near where they work, typically due to costs or did not have the ability to find housing before prices surged to historic unequal levels. Some people have family members (of all ages) that expectedly or unexpectedly need attention. A colleague shared that before the flexible telework practice, she had to take multiple weeks of sick time to attend to a family member which resulted in backlog of work upon her return. With the flexible practice and improved technologies that were adopted due to Covid, she was able to take work calls remotely during a similar experience and reduced backlog upon her return to typical duties.

Collaboration is achievable when leadership, technology, and energy supports the environment to do so.

Equality is not equity as demonstrated in salary scales, bargaining agreements, and external conditions that contribute to each person’s unique path through life. Having a standardized Tuesday-Thursday in-office requirement tries to fit everyone in black and white boxes while ignoring the nuance of greys that build an environment.

Across departments and across professions we all have different resources at our disposal. City Hall East, which to my knowledge has never experienced 100% occupancy, is still experiencing operational issues including but not limited to high temperatures (as high as 84 degrees inside on a 88 degree day), inadequate amount of meeting spaces, elevated noise (due to open concept) that interfere with work activities, a broken elevator for extended period, spotty Wi-Fi, broken keycard machines, broken technical equipment in the meeting rooms, and sewer smells. If 100% occupancy is achieved, in-person demands will put stress on the physical space. The determining methods to see how the limited onsite resources will be assigned will in itself likely be unequal as inevitably someone (some team) will be drawing the short stick and have to try to manage with the noisy conditions.

It appears that the current hybrid policy has a net negative financial impact on the City as it reduces stress on the physical building, parking, and is a free benefit to attract candidates and retain talent. Those who already have in-person duties may have staggered schedules or resources already allocated to support the in-person status. If the mandated Tuesday-Thursday schedule is passed, the costs to maintain the physical building will likely increase (ie: climate control, facilities supplies, overall maintenance due to increased use), the stress on physical resources will be present (limited Civic Structure parking spaces, limited meeting spaces, elevated noise), and employee morale will be decreased.

I fear that a more stringent telework policy will prolong recruitment, reduce employee retention, and further stress those who stay with the City which may cause decreased performance from the public’s perspective. It seems like there is a squeeze for economic revitalization in part at the expense of the public worker.

Ariel Pepper
Department of Transportation – Mobility Division
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
9 David Yakobson
From: Ethan K <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 11:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Susan Jain; Sofia Klatzker
Subject: Public Comment on 11 C Realignment Plan

EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and City Councilmembers,
As a member of the Santa Monica Arts Commission, I write in support of the direction of the Realignment Plan update and the City’s focus on public safety, service delivery, and economic recovery. Given Santa Monica’s fiscal constraints, it’s especially important that the investments we are making now both drive near-term activation and strengthen the city’s long-term identity, competitiveness, and resilience.

If we want a recovery that is economically credible and authentically Santa Monica, arts and culture should be built into the strategy from the beginning.

Santa Monica’s advantage is not just location. It’s a distinct sense of place shaped by our creative community, cultural institutions, school programs, and the broader ecosystem of artists and creative industries that make this city feel different from every other beach city in the region.

There is a real opportunity to strengthen Santa Monica's own creative economy as we expand the Entertainment Zones and build activations tied to Downtown, the World Cup, the Olympics, and other major events.

I would encourage Council to:
 Dedicate a portion of economic development and activation funding to local arts and cultural programming that supports both tourism and local engagement.  Embed Cultural Affairs in Entertainment Zone and major event planning, so local cultural voices are built in from the start.
 Require paid opportunities for local artists and cultural producers in City-supported events and activations.
 Include arts and culture in the Realignment scorecard, so these investments are measured as part of the City’s broader revitalization strategy.

Thank you,
Ethan Karetsky
SM resident and member of the Santa Monica Arts Commission Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
10 David Yakobson
From: Cody Reed
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 11:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 11-C; Work From Home Policy Changes
Good afternoon,
I would like to begin by noting that the proposed modifications to the work-from-home program do not significantly impact me, as I typically choose to work in the oƯice most days. However, I am concerned that the changes outlined are both short-sighted and lack necessary flexibility.

When Oliver Chi first joined the City, he emphasized the importance of attracting and retaining top talent.

Reducing opportunities for remote work runs counter to that goal. As private sector employers and neighboring jurisdictions continue to oƯer more robust and flexible work-from-home options, it is worth considering what incentives remain for employees to join or stay with the City.

The current proposal does not appear to account for common, real-world circumstances. If an employee becomes ill on an in-oƯice day, the lack of flexibility may leave them with the choice of either coming into the oƯice while sick or taking a full day oƯ. In many cases, employees would prefer to remain productive while working remotely, particularly to avoid exposing colleagues to illness. Most of the current oƯice spaces are open-oƯice concepts, allowing germs and illnesses to impact entire teams. Similar challenges arise for employees with caregiving responsibilities, such as those with young children or aging parents. Allowing flexibility in these situations can support both employee well-being and continued productivity.

The work-from-home program has functioned successfully for several years, and numerous studies continue to indicate that remote work supports or even enhances productivity. The outcomes delivered through the Realignment Plan outlined in this staƯ report were all accomplished while staƯ were working under the current work-from-home policy. I believe this data should be considered prior to making any sweeping changes.

There is also a potential operational impact to consider. Employees with significant institutional knowledge may choose to leave or seek opportunities elsewhere if flexibility is reduced. This raises questions about continuity, workload distribution, and the resources required to recruit and train replacements. Our recent ATA survey showed that 24% of survey respondents were contemplating participating in the Opt-Out program.

If this work-from-home modification were to move forward, I believe it would benefit from further evaluation and input, particularly from the employees most directly aƯected.

In the interest of equity, it may be more eƯective to expand benefits for those who cannot work from home rather than reduce the benefits for those who can. For employees whose roles do not allow for remote work, alternative forms of compensation or flexibility should be considered such as oƯering cashable leave options rather than additional non-cashable days, which can be diƯicult for field staƯ to utilize.

Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
11 Thank you for your consideration of these perspectives.

Cody Reed
Administrative Analyst
Resource Recovery and Recycling
Questions about trash and recycling in Santa Monica?
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Bob Adams (DC36) <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 11:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: MTA-AFSCME Letter
Attachments: MTA-AFSCME Letter Item 11C.pdf

EXTERNAL
Please include this letter for the record for agenda item 11C Thank you
Bob Adams
Business Representative
AFSCME Council 36
South Bay Office
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 11:54 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Oliver Chi; Darrick Jacob; Matthew Hallock; Santa Monica Protective Assn.

Subject: Agenda Item: 11 C-6 (Concerns from the Community)

EXTERNAL
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
The Board of the North of Montana Association (NOMA) is writing regarding Item 11C-6 on tonight's agenda — the proposed ordinance establishing the Montana Avenue Entertainment Zone.

NOMA supports a vibrant and safe Montana Avenue and also recognizes the economic and community benefits that a well-managed entertainment zone can provide. However, NOMA has significant concerns about the proposed zone's expansion from 6th Street to 17th Street, and we respectfully request that the Council address the following issues before adoption.

A) **Buffer Zone Around Roosevelt Elementary School**
Roosevelt Elementary School sits directly within the proposed zone's footprint. The ordinance as written would authorize open container alcohol consumption seven days a week from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. — hours that encompass the school day, after school pickup, and weekend family use. Roosevelt's playground and fields represent the only dedicated green space for families in this part of our neighborhood after school hours AND on the weekends.

NOMA's request: NOMA strongly urges the Council to establish a buffer zone of at least one city block (including after school hours and weekends) around Roosevelt Elementary School prior to adoption of this ordinance.

B) **Public Safety and Police Presence**
The introduction of open container privileges along a twelve-block corridor will undoubtedly increase demand for public safety resources.

NOMA's request: NOMA asks that the Council clarify what level of additional police presence will be allocated to Montana Avenue, and that this commitment be incorporated into the Management Plan Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
2 before the ordinance is finalized.

C) **Residential Neighborhood Impacts**
Montana Avenue is bordered by dense residential streets with limited parking. NOMA is concerned that visitors consuming alcohol within the entertainment zone may return to vehicles parked in adjacent neighborhoods while impaired.

NOMA's request: We ask that the Management Plan include specific, enforceable measures to address this risk — whether through signage, enforcement protocols, or coordination with ride-share services.

These are solvable problems, and the NOMA Board looks forward to working constructively with the City to address them. We hope the Council will consider these concerns before voting to adopt the staff recommendations this evening.

Our Co-Chair, Matt Goldenberg, will be presenting these concerns in person during public comment tonight and we are available to discuss further.

Respectfully submitted,
The Board of Directors
North of Montana Association (NOMA)
NOMA'S Next Meeting: THUR APRIL 2nd
at 7pm on Zoom
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81526517066
smnoma.org
[email protected]
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: ALAN MONT <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Cc: Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Oppose a portion of Item 11C7

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am writing to express concern regarding a portion of Item 11C7.

If the proposed expansion of entertainment zones applies only to limited-duration special events such as FIFA and the Olympics, I would be supportive. However, if the expansion would apply on an ongoing basis under conditions similar to those currently in place on the Third Street Promenade, I must oppose it.

The existing program has been in place for less than a year and is still being refined, with impacts and best practices not yet fully understood. It would take only one serious incident or misstep to undermine public confidence and set back the progress that has been made. There is no clear urgency that justifies moving so quickly, and allowing the current program to grow and mature before expanding it citywide would be the more cautious and responsible approach.

Thank you for your consideration.

Alan Mont
Resident
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: Soloff, Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 11:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete
Cc: [email protected]; SMRR - Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights Subject: 3.24.2026 Agenda Item 11C -- Study of Nonprofit Housing Development Entity Attachments: CC 3..24.26 Agenda Item 11-C - SMRR Letter Regarding Proposal To Study Nonprofit Housing Development Entity.pdf

EXTERNAL
PLEASE PRINT OUT THE ATTACHED LETTER FROM SMRR. THANK YOU.

Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
March 24, 2026
To: Santa Monica City Council
Re: 3.24.26 Agenda Item 11C—Study of Nonprofit Housing Development Entity Dear Councilmembers:

We are writing to provide comment on Staff’s request 22, under Item 11C, for direction to study the creation of a nonprofit housing development entity.

Although the Staff Report is written at a high level of abstraction, SMRR understands that Staff is proposing that the City explore the creation of social housing—that is, nonprofit housing that serves in the same housing-complex households at a variety of income levels, including households with incomes above the State defined lower and moderate income levels. 1 SMRR
further understands that Staff believes such housing can be financed using conventional financing secured by the projected income stream of the project, rather than Low Income Housing Tax Credit (“LIHTC”) financing.

SMRR strongly supports the City’s exploration of how to develop such social housing and conventional financing streams. The LIHTC program is simply too small to meet the demand for lower income housing, and does not even attempt to address the housing needs of moderate and middle income households. The inclusionary affordable housing created by market rate development likewise is too small to meet the demand for lower or moderate income housing, and—particularly in Santa Monica—does not address the housing needs of middle income households.

Of course, support for a general concept does not mean that SMRR will support all aspects of any particular proposal to begin implementing a social housing model. The devil is almost always in the details, and SMRR urges in the strongest possible terms that any concrete proposal be made available to the public for study and comment at an absolute minimum two weeks in advance of any consideration of such a proposal by Council.

SMRR also requests that Council obtain additional clarity tonight on the following aspects of the concept being advanced by Staff:
1 The Staff Report refers to this as “workforce housing”. While this term has become popular in some housing circles, SMRR strongly opposes its use because it suggests that lower income and moderate income households in particular are not part of the workforce, which is both demeaning and false. SMRR requests that Staff and Council use a different term, such as middle income housing.

Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026

1. Does Staff currently envision that the social housing development will use LIHTF or other State and federal funding programs? If so, how will the decision be made whether to prioritize the social housing developments versus the more traditional affordable housing projects?

2. Does Staff currently envisioned that the social housing development will use City affordable housing funds (either Housing Trust Fund monies or Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund monies)? If so, how will the decision be made whether to prioritize the social housing developments versus the more traditional affordable housing projects?

3. What does Staff mean by a “City-aligned nonprofit housing entity”?

4. Why does Staff believe that a new entity is required as opposed to using Community Corporation of Santa Monica, which was created through City leadership long ago and has long worked closely with the City?
Thank you for considering our views on this important matter.

Sincerely,

Denny Zane Mike Soloff
Co-Chair, Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights Co-Chair, Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
5 David Yakobson
From: Bruce Leddy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 11:59 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Cc: Matt Goldenberg; Bruce Leddy
Subject: 11 C - Drunk on Montana Ave

EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers - Montana Avenue is thriving: a quiet, beautiful, pedestrian shopping district featuring multiple wellness outlets, boutique clothing stores, coffee shops, and restaurants. And into this you would like to add all-day public drinking? To what end? Who needs to start drinking at 8am every day of the week while they're shopping for mattresses or getting their nails done? How much revenue would actually be generated versus the cost of disorderly conduct and the driving away of families and regular patrons at local businesses? And to make this idea even worse, why would you include the blocks where Roosevelt School is located on Montana between Lincoln and 9th? This is an utterly ludicrous proposal and I urge you to reconsider before you ruin one of the only successful business districts in Santa Monica.

Bruce Leddy
Co-Chair NOMA
(writing for myself as a 26 year resident)
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
6 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 11:56 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete
Cc: Oliver Chi; Anuj Gupta; Jason Kligier; [email protected] Subject: Opposition to Agenda Item 11C-f,
Attachments: 2026-03 SM Spoke SaMoSSA Oppose Pause TMO Survey.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, City Council Members, and City Manager Chi:

Please find the attached letter expressing our concerns on pausing the annual TDM survey requirement for employers with 30-259 employees -- a key tool for collecting data on commuting patterns, measuring Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR), and identifying opportunities to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips.

Cynthia Rose & Cris Gutierrez
--
Cynthia Rose
Director
Santa Monica Spoke
SMSpoke.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.

Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
A community group dedicated
to biking and walking in Santa Monica.

Working to make the
City of Santa Monica a
more sustainable,
bikeable & walkable place to live, work and play.

March 24, 2026

RE: Opposition to making the submission of annual employee vehicle survey an optional requirement for employers with 30-249 Employee / TDM Survey Requirement — Agenda Item No. 11C-f, City Council Regular Meeting 03/24/202.

Dear Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, City Council Members, and City Manager Chi:

On behalf of Santa Monica Spoke (SM Spoke) and the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance (SaMoSSA), members of the GoSaMo TMO, we write to acknowledge the City’s Realignment Plan as a significant effort in setting forth policies and programs that can move the City in a direction of rebuilding its fiscal resources. We must, however, question a proposed pause of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) survey requirements for businesses under the Santa Monica Realignment Plan’s Recommendation for New Economic Development Strategies / Transportation Demand Management Program Modernization (section 2 from staff report)
Strategic choices are essential and due care and diligence must be taken not to undercut the very policies and programs that have systematically advanced our promoting sustainable transportation, reducing traffic congestion, and supporting climate action goals. Santa Monica’s TDM ordinance plays a vital role in facilitating business employers’ responsible commuting practices that align with the business community’s long-term success. The survey also promotes education about potential transportation possibilities.

Our City’s effort, with Council’s expectations, to use evidence-based best practices relies on good data.

What the City measures has immense value. In fact, we value what we measure. As Santa Monica works toward being a less car-dependent city, the annual TDM survey requirement is a key tool for collecting data on commuting patterns, measuring Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR), and identifying opportunities to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips.

Even throughout the pandemic the survey, although we altered it slightly, still provided essential measurement based on good, continual data. Omitting these requirements now would undermine the City’s ability to monitor and enforce its TDM goals, especially as businesses continue to stabilize post-pandemic. Keeping the clear, uninterrupted, regular TDM survey as the baseline is necessary for businesses to know the parameters and rules to carry out good work. To change the survey requirements increases uncertainty for businesses. Small businesses, in particular, need support of predictable responsible requirements as they do their part in meeting the city’s and community’s climate goals.

The survey process ensures accountability and provides the data needed to evaluate the effectiveness of TDM strategies. Without it, the City would be sliding backward, losing momentum on improvements and achievements and would risk losing relationships with employers that are contributing to the reduction of transportation-related emissions and congestion. Shifting the TDM legal obligations is unwarranted and, frankly, dangerous at a time when global warming has hit new highs.

Just yesterday, the World Meteorological Organization announced its stunning finding: “The Earth’s climate is more out of balance than at any time in observed history, as greenhouse gas concentrations drive continued warming of the atmosphere and ocean and melting of ice, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These rapid and large-scale changes Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
have occurred within a few decades but will have harmful repercussions for hundreds – and potentially thousands – of years.”
As The The Global Tipping Points Report 2025 declares, “The world has entered a new reality.

Global warming will soon exceed 1.5°C. This puts humanity in the danger zone where multiple climate tipping points pose catastrophic risks to billions of people.” Santa Monica’s Climate Action and Adaptation goals are serious obligations requiring an overarching alignment that our City has sought diligently to heed. The TDM survey helps us track the means of transportation that can reduce our GHG emissions, help reduce traffic congestion and lead us toward a less car-dependent future. In fact, Santa Monica’s TDM survey contributes to a positive tipping point that is profoundly needed. With the City and the GoSaMo TMO, SM Spoke and SaMoSSA have created many ways for residents, students and neighbors to reduce car-use as a primary means of travel, and the TDM survey helps assure that businesses also have the tools to do their part.

Moreover, the City has made efforts to streamline compliance and support businesses through resources like the GoSaMo TMO. These tools make it easier for employers to meet their obligations and participate meaningfully in the City’s mobility initiatives. Businesses succeed with dutiful accounting.

We urge the Council to maintain the TDM survey requirements and continue leading by example in sustainable transportation. A relaxation in requirements is actually a form of climate denial that would have us moving backward at a time when data-driven decision-making is more important than ever for us to advance our climate leadership and goals and the role that businesses are taking in accomplishing those. Thank you for making sure that our local Alignment Plan is in sync with climate realities and resilience and the walkable, bikeable city we aspire to be.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose
Director, Santa Monica Spoke Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance SMSpoke.org
SaMoSafeStreets.org
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026
Item 11-C
March 24, 2026

Santa Monica City CouncilMarch 24, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
March 24, 2026