Agenda packet — Santa Monica City Council, May 26, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

The estimated annual cost to operate the FHSZ inspection program is approximately $363,024 with personnel costs representing the primary expense. To support long-term program sustainability, the study recommends implementation of a cost-based fee structure that includes defensible space inspection fees, re-inspection fees, AB 38 inspection fees, and landscape inspection and review fees.

A phased implementation strategy emphasizing education, voluntary compliance, and progressive enforcement is recommended to support community acceptance and operational effectiveness.

Overall, this study concludes that the Santa Monica Fire Department is well-positioned to continue providing high-quality EMS and community risk reduction services but would benefit from enhanced cost recovery methodologies, formalized wildfire compliance procedures, and ongoing evaluation of staffing and operational demands. The recommendations contained within this report are intended to improve fiscal sustainability, maintain regulatory compliance, strengthen wildfire resilience, and support the department’s ability to meet the evolving service expectations of the community.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 1 Section I:

EMS SERVICE

FEE STUDY
Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 2 EMS SYSTEM OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION
The Santa Monica Fire Department (SMFD) is an all-hazard organization that responds to all types of man-made and naturally occurring emergencies. SMFD’s Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system is vital to the city's public safety and health care delivery. The EMS system provides pre-hospital care and transportation to the residents and visitors of Santa Monica. SMFD is part of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LEMSA), which provides emergency medical care to residents and visitors of the region.

Operating from five fire stations, the department deploys seven advanced life support (ALS) engine companies and one ALS assessment/Advanced Provider Unit (APU), staffed by highly trained professionals who respond to over 17,000 calls for service each year. SMFD runs six ambulances staffed with EMTs and responds to 9-1-1 calls for medical emergencies. SMFD also has fire trucks equipped with ALS capabilities that can provide initial response and patient stabilization.

SMFD collaborates with nearby fire agencies, communication centers, and hospitals to ensure the prompt and coordinated delivery of EMS services. SMFD adheres to the medical oversight and protocols set by the county's designated Local EMS Agency (LEMSA).

SMFD operates a tiered ALS first responder and ambulance model typical of an urban fire-based EMS system. Key features include ALS fire engine first response, BLS ambulance transport units, integrated clinical oversight, and transport to regional hospitals. About 77% of all fire department responses are EMS-related incidents, reflecting the medical nature of modern urban fire service demands.

The following figure illustrates the breakdown of “EMS” calls, including those in the “Fire” and “Other” categories (e.g., good intent calls, investigations, etc.). For the given data from 2023–2025, EMS Calls account for approximately 77% of the call volume, Fire accounts for 4.3%, and “Other” calls account for approximately 19%.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 3 Figure 1: EMS Responses (2023–2025)

REGIONAL AND STATE OVERSIGHT
SMFD operates within a multi-layered EMS regulatory structure typical of California fire-based EMS systems. Medical services are delivered locally but governed by regional and state EMS authorities.

Primary oversight entities include:
• Local EMS Authority: Los Angeles County Department of Health Services ▪ Functions as the Local Emergency Medical Services Agency (LEMSA) responsible for EMS system planning, provider certification, clinical protocols, and system performance monitoring within Los Angeles County.
▪ Establishes medical treatment protocols, scope of practice standards, and system performance requirements for all EMS providers.
• State Oversight: California Emergency Medical Services Authority ▪ Provides statewide regulatory oversight for EMS systems and sets minimum standards for certification, licensure, and EMS operations.

Within this framework, SMFD acts as a fire-based ALS first responder and ambulance transport provider operating under county-approved medical protocols and quality assurance standards.

75.4% 76.5%

79.7%

4.1% 4.5% 4.5%

20.5% 19.1%

15.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
2023 2024 2025

EMS FIRE OTHER
Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 4 FIRE DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP AND COMMAND STRUCTURE
SMFD is organized into five divisions: Administration, Suppression & Rescue, Training, Prevention, and EMS. EMS functions are integrated into both the Suppression & Rescue Division and the EMS Division, ensuring clinical oversight while maintaining operational efficiency.

EMS program management within the department is organized through a dedicated EMS leadership structure:

Fire Department Chain of Command (EMS -related)
• Fire Chief
• Deputy/Assistant Chief (Operations Oversight)
• EMS Battalion Chief (Division Head)
• EMS Captains (3)
• EMS Coordinator (Registered Nurse)
• Firefighter/Paramedics assigned to the Advanced Provider Unit (APU) The EMS Battalion Chief serves as the principal administrator for EMS operations and is responsible for:
• EMS system planning and implementation
• Clinical performance monitoring
• Training and continuing medical education (CME) oversight • EMS equipment, supply management, and regulatory compliance • Coordination with hospitals, the county EMS agency, and regional partners This structure provides both operational oversight and clinical coordination, ensuring alignment between field operations and medical direction.

The EMS Battalion Chief oversees three EMS Captains, an EMS Coordinator, and personnel assigned to the APU, which makes up the EMS Division and is responsible for clinical protocol implementation, EMS training and continuing education, quality assurance and performance monitoring, equipment standardization and inventory control, EMS data collection and reporting, and community health programs.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 5 Except for the Ambulance Operators (AO), SMFD personnel are cross-trained for fire suppression and EMS response. Current staffing levels include approximately 170 EMT-Basic providers and 65 licensed paramedics. All operational firefighters maintain at least an EMT certification, with a substantial portion credentialed as paramedics. This staffing model supports a department-wide ALS-firstresponder capability.

A key component of the current EMS system is the Advanced Provider Unit (APU), an integrated mobile health resource pairing a nurse practitioner with a firefighter/paramedic. This unit provides:
• Advanced field assessment
• Treat-in-place capability
• Behavioral health and chronic care intervention
• Follow-up coordination for vulnerable patients
The program was developed to reduce unnecessary emergency department utilization and improve continuity of patient care.

First Responder Advanced Life Support System
SMFD operates a fire-based ALS first responder system. Key features include:
• ALS capability on all engine companies
• Rapid paramedic response from neighborhood stations
• BLS ambulance transport units integrated into the response model • Advanced mobile health resources (APU)
This system ensures that advanced medical care begins within minutes of dispatch, significantly improving survival rates for critical conditions such as cardiac arrest, stroke, and severe trauma.

Firefighter-paramedics provide advanced interventions, including:
• Cardiac monitoring and defibrillation
• Advanced airway management
• Intravenous medication administration
• Trauma stabilization
• Prehospital ECG transmission to hospitals
Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 6 EMS Quality Assurance and Performance Management
SMFD maintains a formal EMS clinical quality management program. Core QA components include clinical key performance indicators, incident and chart review, Medical Director participation, provider performance feedback, quarterly quality improvement reports, and patient complaint processes.

The EMS Division tracks system performance through response-time monitoring, clinical outcome tracking, protocol-compliance review, and audits of patient-care reports.

Patient outcomes are tracked through manual review by the EMS Coordinator and coordination with receiving hospitals. System improvement initiatives are guided by findings from the quality improvement committee, data-driven performance evaluation, research participation, and clinical protocol development.

Ambulance Transport System
SMFD recently transitioned to an in-house ambulance transport system utilizing a dedicated Ambulance Operator (AO) Program. Program characteristics include:
• Six staffed ambulances
• Two-person EMT crews
• Integrated response with firefighter-paramedics
• 120 scheduled daily ambulance unit hours
The program replaced a longstanding contract transport model and aims to improve response efficiency and clinical integration.

Community Health and Mobile Integrated Healthcare Programs SMFD uses a Mobile Integrated Healthcare (MIH) approach for high-utilization patients and vulnerable populations. Program components include:
• Frequent EMS user management
• Care coordination services
• Fall prevention initiatives
• Community CPR education
• Bystander emergency preparedness training
These programs support the broader EMS goal of reducing system strain while improving patient outcomes.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 7 Regional Healthcare Transport Destinations
Primary receiving hospitals include:
• Providence Saint John's Health Center
• UCLA Santa Monica Medical Center
• Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center (online medical control—base station) These facilities offer a variety of specialized care, including trauma, cardiac care, and advanced critical care services.

Records Management and Data Systems
SMFD uses an electronic patient care reporting (ePCR) platform:
• Digital EMS (transitioning to First Due in 2026)
• NEMSIS compliant
• HIPAA compliant
• Integrated with CAD systems
The transition to a unified First Due records management system (RMS) will integrate fire and EMS records to improve system analytics and operational decision-making.

EMS Communications and Dispatch
Emergency calls are processed through a criteria-based Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) system.

Capabilities include:
• Pre-arrival instructions for callers
• EMD quality assurance monitoring
• Time-stamped incident tracking (call received, dispatch, arrival, patient contact, transport, hospital arrival)
This structured dispatch system supports rapid response and improved patient outcomes by providing early-intervention instructions, including CPR and airway management guidance.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 8 SMFD EMS System Overview Summary
The Santa Monica Fire Department operates a modern, integrated fire-based EMS system combining ALS first response, in-house ambulance transport, and innovative community health initiatives. The system is governed by Los Angeles County EMS protocols, supported by dedicated medical direction, and strengthened by robust quality improvement processes.

Recent enhancements, including the Advanced Provider Unit and in-house ambulance program, demonstrate a strategic shift toward system efficiency, community paramedicine, and patientcentered care.

Together, these components position the Santa Monica Fire Department as a progressive municipal EMS provider capable of delivering rapid, high-quality prehospital medical care within a coordinated regional healthcare system.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 9 EMS STAFFING & PERSONNEL
The following section outlines SMFD’s current staffing levels and their relevance to EMS delivery. Any staffing recommendations based on this review will be in the Recommendations section of this report.

STAFFING INTRODUCTION
The size and structure of a fire department’s staff depend on its specific needs. These must directly align with the community’s needs and funding capacity, and a structure that works for one department may not necessarily work for another. As an all-hazard emergency response department, SMFD’s staffing is crucial to providing safe and efficient services.

Several national organizations recommend standards to address staffing issues. The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) Respiratory Protection Standard and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1710 are frequently cited as authoritative documents. The Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) publishes benchmarks on the number of personnel recommended on the emergency scene for various risk levels. The staffing and personnel needs depend heavily on the type of system, call volume, and the department's and community's overall needs.

Organizations must commit to consistency, fairness, safety, and growth opportunities. These values will be the foundation of the overall organizational culture. There are always challenges as organizations grow. Leadership and staff will face ambiguity, a changing environment, and the need for collaboration. Creating a positive culture is an opportunity to build a long-term, sustainable organization.

A key element of a healthy organization is balancing administration, support staff, and operational resources. This study and analysis will examine the current ratios for each part of the organization and offer recommendations for a combined staffing model. Staffing considerations could enhance service delivery. This process will review various organizational charts and establish a framework for future staffing.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 10 Administrative Support Staffing
The following figure illustrates the administrative support staffing. All these positions are funded as of FY 2023–24.

Figure 2: EMS Non-Uniformed Administrative Staffing
Position Title FTE Hours
Worked/Week Work Schedule
EMS Coordinator (Registered Nurse) 1 40 hours Full-time Contracted Nurse Practitioners 5 part-time 10–20 Part-time Total: 1 FTE + PT
The following figure illustrates the uniformed administrative and support staff for SMFD.

Figure 3: EMS Uniformed Administrative & Support Staff
Position Title FTE Hours
Worked/Week Work Schedule
Battalion Chief – EMS 1 40 hours Full-time
Fire Captain – EMS 3 56 hours Full-time
Firefighter/Paramedic (APU) 3 56 hours Full-time
Total: 7
Operational Staffing Levels
Organizational success is based on a safe working environment, equitable treatment, the opportunity for input, and recognition of the workforce's commitment and sacrifice. Organizational priorities should correlate with the community. This section overviews SMFD’s current staffing configuration, particularly in delivering EMS.

The operational staff is usually the face of any fire service organization because of their frequent interaction with the citizens they serve. This group is involved in nearly every aspect of the organization’s operations.

For SMFD, this includes fire suppression, emergency medical response, technical rescue, vehicle extrication, fire investigations, fire safety inspections, public education, building plan reviews, and hazardous materials response.

The next figure summarizes SMFD’s budgeted operations staff positions. This includes full-time and part-time employees who are primarily assigned to provide emergency services at the operational level.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 11 Figure 4: Uniformed Operational Staff
Position Title FTE
Deputy Chief 2
Battalion Chief 7
Captains 32
Engineer 27
Firefighter/Paramedics 26
Firefighter 25
Ambulance Operators (not included in total below) 19.4 (March 24, 2026) Total: 119
Staff Scheduling Methodology
Staff scheduling involves creating a timetable for employees, including selecting the days and hours they will work and the tasks they will handle. There are various staff scheduling methods that organizations can adopt, including:
• Fixed schedule
• Rotating schedule
• Flexible schedule
• On-call scheduling
• Part-time scheduling
The current staff scheduling uses fixed shifts for fire and EMS resources. SMFD staffs five fire stations, housing seven ALS engine companies, one ALS assessment truck company, and six BLS ambulances.

Each fire station has one fire engine, and the truck company is located at Station 1.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 12 A typical daily staffing plan for the Santa Monica Fire Department is as follows: During each 24-hour shift, the department assigns one on-duty Battalion Chief, working on a 56-hour FLSA schedule (structured as a 48/96 or a 24-hour Kelly schedule variant). Field operations include multiple engine and truck companies staffed with one Captain, one Engineer, and two Firefighters or Firefighter/Paramedics per company, with at least one Paramedic on each ALS apparatus to ensure advanced life support services. Additionally, the department operates dedicated ambulance units staffed by two Ambulance Operators, who often work a 40-hour or modified 42-hour workweek (not on the 56-hour FLSA), sometimes on 12-hour or 10-hour shifts to cover peak activity times. Meanwhile, suppression personnel (Captains, Engineers, Firefighters, and Firefighter/Paramedics) stay on the 56- hour FLSA schedule aligned with platoon cycles. This staffing approach helps the department balance suppression readiness with high EMS call volumes by utilizing both cross-trained Paramedic Firefighters and dedicated transport units.

No matter which staffing or scheduling method an organization chooses, it is essential to consider factors such as the organization's needs, employee preferences, rising call volumes, and legal or regulatory requirements when creating schedules. Regularly reevaluating these programs helps organizations adapt to industry changes and serve community needs. Peak-hour staffing demonstrates how to adjust to community conditions.

Beyond the listed categories, departments need to use data to choose a deployment and staffing model that best fits their community's needs. A framework based on unit hour utilization (UHU), effective response force (ERF), call concurrency, fractile analysis, and coverage liability (the likelihood of unit availability) provides essential information to guide staffing decisions. To support this, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 1710) sets staffing and response standards linked to ERF and turnout/travel times. The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) highlight data-driven deployment models rather than static schedules.

Firefighter/EMS Staff Distribution
SMFD utilizes firefighters in suppression and EMS rescue functions. The size and complexity of a city can pose specific challenges, and Santa Monica has addressed them through a diverse allocation of resources. The current model emphasizes getting the most qualified person to the scene as quickly as possible. This model gets the most qualified personnel to the scene quickly on each call, and patient care is seamless as SMFD responds in its own ambulances. SMFD’s daily operations are managed by one Battalion Chief, with five stations and seven ALS engine companies, one ALS assessment truck company, and six ambulances. SMFD falls on the upper end of their span of control.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 13 Figure 5: Battalion 1 (Suppression) Staffing Model
Unit BC Captain Engineer Firefighter/
Paramedic Non-Safety EMT
Battalion Chief 3 3
Station 1
Engine 3 3 6
Engine 3 3 6
Truck 3 3 3
BLS Ambulance 1 and 6 *8
Utility (REM)
Reserve RA
Rescue Utility
Reserve BC
RU-1
3 RU-1
3 Station 2
Engine 3 3 6
BLS Ambulance 6
Utility and USAR (CS)
Reserve Engine
Station 3
Engine 3 3 3 6
Engine 4 3 3 6
BLS Ambulance 3 & 4 *8
Station 5
Engine 3 3 6
BLS Ambulance 6
Haz Mat Unit (CS)
Haz Mat Utility (CS)
ARFF Unit (CS)
ARFF Utility (CS)
Station 7
Engine 3 3 6
Medical Cart (CS)
Utility (CS)
*One BLS ambulance is staffed for 24 hours, while the other one is staffed for 12 hours daily.

SMFD provides constant staffing at 1 BC, 10 Captains, 9 Engineers, and a combination of 17 Firefighters or Firefighter/Paramedics.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 14 Staff scheduling within the Santa Monica Fire Department is driven not solely by traditional shift models, but by a data-informed deployment strategy that aligns personnel resources with temporal and geographic demand. With peak-load staffing (BLS ambulances), unit-hour utilization benchmarks, and dynamic status management, the department, like leading Southern California fire agencies, ensures reliable EMS and fire response. Ongoing evaluation using performance metrics, including response-time compliance and workload distribution, ensures that staffing models evolve in alignment with community risk, call-volume growth, and firefighter health and safety considerations.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 15 BUDGET & FINANCE

SMFD B UDGET
The City of Santa Monica operates under a biennial (two-year) budget, with the current budget covering the period July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2027. The budget process begins in March of the first year of the biennial budget with a City Council meeting to set priorities for the next two years. The budget process also includes opportunities for community engagement and input through public meetings.

The biennial budget is approved by the City Council in late June. The City processes and publishes an addendum during the second year of each biennial budget, also called the exception-based budget year.

The following figure outlines SMFD’s actual General Fund revenue and expenses for the last five completed individual fiscal years (FY 2021 through FY 2025), grouped by major category.

Figure 6: SMFD Actual General Fund Revenue and Expenses (FY 2021–2025) Revenue/Expenses 2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2023 Actual 2024 Actual 2025 Actual Permits and Fees 1,195,683 2,121,520 2,064,637 1,956,329 2,385,824 Charges for Services 3,067,789 3,365,283 1,074,752 1,331,865 4,364,084 Miscellaneous Revenue 1,190 800 3,046 64,697 2,720
TOTAL REVENUE: $4,264,662 $5,487,603 $3,142,435 $3,352,891 $6,752,628 Salaries & Wages 20,145,241 20,503,137 24,100,664 24,113,193 25,578,565 Overtime 8,076,837 9,676,802 9,279,628 10,772,167 11,702,103 Benefits 14,135,190 14,360,538 17,841,160 16,922,880 18,500,011 Total Personnel Costs: 42,357,268 44,540,477 51,221,452 51,808,240 55,780,679 Materials, Services, & Supplies 856,839 1,154,396 1,066,257 1,322,739 989,995 Equipment and Maintenance 1,898,035 1,996,461 2,126,727 2,284,718 2,276,754 Other Expenses 460,478 787,928 901,716 940,962 1,226,227 Total Recurring Expenses: 45,572,620 48,479,262 55,316,152 56,356,659 60,273,655 Total Non-Recurring
Expenses: (Capital Projects) 2,551,354 1,677,608 5,152,368 1,804,380 250,019 TOTAL EXPENSES: $48,123,974 $50,156,870 $60,468,520 $58,161,039 $60,523,674 (Net Funding from GF:) ($43,859,312) ($44,669,267) ($57,326,085) ($54,808,148) ($53,771,046) Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 16 Charges for services account for the majority of SMFD’s revenue. This revenue category includes reimbursement from the State of California for strike team deployments, resulting in significant fluctuations in overall revenue from year to year. Permits and fees from fire prevention activities are also a significant source of revenue. Total revenues for SMFD were $6,752,628 in FY 2025, an increase of 58% from FY 2021.

Personnel costs accounted for 92% of all SMFD expenses in FY 2025. Total SMFD actual expenses have increased from $48,123,974 in FY 2021 to $60,523,674 in FY 2025, an increase of $12,399,700, or 26% over the five-year period.

Emergency Medical Services Budget
SMFD’s EMS Division was officially established in the middle of FY 2025. Therefore, there is no historical financial data available. Additionally, the EMS Division budget does not include costs for operational staff (Firefighter/Paramedics and Ambulance Operators) and other operating costs (vehicles, training, materials, and supplies) associated with emergency medical response and transportation. These costs are identified and allocated in the following section (Ambulance Fee Study).

Billing and Collections
Wittman Enterprises (Wittman) has a contract agreement with SMFD to provide medical billing and collection services for ambulance transport and related services. Under the agreement, Wittman provides the following billing services: prepares all invoices; gathers insurance information from the patient; prepares invoices and electronically conveys to Medicare and Medi-Cal fiscal intermediaries; bills all secondary and coinsurance billing; bills private insurance, supplemental insurance, secondary insurance, and Workers’ Compensation according to specific requirements. Wittman contacts patients with claims aging over 45 days for payment arrangements over telephone. Follow-up continues until payment in full is received or the account is dismissed by the City to an outside collection agency. Wittman coordinates receipt of payments and deposits monies daily into the City of Santa Monica’s bank account and provides detailed electronic notification. Additionally, Wittman performs month-end closing procedures that result in monthly financial reports.

Under the contract agreement, SMFD pays Wittman 3.99% of net collections for transports, defined under the contract as the amount collected by Wittman from the patient (e.g., the insurance reimbursement or cash payment), the property owner, or the responsible party.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 17 Payer Mix
Payer mix includes four primary entities that account for most of the transport reimbursement. These payers are: Medicare, Medi-Cal, private commercial insurance, and private pay, which is the term generally applied to those without insurance. Medicare is the primary health care coverage for persons over the age of 65. Medi-Cal is a component of the federal Medicaid program and is provided for specific qualified individuals and families (primarily low-income at 138% of the national poverty level).

Commercial insurance is most associated with benefits provided by employers to their employees, but it may also be purchased independently. Finally, private pay is the term generally applied to those without insurance.

The following figure shows the payer mix for SMFD from 2021 through 2025 and is derived from information provided to SMFD by McCormick Ambulance, SMFD’s previous provider of ambulance services and ambulance billing.

Figure 7: Payer Mix for SMFD (FY 2021—2025)
Payer 2021
Percentage
2022
Percentage
2023
Percentage
2024
Percentage
2025
Percentage
Medicare 46% 45% 41% 47% 48%
Medi-Cal 25% 23% 22% 22% 21%
Commercial Insurance 16% 11% 8% 7% 8%
Private Pay 12% 20% 18% 21% 19%
Other 1% 1% 11% 3% 4%
TOTALS 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 18 AMBULANCE FEE STUDY

CURRENT EMS FEES
SMFD’s current EMS fees, including ambulance transportation fees, follow the rates published by the Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services Agency (LEMSA), as outlined in the following figure.

Figure 8: SMFD Current EMS Fees
Fee Type Fee Amount
Advanced Life Support (ALS) Emergency Transportation $3,408 Basic Life Support (BLS) Emergency Transportation 2,276 Oxygen 120
Medical Supply Costs 35
Mileage 30
The LEMSA fees are adjusted annually. LEMSA sends notifications of the new rates to all cities and paramedic provider agencies in March, and the new fees are effective on July 1 of each year. It is a common practice for fire departments in Los Angeles County to follow these rates. However, if a department can demonstrate that its actual costs to provide the service are higher, it may charge a higher rate.

A MBULANCE FEE STUDY METHODOLOGY
AP Triton compiled all direct and indirect costs associated with providing ALS and BLS transports and used this information to calculate separate total costs for ALS and BLS transports. Total costs were divided by the number of annual transports to obtain a cost per transport. The following sections and accompanying figures provide the details for these costs. Costs are based on FY 2027 budget, as provided by SMFD staff.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 19 Direct Costs
Direct costs include staffing (Firefighter/Paramedics and Ambulance Operators), EMS Administration costs, and vehicle costs.

Staffing Costs —Firefighter/Paramedics
As noted in the previous section, SMFD’s EMS budget does not include labor costs for Firefighter/Paramedics. Instead, these costs are included in the overall Suppression and Rescue budget and cannot be easily extracted. Therefore, the following figures were constructed to show the costs of Firefighter/Paramedics associated with the ALS transportation system.

Figure 9: Salary and Benefit Costs—Firefighter/Paramedic Cost Type Amount
Salary $171,736
Benefits $138,983
Total salary and benefits (per FTE) $310,719
Total cost per daily staffing position (FTE x 3) $932,157 The preceding figure shows the average cost for each full-time equivalent (FTE) Firefighter/Paramedic.

Salary costs include base salary and all skill pays, while benefits include health benefits, retirement, workers’ compensation, and other employee benefits. The total salary and benefits costs per FTE are multiplied by three, representing the three shifts that constitute the constant staffing model.

Figure 10: Constant Staffing/Overtime Costs—Firefighter/Paramedic Cost Type Amount
Hourly rate (salary/2912) $58.98
Hourly Medicare costs $0.86
Hourly overtime rate $89.76
Cost per overtime shift $2,154.24
Annual overtime shifts needed per FTE 7.59
Annual overtime shifts needed per daily staffing position 22.77 Annual overtime costs per daily staffing position $49,052.04 Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 20 Constant staffing/overtime costs are required to account for paid time off for each Firefighter/Paramedic. First, an average hourly rate was calculated by dividing the average annual salary by 2,912 (the number of annual hours per FTE on a 56-hour workweek). Medicare costs were added and the sum was multiplied by 1.5 to obtain an average hourly overtime rate of $89.76. AP Triton then reviewed paid time off for all Firefighter/Paramedics for calendar year 2025 and calculated an average of 182.07 hours per FTE, equating to 7.59 24-hour shifts per FTE. This number was multiplied by three to obtain an estimated number of overtime shifts needed to cover each constant staffing position. The cost per overtime shift was multiplied by the number of overtime shifts needed for the annual overtime costs per daily staffing position.

Figure 11: Total Costs—Firefighter/Paramedic
Cost Type Amount
Total annual cost per daily staffing position $932,157
Annual overtime costs per daily staffing position $49,052 Total annual cost per daily staffing position $981,209
Cost for 10 daily staffing positions $9,812,090
SMFD’s staffing model includes two Firefighter/Paramedics on each engine. However, because SMFD operates four 24-hour ambulances and two 12-hour ambulances each day, for the purposes of the fee study it is assumed that there are 10 Firefighter/Paramedics associated with ambulance transportation each day. The preceding figure shows the full cost of each daily staffing position in the Firefighter/Paramedic rank and multiplies that by the number of Firefighter/Paramedics associated with the ambulance transportation system to get a total annual cost of $9,812,090.

Since Firefighter/Paramedics spend a portion of their time responding to BLS calls, it is appropriate to allocate a commensurate amount of their costs to the BLS Program. BLS transports account for 62% of transports. Additionally, it is estimated that Firefighter/Paramedics are on scene of a BLS transport for one-third of the duration of the incident. The following figure allocates Firefighter/Paramedic staffing costs accordingly.

Figure 12: Allocation of Firefighter/Paramedic Staffing Costs Costs BLS ALS
Initial allocation of Firefighter/Paramedic staffing costs — $9,812,090 % of total transports 62% 38%
% of time of BLS incident on scene 33.3% —
Allocation to BLS $2,025,804 —
Remainder to ALS — $7,786,286
Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 21 Staffing Costs —Ambulance Operators
Like the Firefighter/Paramedics, Ambulance Operators are deployed using a constant staffing model.

Ambulance Operators differ from Firefighter/Paramedics, though, in that they are hired on a part-time, “as-needed” basis. “As-needed” employees in Santa Monica are paid an hourly rate but do not receive benefits; however, there are Medicare, unemployment, and other payroll costs associated, which total

5.7%. Additionally, “as-needed” employees are limited to 960 hours per year. If an employee exceeds this number of hours, he or she is entitled to health and retirement benefits in the subsequent year.

Because Ambulance Operators are hourly employees, Triton calculated the number of Ambulance Operator hours needed on an annual basis and multiplied that number by the hourly rate for the position. The following figures show these calculations.

Figure 13: Salary and Benefit Costs—Ambulance Operator
Cost Type Amount
Hourly rate $22.67
Payroll costs per hour (5.7%) $1.29
Loaded hourly base rate $23.96
Hourly overtime rate (including Medicare) $34.50
Benefits per employee exceeding 960 annual work hours $30,002 The preceding figure includes the hourly rate, additional payroll costs, and the hourly overtime rate at time and a half. The cost of employee benefits for each employee who exceeds 960 hours in a one-year period is also included.

Figure 14: Annual Hours Needed—Ambulance Operator
Unit Type
# of Straight
Time Hours
Needed
# of Overtime
Hours
Needed
Total Hours
Needed
24-hour units (4 daily) 50,112 19,968 70,080
12-hour units (2 daily) 7,928 832 8,760
12-hour peak season unit (1 daily, for 4 months) 2,928 — 2,928 Total Hours Needed 60,968 20,800 81,768
Each 24-hour ambulance is staffed by two Ambulance Operators each day, requiring a total of 24 Ambulance Operators. Ambulance Operators on these units work 24-hour shifts; however, Ambulance Operators are not permitted to be on a 56-hour workweek schedule. Therefore, each Ambulance Operator working on a 24-hour unit will need to work an average of 16 hours of overtime per week.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 22 Each 12-hour ambulance is staffed by two Ambulance Operators each day, requiring a total of eight Ambulance Operators. Ambulance Operators working on the 12-hour ambulances will typically work 84 hours each biweekly period, requiring an average of two hours of overtime each week.

The 12-hour peak season unit will be staffed by two Ambulance Operators each day, requiring four Ambulance Operators for the four-month period. Overtime hours are not calculated for the peak season unit since it is assumed that additional seasonal staff will be hired to cover these shifts.

Figure 15: Total Costs—Ambulance Operator
Unit/Cost Type Straight
Time Cost Overtime Cost Total Costs
24-hour units (4 daily) 1,200,793 688,858 1,889,651
12-hour units (2 daily) 189,972 28,702 218,674
12-hour peak season unit (1 daily, for 4 months) 70,161 — 70,161 Total Salaries and Wages 1,460,926 717,560 2,178,486
Benefits for employees exceeding 960 hours (10) 300,020 Total Cost for Ambulance Operators $2,478,506
The preceding figure includes calculations for the total cost of Ambulance Operators. Straight time hours needed are multiplied by the loaded hourly base rate of $23.96, while overtime hours needed are multiplied by the overtime rate of $34.50, resulting in a total of $2,178,486. Additionally, due to the hours required to operate the system, AP Triton estimated that nearly all of the 32 Ambulance Operators working on year-round units would need to work over 960 hours each year, resulting in their eligibility to receive health and retirement benefits in each subsequent year. However, since the Ambulance Operator classification is a pathway to a career in the fire service, it is recognized that there will be heavy turnover, and many Ambulance Operators will not remain employed by SMFD for multiple years. Therefore, AP Triton estimates that approximately one-third, or 10, Ambulance Operators will receive these benefits each year. Total Ambulance Operator staffing costs for the system are estimated to be $2,478,506.

EMS Program Costs
EMS Program costs include the staffing costs of the following positions: 1.0 FTE Battalion Chief, 1.0 FTE EMS Coordinator, 2.0 FTE Fire Captains, and 2.0 FTE Firefighter/Paramedics. Additional costs include medical supplies and contractual and professional services. Total EMS program costs for FY 2027 are budgeted at $2,341,715. These costs are allocated to BLS and ALS programs based on the ratios of BLS and ALS transports to total transports, 62% for BLS and 38% for ALS.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 23 Vehicle and Equipment Costs
The financial information provided by SMFD did not identify costs specific to the ambulances and associated equipment. Therefore, the costs in the following figure were sourced from other ambulance programs currently operating in California and represent the major cost items for purchasing and outfitting an ambulance for emergency response.

While some items, such as radios and gurneys, may have a longer lifespan, the five-year window provides a useful framework for cost projections.

The following figure is broken down into five columns:
• Years of Amortization: Most items are depreciated over five years. This is an estimate and shows the cost distributed over that span.
• Equipment Estimated Cost: Each item is assigned an estimated cost to project its total system cost.
• Estimated Total Cost: The total cost is a basic calculation of the number of ambulances estimated in the system multiplied by the depreciated cost. AP Triton projects a need for nine ambulances to support the system (four 24-hour ambulances and three 12-hour ambulances— which includes the peak season unit ). However, two reserve or spare ambulances that are fully stocked and ready to deploy will also be required. Therefore, cost estimates are based on nine units.
• Annual Amortized Costs: This is the simple depreciated annual cost for the nine ambulances.

Figure 16: Vehicle and Equipment Costs
Cost Center Per
Ambulance
Years of
Amortization
Estimated
Cost per
Ambulance
Estimated
Total Cost
(Nine
Ambulances)
Annual
Amortized
Costs
Ambulance Replacement 5 Years $230,000 $2,070,000 $414,000 Cardiac Monitor 5 Years 52,000 468,000 93,600
Make-Ready Equipment 5 Years 25,000 225,000 45,000
Data Tablets 3 Years 3,000 27,000 9,000
Power Gurney 5 Years 72,000 648,000 129,600
Ambulance Setup 5 Years 15,000 135,000 27,000
Lucas CPR Devices 5 Years 21,000 189,000 37,800
AEDs 5 Years 4,000 36,000 7,200
Stair Chair 5 Years 5,000 45,000 9,000
Totals $427,000 $3,843,000 $772,200
Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 24 Operational costs for the ambulances include vehicle insurance, fuel, maintenance, and vehicle license fees. The following figure provides this cost per ambulance as well as the total cost for all nine ambulances.

Figure 17: Annual Operating Costs for Ambulances
Cost Center Per
Ambulance
Cost per
24-hour
Ambulance
Cost for 4
24-hour
Ambulances
Cost per 12-
hour
Ambulance/
Spare
Cost for 5
12-hour
Ambulances/
Spares
Cost for all
Ambulances
Ambulance Insurance 2,600 10,400 2,600 13,000 23,400
Fuel/Maintenance/License 41,000 164,000 20,500 102,500 266,500 Totals $43,600 $174,400 $23,100 $115,500 $289,900
Vehicle and equipment costs are allocated to BLS and ALS programs based on the ratios of BLS and ALS transports to total transports.

The following figure summarizes all direct costs for BLS and for ALS.

Figure 18: Summary of Direct Costs for BLS and ALS
Cost Type BLS ALS Totals
Firefighter/Paramedic Staffing Costs 2,025,804 7,786,286 9,812,090 Ambulance Operator Staffing Costs 2,478,507 — 2,478,507 EMS Program Costs 1,447,887 893,828 2,341,715
Vehicle Costs 656,698 405,402 1,062,100
Totals $6,608,896 $9,085,516 $15,694,412
Indirect/Allocated Costs
Indirect costs are allocated, administrative, or shared costs associated with the delivery of ambulance transportation services, and include: administration, training, fire station costs, technology costs, Ground Emergency Medical Transportation Program costs, and citywide indirect costs.

Administration, Training, and Technology Costs
Fire Department administration, training, and technology programs provide vital support to the ambulance transportation program. These costs are allocated to BLS and ALS transports based on the respective percentage of department-wide FTEs each program comprises, as shown in the following figure.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 25 Figure 19: FTE Ratios—BLS and ALS Programs
Program # of FTEs % of FTEs
Basic Life Support 33.3 18.26%
Advanced Life Support 30.00 16.45%
Department Total 182.3
The following figure shows the allocation of Administration, Training, and Technology Costs to the BLS and ALS Programs.

Figure 20: Allocation of Administration, Training, and Technology Costs Administration, Training, and Tech Costs Administration Costs Training Costs Technology Costs
Total Costs $6,953,119 $1,181,422 $506,658
Costs Allocated to Basic Life Support 1,269,640 194,344 92,516 Costs Allocated to Advanced Life Support 1,143,788 87,015 83,345 Fire Station Operating Costs
Fire station operating costs include utilities, building maintenance, custodial supplies, and other costs essential to maintaining and operating SMFD’s five fire stations. Total facilities operating costs are allocated based on calculating BLS and ALS staff as a percentage of all staff operating out of fire stations. The following figure shows the allocation of fire station operating costs to BLS and ALS Programs.

Figure 21: Allocation of Fire Station Operating Costs
Fire Station Operating Costs Fire Station Operating Costs Total Costs $365,465
Costs Allocated to Basic Life Support (28.57%) 104,419
Costs Allocated to Advanced Life Support (23.81%) 87,015 Public Provider -Ground Emergency Transportation (GEMT) In accordance with Assembly Bill 1705 (2019), the California Department of Health Care Services developed the Public Provider Ground Emergency Medical Transport (PP-GEMT) Program to provide increased reimbursements provided by eligible GEMT providers for each Medi-Cal transport. The enhancement is currently $1,168.18, with a pending proposed increase to $1,518.61 for 2026. The program requires a quarterly payment equating to $321.95 per Medi-Cal transport. The annual costs for this payment are outlined in the following figure.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 26 Figure 22: Annual PP-GEMT Costs
Medi-Cal Transports BLS ALS Totals
Cost per Medi-Cal Transport $321.95 $321.95 $321.95
# of Annual Medi-Cal Transports 1,150 710 1,860
Annual Cost $370,243 $228,585 $598,828
Citywide Indirect Costs
Citywide indirect costs include financial management, human resources, and other centralized general government costs which can be allocated to services. SMFD reports an indirect cost rate of

12.9% of direct labor costs (salaries and benefits). Applying this rate to the BLS and ALS programs results in the costs outlined in the following figure.

Figure 23: Citywide Indirect Costs Applied to BLS and ALS Indirect Cost BLS ALS Totals
Total Direct Labor Costs $4,504,310 $7,786,286 $12,290,596 Citywide Indirect Cost Rate 12.9% 12.9% 12.9%
Indirect Cost $581,056 $1,004,431 $1,585,487
The following figure summarizes all indirect/allocated costs for BLS and for ALS.

Figure 24: Summary of Indirect/Allocated Costs for BLS and ALS Cost Type BLS ALS Totals
Fire Administration 1,269,640 1,143,788 2,413,428
Fire Training 215,728 194,344 410,072
Technology 92,516 83,345 191,434
Fire Station Operating Costs 104,419 87,015 175,861
PP-GEMT 370,243 228,585 598,828
Citywide Indirect 581,056 1,004,431 1,585,487
Totals $2,633,602 $2,741,508 $5,375,110
Total Costs
Total direct and indirect/allocated costs from the preceding figures are summarized in the following figure.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 27 Figure 25: Total Direct and Indirect/Allocated Costs for BLS and ALS Cost Category BLS ALS Totals
Direct Costs 6,608,895 9,085,516 15,694,411
Indirect/Allocated Costs 2,633,602 2,741,508 5,375,110
Totals $9,242,497 $11,827,024 $21,069,521
Cost per Transport
The cost per transport is then calculated by dividing the total costs of BLS and ALS transports by the number of annual transports. This number was derived by taking the average number of transports for the four-year period of 2022 through 2025. The annual average number of BLS transports was 5,103, while the annual average of ALS transports was 3,150.

The following figure outlines the cost per transport for BLS and ALS.

Figure 26: Cost per Transport for BLS and ALS
Cost/# of Transports BLS ALS Totals
Total Cost $9,242,497 $11,827,024 $21,069,521
# of Transports 5,103 3,150 8,253
Cost per Transport $1,811.19 $3,754.61
Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 28 Other Transport -Related Fees
It is typical for transporting agencies to itemize additional charges for services, including oxygen, medical supplies, and mileage. However, SMFD does not have enough financial and transport information to calculate the costs for these services. Therefore, it is recommended that SMFD charge the LEMSA-approved rates for these services.

FEE R ECOMMENDATIONS AND O PTIONS
The following figure outlines the cost of providing each service and the options for new fees. Options include: implementing fees that generate cost recovery, based on this fee study; or continuing to implement LEMSA-approved fees.

Figure 27: Cost of EMS Services and Fee Options
Fee Current
Fee
Option #1:

Cost Recovery
Option #2:

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 29 EMS COST RECOVERY OPPORTUNITIES
AP Triton also reviewed and identified other cost recovery opportunities available to SMFD. Other fees to consider include Treat and No Transport fees (for both engines and SMFD’s Advanced Provider Unit) and a Motor Vehicle Accident Fee.

TREAT AND NO TRANSPORT FEE (ENGINE RESPONSE)
Many EMS responses do not result in patient transport. A Treat and No Transport Fee allows agencies to recover the staff costs of responding to these incidents. The following figure shows the $394.48 cost of an engine response to an EMS incident, assuming that the resources are dedicated to the incident for 45 minutes.

Figure 28: Treat and No Transport Costs (Engine Response) Personnel/Supplies Annual
Salary
Annual
Benefits
Loaded
Annual
Cost
Hourly Rate
(Annual
Cost/2912)
Cost for
Response
Fire Captain $237,336 $171,820 $409,156 $140.51 105.39
Fire Engineer 199,856 157,545 357,401 122.73 92.05
Firefighter/Paramedic 171,736 138,983 310,719 106.70 80.03 Firefighter/Paramedic 171,736 138,983 310,719 106.70 80.03 Medical Supplies 37.00
Total Cost $394.50
Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 30 TREAT AND NO TRANSPORT FEE (ADVANCED P R OVIDER UNIT) SMFD operates an Advanced Provider Unit, which is staffed with one Firefighter/Paramedic and one Contract Nurse Practitioner. The following figure outlines the costs for a Treat and No Transport for this unit.

Figure 29: Treat and No Transport Costs (Advanced Provider Unit) Personnel/Supplies Annual
Salary
Annual
Benefits
Loaded
Annual
Cost
Hourly Rate
(Annual
Cost/2912)
Cost for
Response
Firefighter/Paramedic 171,736 138,983 310,719 106.70 80.03 Contract Nurse
Practitioner (Hourly) 108.15 81.11
Medical Supplies 37.00
Total Cost $198.14

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT RESPONSE FEE
Fire departments often respond to vehicle accidents. Costs involve supplies to clean up the incident in an environmentally responsible manner, such as absorbent pads and granules for fluid clean-up, as well as a significant amount of staff time. Typically, this fee is charged to the vehicle insurance company of the at-fault driver(s). The following figure outlines the cost of responding to a motor vehicle accident, assuming staff time of one hour.

Figure 30: Motor Vehicle Accident Response Costs
Personnel/Supplies Annual
Salary
Annual
Benefits
Loaded
Annual
Cost
Hourly Rate
(Annual
Cost/2912)
Cost for
Response
Fire Captain 237,336 171,820 409,156 140.51 140.51
Fire Engineer 199,856 157,545 357,401 122.73 122.73
Firefighter/Paramedic 171,736 138,983 310,719 106.70 106.70 Firefighter/Paramedic 171,736 138,983 310,719 106.70 106.70 Supplies 50.00
Total Cost $526.64
Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 31 AMBULANCE SUBSCRIPTION PROGRAM
Although ambulance subscription programs are not typically included as part of a standard fee study, AP Triton has evaluated and discussed these programs in prior engagements. Subscription-based ambulance programs can provide an alternative revenue source for agencies; however, they also present administrative, financial, and regulatory considerations that should be carefully evaluated prior to implementation.

Under a typical subscription model, residents or property owners pay a recurring monthly or annual fee in exchange for reduced or waived out-of-pocket ambulance transport costs. In many systems, participating subscribers authorize the agency to accept insurance reimbursement as payment in full for covered ambulance services. If a subscriber lacks insurance coverage, the agency may waive additional patient billing obligations for eligible services. Subscription fees are commonly incorporated into municipal utility billing systems to simplify collection and administration.

Several fire departments in Orange County, California have implemented variations of subscription programs, including models tied to individual residents, households, or property addresses. These programs can generate supplemental revenue independent of actual service utilization, thereby creating a predictable funding stream. In practice, subscription programs may provide the greatest financial benefit to residents with limited financial means or those concerned about ambulance copayments and deductibles, while participation rates among higher-income residents may be lower.

ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Subscription programs require significant administrative oversight to ensure compliance and program accuracy. Agencies must maintain current subscriber records, including address verification and annual updates, particularly in situations where the subscription is associated with a property address rather than a specific individual. Without careful management, situations may arise in which property owners or tenants continue paying subscription fees without full awareness of the associated benefits or enrollment status.

Additionally, agencies must establish clear policies allowing subscribers to opt out of the program in accordance with applicable legal and consumer protection requirements.

Operationally, agencies should recognize that subscription programs may reduce opportunities to collect otherwise allowable co-payments or deductibles from insured patients. As a result, the financial success of a subscription program depends largely on accurately forecasting participation levels and service utilization rates.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 32 REGULATORY AND REIMBURSEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Potential interactions with California’s Ground Emergency Medical Transportation (GEMT) and Public Provider Ground Emergency Medical Transportation (PP-GEMT) supplemental reimbursement programs should be carefully reviewed with legal counsel and reimbursement specialists prior to implementation.

Industry stakeholders have raised concerns regarding whether subscription programs could be interpreted as providing “gap insurance” coverage for ambulance-related patient liabilities. For example, prior discussions involving ambulance subscription billing practices in California suggested that if Medicaid or Medi-Cal beneficiaries participate in a subscription program that effectively covers patient balances, questions could arise regarding balance billing prohibitions and the agency’s eligibility to claim certain supplemental reimbursement funds. Although no known enforcement action or adverse ruling has occurred related to these concerns, the issue remains a potential future compliance consideration.

At present, subscription programs are generally considered lawful when properly structured and administered.

SPECIALIZED APPLICATIONS
Subscription models may be particularly beneficial for residential care facilities, assisted living facilities, or group care homes where ambulance utilization rates are higher and residents commonly incur Medicare or Medi-Cal co-payments. In these situations, agencies may establish agreements with facility operators to reduce or eliminate patient balance billing exposure associated with ambulance transport services.

PROPOSITION 26 CONSIDERATIONS
In California, agencies considering the implementation of a subscription program should evaluate Proposition 26 implications. To remain compliant, the agency must demonstrate that the program constitutes a voluntary fee-for-service arrangement rather than a general tax. Some agencies have addressed this issue by incorporating additional subscriber benefits, such as community newsletters, wellness information, vaccination reminders, or related public safety educational services, to further support the value proposition associated with the subscription fee.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 33 PROGRAM PRICING AND BILLING CONSIDERATIONS
One of the primary implementation challenges is establishing an appropriate subscription price and clearly defining the value provided to participants. Agencies should conduct detailed financial modeling to determine sustainable pricing based on anticipated participation rates, transport volumes, payer mix, and waived patient liabilities.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 34 Section II:

FHSZ INSPECTION
STUDY
Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 35 FHSZ INSPECTION REQUIREMENT S
SMFD is in the process of launching and formalizing a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) inspection and compliance program within the areas designated as Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), as designated by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM), identify geographic areas where wildfire conditions, topography, vegetation, and environmental factors contribute to increased potential for structure ignition and rapid fire spread.1 The purpose of implementing the FHSZ inspection program is to reduce wildfire ignition exposure through systematic verification of defensible space requirements, consistent property owner notification, and progressive compliance enforcement. Industry best practice programs emphasize a balanced approach that integrates proactive education with formalized inspection and community risk reduction programs.

This section evaluates the requirements and program components necessary to support Santa Monica’s initial program launch and long-term implementation across the City’s Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

HISTORICAL WILDFIRE RISK CONTEXT —REGIONAL NARRATIVE
Santa Monica’s wildfire risk is due to its proximity to the Santa Monica Mountains and associated wildland–urban interface conditions along the City’s northern boundary. Recent regional wildfire events have demonstrated the potential for wind-driven fire behavior, ember exposure, structure-tostructure ignition, and rapid structure loss in interface communities throughout coastal Los Angeles County.
1 CAL FIRE / Office of the State Fire Marshal. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – Overview, Methodology, and LRA Mapping. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 36 In January 2025, the Palisades Fire ignited in the Pacific Palisades area immediately northwest of Santa Monica and burned nearly 24,000 acres within one week, resulting in the loss of 6,837 structures and 12 confirmed fatalities, impacting both wildland and developed areas. Santa Monica’s newly mapped hazard severity zones lie within only a few miles of the Palisades incident footprint, reinforcing the relevance of similar fuel, terrain, and Santa Ana wind-driven fire conditions that may affect the City’s fire hazard areas.2 Santa Monica’s exposure is further underscored by other historical wildfire events in the surrounding Santa Monica Mountains region. Fires such as the Woolsey Fire (2018), which burned nearly 100,000 acres across the Santa Monica Mountains, and the Old Topanga Fire (1993), which destroyed hundreds of structures in adjacent mountain communities, demonstrate the recurring potential for large, wind-driven wildfires within the same fuel and weather climate present along Santa Monica’s interface boundary.3
While Santa Monica has not experienced widespread wildfire structure loss within City limits in recent incidents, wildfire impacts are highly dependent on ignition location, fuel alignment, and the weather conditions present at the time of an event. As demonstrated during the Palisades Fire, wind-driven fire conditions—including Particularly Dangerous Situation (PDS) red flag events—can rapidly increase ember exposure potential and create extreme structure ignition risk in communities located along the wildland–urban interface.4
2 Palisades Fire key impacts (structures destroyed and fatalities):

County of Los Angeles Fact Sheet (official):
https://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/lac/1199046_Eaton_Palisades_Fires_Anniversary_Fact_Sheet.pdf.

Los Angeles Fire Department After Action Report:
https://lafd.org/sites/default/files/pdf_files/Palisades_AARR_10_08_2025_final.pdf.

CAL FIRE Incident Page (general reference): https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2025/1/7/palisades-fire. 3 National Park Service. 2018 Woolsey Fire (Santa Monica Mountains). https://www.nps.gov/samo/learn/management/2018- woolsey-fire.htm.

USGS Old Topanga Fire (1993): https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/monitoring-trends-burn-severity-mtbs-map-oldtopanga-fire. 4 City of Santa Monica. Palisades Fire Community Update (No Direct Damage Statement). https://www.santamonica.gov/topic-explainers/palisades-fire.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 37 Figure 31: Palisades Fire (January 2025) Incident Footprint in Relation to Santa Monica5 Wildfire risk in California has increased substantially over the past two decades, with larger and more damaging fires occurring at an unprecedented scale. CAL FIRE’s “Top 20 Largest California Wildfires” dataset indicates that more than half of the 20 largest fires in California history have burned since 2007, underscoring the growing importance of proactive defensible space inspection programs and community ignition risk reduction strategies statewide.6 5 Los Angeles County GIS Data Portal. Palisades and Eaton Dissolved Fire Perimeters (as of January 21, 2025), Feature Layer 1:

Palisades Fire Perimeter. ArcGIS Online Map Viewer.
https://services.arcgis.com/RmCCgQtiZLDCtblq/ArcGIS/rest/services/Palisades_and_Eaton_Dissolved_Fire_Perimeters_as_ of_20250121/FeatureServer/1.
6 CAL FIRE. Top 20 Largest California Wildfires Dataset. https://www.fire.ca.gov/-/media/calfire-website/our-impact/firestatistics/top-20-largest-ca-wildfires.pdf.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 38 REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE INSPECTIONS New Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs)
Santa Monica’s adoption of the updated CAL FIRE Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps represents the first time the City has been formally designated as containing mapped Moderate, High, and Very High hazard severity zones under the statewide Fire Hazard Severity Zone framework. As a result, Santa Monica is now establishing a defined fire hazard severity inspection program, requiring the development of standardized procedures, recurring compliance capacity, and supporting resources to implement an effective defensible space and wildfire risk reduction program. This newly mapped hazard boundary and parcel inventory provides the foundational basis for the City’s inspection workload, cost evaluation, and the staffing requirements assessed in subsequent sections of this report.

The Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) and CAL FIRE designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones as Moderate, High, or Very High based on statewide hazard modeling that considers fuels, slope, fire weather, and expected fire behavior.7 Santa Monica has adopted the updated CAL FIRE Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps, consistent with recent statewide mapping expansion requirements. These maps establish the geographic foundation for defensible space inspection obligations and wildfire compliance enforcement within the City.

CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps are developed using a science-based hazard assessment methodology that considers key factors influencing wildfire likelihood and fire behavior, including fire history, fuel conditions, predicted flame length, ember exposure, terrain, and typical fire weather patterns.8 Within Santa Monica, the newly mapped Moderate, High, and Very High hazard severity areas now provide the geographic basis for defensible space inspection authority, real estate transaction disclosure requirements, and local enforcement procedures.

Santa Monica’s Moderate, High, and Very High hazard severity areas include developed neighborhoods with meaningful concentrations of people (of 5,491 to over 6,000 persons per square mile), further emphasizing the need for a quality wildfire risk reduction program. 7 California Civil Code §1102.19 (AB 38). Defensible Space Real Estate Disclosure Requirements. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1102.19&lawCode=CIV. 8 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Maps – Methodology and Data Sources, describing the science-based hazard assessment process incorporating fuel conditions, fire history, predicted fire behavior (including flame length and ember production), terrain, and weather patterns. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-wedo/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 39 The number of parcels and unique addresses located within each hazard severity zone are as follows:
• Moderate Zone Parcels: 467 parcels, and 565 unique addresses • High Zone Parcels: 557 parcels, and 605 unique addresses • Very High Zone Parcels: 1,239 parcels, and 1,888 unique addresses Requirements by Zone
The City of Santa Monica is located entirely within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) within LRAs are designated by the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) as Moderate, High, or Very High based on modeled wildfire hazard conditions, including fuel loading, slope, predicted flame length, ember exposure, and weather patterns. These designations reflect relative wildfire hazard potential and inform regulatory implementation and local enforcement authority.

Because Santa Monica contains no State Responsibility Area (SRA) lands, the applicable statutory framework for defensible space and vegetation management enforcement is governed primarily by Government Code §51175–§51189.

Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Properties located within a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone in the Local Responsibility Area are not independently subject to the statutory defensible space mandate of Government Code §51182. While the California Fire Code provides general authority to address hazardous vegetation and combustible conditions, the 100-foot defensible space requirements do not apply unless specifically adopted by local ordinance.

Inspection and enforcement activity within Moderate Zones must therefore be grounded in local ordinance authority and adopted Fire Code provisions. Since overgrown vegetation is not governed by 100-foot defensible space requirements, complaints related to overgrown vegetation in these areas typically would be considered nuisance complaints subject to the City of Santa Monica’s department responsible for general code enforcement for the city.

High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Properties located within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in Santa Monica’s Local Responsibility Area are subject to the California Fire Code (2025 Edition), as adopted locally.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 40 Section 4907 of the 2025 California Fire Code (Defensible Space) requires the establishment and maintenance of defensible space around structures in Fire Hazard Severity Zones in accordance with Public Resources Code §4291.9
While Government Code §51182 specifically references Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones for statutory defensible space enforcement in LRAs, the 2025 California Fire Code (adopted by Santa Monica by ordinance) provides the Santa Monica Fire Department with inspection and enforcement authority and responsibility for defensible space compliance within High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Accordingly, properties located within High Fire Hazard Severity Zones are subject to:
• Defensible space requirements consistent with PRC §4291 (generally 100 feet, where property lines permit);
• Inspection and enforcement authority under the adopted California Fire Code; and • Real estate transaction documentation requirements pursuant to Civil Code §1102.19 (AB 38).

Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Within Local Responsibility Areas, Government Code §51182 provides that a person owning, leasing, controlling, operating, or maintaining an occupied dwelling or structure located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designated by the local agency shall maintain defensible space of 100 feet from each side of the structure, subject to statutory limitations.10 Like High FHSZ, Very High FHSZ parcels are also subject to the AB 38 real estate transaction documentation requirements.

Assembly Bill 3074 directed the development of additional ember-resistant “Zone 0” requirements applicable to the very high fire hazard areas. The final regulations are pending, however, when released, these regulations will impose an additional responsibility and workload upon Santa Monica Fire Department. The regulations will apply to local responsibility very high fire hazard areas. 9 2025 California Fire Code, Section 4907 – Defensible Space, and California Public Resources Code §4291 – Defensible space requirements (100-foot clearance).
10 California Government Code §51182 - defensible space in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (LRA).

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 41 Requirements During Real Estate Transactions
California Assembly Bill 38 (AB 38) established defensible space compliance documentation requirements during the sale of residential property located in a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Under AB 38, sellers of applicable properties must provide documentation that defensible space requirements have been met, pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1102.19.11 AB 38 inspections represent a transaction-based compliance trigger and should be incorporated into Santa Monica’s inspection workload planning alongside recurring zone-based inspections and complaint-driven enforcement activity.

Defensible Space Requirements
California’s foundational defensible space requirements are established under Public Resources Code Section 4291, which requires property owners in designated fire hazard areas to maintain vegetation clearance and fuel modification around structures. CAL FIRE defines defensible space as the area around a building where vegetation and combustible materials are managed to reduce flame spread, ember ignition potential, and structure vulnerability.12 Santa Monica’s inspection program should therefore be grounded in statewide defensible space standards while incorporating local procedures for notice, enforcement, and compliance verification. 11 California Legislature, Assembly Bill 38 (2019), codified in California Civil Code §1102.19, requiring defensible space compliance documentation during the transfer of residential property located in High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
12 CAL FIRE. Defensible Space Requirements (Public Resources Code §4291). https://www.fire.ca.gov/dspace.

California Public Resources Code §4291:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=4291.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 42 Notification Procedures for Non -Compliant Properties Established defensible space inspection programs typically provide advance seasonal notification to property owners in areas subject to inspection, outlining defensible space requirements, expected inspection timelines, and the potential consequences of non-compliance. These notifications are commonly distributed in early spring (March through April), allowing property owners sufficient time to complete vegetation management prior to the established compliance deadline and the commencement of initial inspections. For coastal communities, a later inspection start date around June 1 may be appropriate, consistent with regional defensible space programs that account for extended seasonal vegetation growth in coastal areas.13 In some jurisdictions, parcels with potentially hazardous vegetation conditions are declared as a public nuisance through a formal local process to support notice, inspection, due process, and enforcement authority. Other jurisdictions rely on existing fire code and state law authority without a formal declaration process. The appropriate approach for Santa Monica should be determined based on desired program scale, enforcement strategy, and coordination with the City Attorney’s Office.

Regional programs may utilize a formal “declaration of public nuisance” or inspection list process, where parcels identified through FHSZ mapping and risk-based criteria are included in an annual notice and inspection program, with property owners provided notice and an opportunity to contest inclusion or demonstrate compliance prior to enforcement actions.

For properties identified as non-compliant, programs typically involve issuance of a written notice that clearly identifies observed deficiencies, references applicable code or program requirements, and outlines required corrective actions along with a defined compliance deadline. Effective programs document all notifications within an inspection tracking system and may utilize multiple delivery methods (e.g., mail, electronic communication, or on-site posting) to ensure receipt and support enforcement consistency.
13 Los Angeles County Fire Department, Annual Brush Clearance Program, establishing differentiated compliance timelines for coastal and interior areas, including later inspection start dates for coastal properties to account for extended seasonal vegetation growth patterns; available at: https://fire.lacounty.gov/brush-clearance-program/.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 43 Timelines for Corrective Action
Well-established programs generally incorporate clearly defined compliance timelines that are consistent across the areas inspected, with flexibility to account for hazard severity. A common approach is to structure inspection programs with progressively shorter compliance periods following initial notification. Regional program models commonly provide property owners approximately 30 days to correct identified violations following initial inspection, followed by a re-inspection to verify compliance. If the property remains non-compliant, subsequent notices may reduce the compliance timeframe, with continued non-compliance resulting in more immediate correction requirements and potential escalation to enforcement actions such as administrative citations, inspection fees, or abatement enforcement fees.

This tiered approach—progressing from initial inspection to notice of violation, re-inspection, and ultimately enforcement—supports consistency in program implementation while providing property owners with a reasonable opportunity to achieve compliance. Parcels that remain non-compliant after re-inspection may be referred for enforcement, including administrative fines, cost recovery, or abatement where authorized.

The Potential Program Fees section provides recommended program strategies and implementation approaches based on the preceding analysis.

RECOMMENDED STAFFING REQUIREMENTS
The staffing required to support Santa Monica’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) inspection program is driven by inspection volume, re-inspection rates, AB 38 real estate transaction inspections, and public education efforts.

For planning purposes, the number of unique addresses provides a practical indicator of inspection workload, particularly within higher-density areas of the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Higher population density also increases workload due to additional time required for public interaction, coordination, and follow-up communication.

Training Requirements
Personnel assigned to the FHSZ inspection program should meet applicable California and industry training standards, including:
• California State Fire Training Fire Inspector 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D courses • California State Fire Training Fire Inspector 1 certification Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 44 • Knowledge of defensible space requirements (PRC §4291, GC §51182) • Understanding of AB 38 inspection requirements and documentation procedures • Wildland fire behavior training, such as S-190 (Introduction to Wildland Fire Behavior), to support defensible space evaluation and understanding of fire spread potential Staff should be proficient in wildfire risk reduction strategies, inspection documentation, customer service, and enforcement procedures to support consistent program implementation.

To support a higher level of service and community engagement, particularly related to home hardening and wildfire risk reduction, the following advanced training is recommended:
• NFPA Wildfire Mitigation Specialist certification
Public Education and Staffing Integration
Public education plays a key role in improving compliance and reducing inspection workload. Staff time should be allocated for outreach, presentations, and property owner communication as part of the overall program. Public education efforts also support voluntary compliance and help build community trust and acceptance of the program, which are critical to long-term success. Proactive engagement with property owners can improve program effectiveness while fostering positive relationships between the fire department and the community.

The estimated inspection times reflected in the following discussion include a reasonable allowance for public interaction and property owner engagement during field inspections. AB 38 inspections typically require additional coordination and on-site interaction with property owners, real estate agents, or authorized representatives, which is reflected in the longer time allocations for those inspections.

Inspection Workload Analysis
The following analysis summarizes the estimated annual workload associated with Santa Monica’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) inspection program, including defensible space inspections, AB 38 real estate transaction inspections, plan review activities, and public education efforts. Although full-time positions account for 2,080 hours annually, the actual time for inspection activities is reduced due to vacation, sick leave, holidays, and training. The National Fire Protection Association Standard 1730 provides guidance for estimating available staff hours.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 45 Figure 32: Available Work Hours/FTE
Available Staff Hours Hours
Annual Hours at 100% Availability 2,080
Annual Leave and Holiday -240
Estimated Sick Leave Usage -24
Annual Training -80
Total Hours 1,528
The following figure, based on NFPA 1730 staffing analysis methods and utilizing input provided by Santa Monica Fire personnel, shows the FTEs required to complete each activity.

Figure 33: Total Estimated Annual Workload
Activity # Annually Hours per
activity
Total Time
(Hours) FPB FTE
VHFHSZ initial inspection 1,888 0.33 629 0.41
HFHSZ initial inspection 605 0.33 202 0.13
VH and High re-inspection rate 30% or 747 0.33 249 0.16 Second re-inspection 224 0.33 74 0.045
Defensible Space SUBTOTAL 1,154 0.75
AB 38 Initial Inspection 60 1 60 0.04
AB 38 re-inspections 30 0.75 22 0.01
AB 38 Inspections SUBTOTAL 82 0.05
Landscape Plan Review and Inspection 60 2 120 0.08
Public Education Events/Outreach 24 3 72 0.05
Program Administration Hours 112 112 0.073
TOTAL 1,540 1.01
Staffing Calculation
• Total workload: approximately 1,540 hours
• Effective capacity per inspector: approximately 1,528 hours • Calculated staffing need: approximately 1.01 full-time equivalent (FTE) Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 46 Recommended Staffing Level
To account for operational variability and program demands, the recommended staffing level is: 1.0 full-time equivalent personnel for ongoing operations, with temporary or supplemental staffing utilized during initial program startup.

The staffing level is intended to provide capacity for the minimum level of service required to support:
• Re-inspections and enforcement
• AB 38 workload variability
• Complaint-based inspections
• Public education and program administration
Additional staffing would be required to expand beyond this baseline level of service, including full program buildout and enhanced inspection coverage, as further described in the Potential Program Fees section of this report.

FULL COST OF THE INSPECTION PROGRAM
The full cost of Santa Monica’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) inspection program is primarily driven by personnel time required to conduct inspections, perform re-inspections, process AB 38 real estate transaction requests, and support public education and program administration.

For this analysis, a simplified cost model is used based on the fully burdened hourly rate for the Fire Inspector position at mid-range. Fully burdened rates are typically established to include salary, benefits, and typical overhead costs such as vehicles, equipment, information technology, and inspection software. As a result, these costs are not separately itemized.

Personnel Cost Analysis
Based on the workload analysis in the preceding workload analysis:
• Estimated annual workload: approximately 1,540 hours
• Fully burdened hourly rate: $235.73 per hour
Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 47 Figure 34: Estimated Annual Program Cost
Component Value
Total Annual Hours Approximately 1,540
Hourly Rate $235.73
Total Estimated Annual Cost Approximately $363,024
Additional Cost Considerations
While the fully burdened rate captures most ongoing program costs, initial implementation may require limited one-time or short-term expenditures, including:
• Development of inspection procedures and documentation systems • Public outreach and notification materials
• Staff training and onboarding
• Configuration or expansion of inspection tracking systems These costs are expected to be modest relative to ongoing personnel costs and may be absorbed within existing departmental resources or addressed through short-term staffing or project support.

Administrative Support Considerations
The cost model assumes inspection personnel will perform both field and administrative functions. As the program matures, additional administrative support may be considered to assist with:
• Scheduling inspections
• Processing AB 38 requests
• Data entry and records management
• Customer service and public inquiries
At the baseline staffing level identified in Section 4B, these functions are expected to be manageable within the Fire Inspector role.

Summary
• Estimated annual program cost: approximately $363,024 • Primary cost driver: personnel
• Additional costs: minimal due to inclusion within fully burdened rate This simplified cost model provides an estimate of program costs for planning and fee development purposes.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 48 POTENTIAL PROGRAM FEES
A fee program should be established to recover the reasonable cost of providing Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) inspection services, consistent with California law. Fees should be based on the cost of service and structured to support program sustainability while encouraging compliance.

Recommended Fee Framework
To support a sustainable Fire Hazard Reduction Program, the following fee framework is recommended:
• AB 38 Inspections: Full cost recovery through direct service fees • Annual Defensible Space Inspections: Full cost recovery through direct service fees • Re-Inspections: Applied when properties remain non-compliant • Administrative citations: Used for continued non-compliance Administrative citations may be utilized to escalate for repeat violations to encourage timely compliance.

Estimated Cost of Service by Activity
The following figure summarizes estimated costs per activity based on Step 5 of the fully burdened Fire Inspector rate, as Santa Monica Fire anticipates that the position will be staffed by Fire Inspectors at Step 5 in the range for the next several years.

Figure 35: Estimated Cost of Service by Activity
Fee
Fire Inspector
Fully Burdened
Rate
Hours per
activity Proposed Fee
Annual Defensible Space Inspection $235.73 0.33 $78.57
Defensible Space Re-inspection Fee $235.73 0.33 $78.57
State Mandated AB 38 Initial Inspection $235.73 1 $235.73 AB 38 Re-inspections $235.73 0.75 $176.79
Landscape Plan Review $235.73 1 $235.73
Landscape Inspection $235.73 1 $235.73
Landscape Re-inspection Fee $235.73 0.33 $78.57
Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 49 Compliance and Cost Recovery Considerations
Re-inspection fees not only recover program costs but also serve as an incentive for property owners to achieve compliance at the time of the initial inspection. Clearly communicated enforcement and fee structures are associated with higher rates of voluntary compliance and reduced program workload.

Fee Adjustment and Review
To maintain alignment with actual program costs:
• Fees should be reviewed periodically and adjusted as needed, particularly following the first year of program implementation
• Adjustments should reflect changes in staffing costs, workload, and service demand Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 50 Section I II:

FINDINGS &

RECOMMENDATIONS
Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 51 KEY FINDINGS

EMS SERVICE FEE STUDY
• SMFD’s EMS systems are on the upper end of an appropriate level of span of control. • SMFD staffs four ambulances 24 hours per day, and two ambulances 12 hours per day.

FHSZ INSPECTION FEE STUDY
• SMFD has the foundation to implement a Fire Hazard Reduction Program supported by a defensible, cost-based fee structure.
• SMFD should consider implementing a risk-based inspection program. • SMFD's inspection programs should include seasonal notification and education of the community.
• SMFD should establish a standardized compliance workflow that transitions from education to enforcement in a consistent and defensible manner.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 52 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES
Recommendation 1: C onduct c ontinuous evaluation of workload relative to span of control .

Description: The span of control for any organization is of critical importance. SMFD's EMS System is managed by a Battalion Chief assigned to EMS with support from three EMS Captains. With approximately 77% of the overall call volume routed to the EMS system, finding an appropriate workload balance can be challenging. In addition to administrative and operational staff, adequate ambulance staffing requires periodic review to ensure performance metrics are met or exceeded.

Outcome: Organizations that optimize span of control are successful organizations. A one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work well for all communities; each community has its own microclimate that needs to be addressed. Having well-defined key performance indicators (administratively, operationally, ambulance capability) and routine evaluation of workload and span of control helps organizations optimize service levels. Prioritizing healthy employees is critical to long-term success.

Estimated Cost: Staff time to review and report. Additional costs will vary depending on the findings of each evaluation.

Recommendation 2: Consider Updating Ambulance Transportation Fees Description: SMFD should update ambulance transportation fees based on the cost-of-service analysis and the City’s selected cost recovery policy. The fee study identifies the calculated cost per transport for ALS and BLS services and compares those costs with the LEMSA-approved rates. The City should determine whether to adopt the cost recovery rate where legally supported, continue using the LEMSA-approved rate, or use another defensible policy approach approved through the City’s fee adoption process.

The following figure outlines the cost of providing each service and the options for new fees. Options include: implementing fees that generate cost recovery, based on this fee study; or continuing to implement LEMSA-approved fees.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 53 Figure 36: Cost of EMS Services and Fee Options
Fee Current
Fee
Option #1:

Cost Recovery
Option #2:

LEMSA-Approved
Fees (2026–2027)
ALS Transportation $3,408 $3,754 $3,572
BLS Transportation $2,276 $1,811 $2,385
Oxygen $120 Not available $127
Medical Supplies $35 Not available $37
Mileage $30 Not available $31
Outcome: Updated ambulance transportation fees will improve alignment between service costs and revenue recovery, support Proposition 26 compliance, and provide a more transparent basis for future fee adjustments.

Estimated Cost: Staff time for policy review, fee adoption, and billing system updates. Revenue impacts will vary based on the fee option selected and payer reimbursement limits.

Recommendation 3: Implement Treat and No Transport Fees Description: SMFD should consider adopting Treat and No Transport fees for qualifying EMS responses that involve patient evaluation, treatment, or advanced assessment without ambulance transport. Based on the cost analysis, the estimated cost is approximately $394.50 for an engine response and $198.14 for an Advanced Provider Unit response.

The following figure outlines the costs for a Treat and No Transport.

Figure 37: Treat and No Transport Costs (Advanced Provider Unit) Personnel/Supplies Annual
Salary
Annual
Benefits
Loaded
Annual
Cost
Hourly Rate
(Annual
Cost/2912)
Cost for
Response
Firefighter/Paramedic 171,736 138,983 310,719 106.70 80.03 Contract Nurse
Practitioner (Hourly) 108.15 81.11
Medical Supplies 37.00
Total Cost $198.14
Outcome: A Treat and No Transport fee would allow the City to recover a portion of the cost associated with EMS responses that require staff time, medical supplies, and clinical assessment but do not result in transport billing.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 54 Estimated Cost: Staff time for policy development, legal review, fee adoption, billing coordination, and public communication.

Recommendation 4 : Implement a Motor Vehicle Accident Response Fee Description: SMFD should consider adopting a Motor Vehicle Accident response fee to recover eligible costs associated with staff time, supplies, and incident mitigation activities at vehicle accidents. The fee should be structured for billing to the responsible party’s vehicle insurance carrier where legally permissible and administratively feasible.

The following figure outlines the cost of responding to a motor vehicle accident, assuming staff time of one hour.

Figure 38: Motor Vehicle Accident Response Costs
Personnel/Supplies Annual
Salary
Annual
Benefits
Loaded
Annual
Cost
Hourly Rate
(Annual
Cost/2912)
Cost for
Response
Fire Captain 237,336 171,820 409,156 140.51 140.51
Fire Engineer 199,856 157,545 357,401 122.73 122.73
Firefighter/Paramedic 171,736 138,983 310,719 106.70 106.70 Firefighter/Paramedic 171,736 138,983 310,719 106.70 106.70 Supplies 50.00
Total Cost $526.64
Outcome: A Motor Vehicle Accident response fee would provide a cost recovery mechanism for incident-related expenses that are not otherwise recovered through existing EMS or fire service fees.

Estimated Cost: Staff time for policy development, legal review, fee adoption, billing coordination, and public communication.

Recommendation 5: Implement a Cost -Per -Service FHSZ Inspection Fee Description: Santa Monica should implement its Fire Hazard Inspection fee program in a phased and structured manner to support both program startup and long-term sustainability. Initial fee adoption should be based on the cost-of-service analysis presented in the preceding workload analysis, with priority placed on implementing AB 38 inspection fees, annual defensible space inspections, landscape plan review and inspections, and re-inspection fees as the primary cost recovery mechanisms during early program rollout.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 55 The following figure summarizes estimated costs per activity based on Step 5 of the fully burdened Fire Inspector rate, as Santa Monica Fire anticipates that the position will be staffed by Fire Inspectors at Step 5 in the range for the next several years.

Figure 39: Estimated Cost of Service by Activity
Fee
Fire Inspector
Fully Burdened
Rate
Hours per
activity Proposed Fee
Annual Defensible Space Inspection $235.73 0.33 $78.57
Defensible Space Re-inspection Fee $235.73 0.33 $78.57
State Mandated AB 38 Initial Inspection $235.73 1 $235.73 AB 38 Re-inspections $235.73 0.75 $176.79
Landscape Plan Review $235.73 1 $235.73
Landscape Inspection $235.73 1 $235.73
Landscape Re-inspection Fee $235.73 0.33 $78.57
As the program matures and operational data becomes available, the City may expand its cost recovery framework to include additional tools such as administrative citations and abatement cost recovery, where appropriate and legally supported. Following the first year of implementation, the City should evaluate and adjust fees based on program data and cost recovery performance.

Outcome: SMFD realizes full cost recovery for all FHSZ inspections.

Estimated Cost: $363,024 fully burdened cost for an inspector.

Recommendation 6 : Implement a Risk -Based Inspection Program Description: Santa Monica should continue to implement a risk-based inspection approach that prioritizes properties and activities based on statutory requirements, hazard severity, and community risk.

Recommended prioritization includes:
• AB 38 real estate transaction inspections
• Complaint-based inspections
• Annual inspections within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone • High Fire Hazard Severity Zone inspections as staffing and program capacity allow Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 56 Outcome: This approach ensures that available resources are directed toward the highest-risk and time-sensitive activities while allowing for future program expansion.

Estimated Cost: None if the Cost Per Service approach is adopted.

Recommendation 7: Provide Seasonal Notification and Education Description: An education-first approach should be implemented prior to the start of inspection activities. Seasonal notification should be distributed to property owners in advance of inspections and should clearly communicate:
• Defensible space requirements
• Program purpose and inspection timelines
• AB 38 inspection requirements
• Potential consequences of non-compliance
For a coastal community such as Santa Monica, a June 1 inspection start date is consistent with surrounding fire departments and accounts for extended vegetation growth conditions.

Outcome: Community is aware of the requirements.

Estimated Cost: Dependent on the method(s) utilized to communicate with the community.

Recommendation 8 : Develop a Standardized Compliance Workflow that Transitions into Progressive Enforcement
Description: Santa Monica should establish a standardized compliance workflow that transitions from education to enforcement in a consistent and defensible manner. A recommended framework includes:

1. Advance seasonal notification

2. Initial inspection

3. Written notice of violation, if applicable

4. Defined correction period (e.g., approximately 30 days)

5. Re-inspection

6. Escalation to re-inspection fees, administrative citations, or abatement where authorized Outcome: This structured approach supports fairness, transparency, and consistent program implementation
Estimated Cost: Staff time required to develop the workflows.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 57 Recommendation 9 : Formalize AB 38 Inspections
Description: AB 38 inspections should be formalized as a defined program component, separate from recurring inspection cycles but integrated into workload planning. Establishing clear procedures for inspection requests, scheduling, documentation, and reporting will support timely service delivery and compliance with statutory requirements.

Outcome: Compliance with statutory requirements.

Estimated Cost: Staff time to formalize the program.

Recommendation 10: Coordinate the Inspection Program with other City Departments
Description: Successful implementation of the FHSZ inspection program will require coordination across multiple City departments, including:
• Planning and Building
• Public Works
• City Attorney’s Office
Outcome: This coordination supports alignment with development review processes, ordinance authority, and broader City planning and hazard mitigation efforts.

Estimated Cost: Staff time required to coordinate with other city departments.

Recommendation 11: Consider the Implementation of Community -Focused Vegetation Management Support Programs
Description: To support voluntary compliance and build community trust, Santa Monica should consider implementing community-focused support programs, such as:
• Vegetation management assistance (e.g., green waste collection or chipping programs) • Public education campaigns and community meetings
• Participation in programs such as Firewise USA or local Fire Safe Councils Outcome: These efforts can reduce barriers to compliance and improve overall program effectiveness.

Estimated Cost: Staff time required to develop programs. If green waste collection and chipping programs are implemented, there will be costs associated with both.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 58 Recommendation 12: Consider Long -Term Inspection Program Enhancements
Description: As the program matures, Santa Monica may consider additional enhancements, including:
• Development of formal abatement authority and processes • Participation in statewide wildfire risk reduction recognition programs, such as the State Board of Forestry’s Community Risk Reduction Program designation • Integration with hazard mitigation planning and insurance-related initiatives Outcome: These enhancements can further strengthen community resilience and support long-term wildfire risk reduction.

Estimated Cost: Staff time required to develop formal processes.

Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 59 Section IV :

APPENDICES
Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 60 APPENDIX A: TABLE OF F IGURES
Figure 1: EMS Responses (2023–2025)............................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: EMS Non-Uniformed Administrative Staffing ...................................................................... 10 Figure 3: EMS Uniformed Administrative & Support Staff................................................................... 10 Figure 4: Uniformed Operational Staff.............................................................................................. 11 Figure 5: Battalion 1 (Suppression) Staffing Model............................................................................ 13 Figure 6: SMFD Actual General Fund Revenue and Expenses (FY 2021–2025) .................................... 15 Figure 7: Payer Mix for SMFD (FY 2021—2025).................................................................................. 17 Figure 8: SMFD Current EMS Fees.................................................................................................... 18 Figure 9: Salary and Benefit Costs—Firefighter/Paramedic ............................................................... 19 Figure 10: Constant Staffing/Overtime Costs—Firefighter/Paramedic ............................................... 19 Figure 11: Total Costs—Firefighter/Paramedic ................................................................................. 20 Figure 12: Allocation of Firefighter/Paramedic Staffing Costs............................................................ 20 Figure 13: Salary and Benefit Costs—Ambulance Operator............................................................... 21 Figure 14: Annual Hours Needed—Ambulance Operator .................................................................. 21 Figure 15: Total Costs—Ambulance Operator .................................................................................. 22 Figure 16: Vehicle and Equipment Costs.......................................................................................... 23 Figure 17: Annual Operating Costs for Ambulances.......................................................................... 24 Figure 18: Summary of Direct Costs for BLS and ALS ........................................................................ 24 Figure 19: FTE Ratios—BLS and ALS Programs ................................................................................. 25 Figure 20: Allocation of Administration, Training, and Technology Costs ........................................... 25 Figure 21: Allocation of Fire Station Operating Costs ........................................................................ 25 Figure 22: Annual PP-GEMT Costs.................................................................................................... 26 Figure 23: Citywide Indirect Costs Applied to BLS and ALS................................................................ 26 Figure 24: Summary of Indirect/Allocated Costs for BLS and ALS ...................................................... 26 Figure 25: Total Direct and Indirect/Allocated Costs for BLS and ALS ................................................ 27 Figure 26: Cost per Transport for BLS and ALS.................................................................................. 27 Figure 27: Cost of EMS Services and Fee Options ............................................................................. 28 Figure 28: Treat and No Transport Costs (Engine Response).............................................................. 29 Figure 29: Treat and No Transport Costs (Advanced Provider Unit) .................................................... 30 Figure 30: Motor Vehicle Accident Response Costs .......................................................................... 30 Figure 31: Palisades Fire (January 2025) Incident Footprint in Relation to Santa Monica..................... 37 Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial E M S & F I R E H A Z A R D F E E S T U D Y | S A N T A M O N I C A F I R E D E P A R T M E N T 61 Figure 32: Available Work Hours/FTE ............................................................................................... 45 Figure 33: Total Estimated Annual Workload .................................................................................... 45 Figure 34: Estimated Annual Program Cost ...................................................................................... 47 Figure 35: Estimated Cost of Service by Activity................................................................................ 48 Figure 36: Cost of EMS Services and Fee Options ............................................................................. 53 Figure 37: Treat and No Transport Costs (Advanced Provider Unit) .................................................... 53 Figure 38: Motor Vehicle Accident Response Costs .......................................................................... 54 Figure 39: Estimated Cost of Service by Activity................................................................................ 55 Attachment E

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Attachment E - Fire Fee Study Report (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Proposed Updates to Cemetery Fee Schedule*
Item Description Current Fees
(effective 7-1-25)
Proposed Fees
(Effective 7-1-26 with

3.3% CPI adjustment)
Description
Place Ashes in Existing Green Burial
Plot $1,365.85 $1,552.02
Effective 7-1-25, this should have been $1,502.44, the same as Place Ashes in Existing Crypt Interment Privilege; overlooked last year, this fee is always 1/10th of Adult Grave (Single-Interment). For FY 26-27, the CPI adjustment of

3.3% is applied to $1,502.44 which results in the proposed fee of $1,552.02.

Place Ashes in Existing Full Size Grave
(Multiple Interment Privilege) $1,365.85 $1,552.02
Effective 7-1-25, this should have been $1,502.44, the same as Place Ashes in Existing Crypt Interment Privilege; overlooked last year, this fee is always 1/10th of Adult Grave (Single-Interment). For FY 26-27, the CPI adjustment of

3.3% is applied to $1,502.44 which results in the proposed fee of $1,552.02.

Serenity
NEW: Niche columbarium area. The fee for marble niches is the same as all marble niches throughout the Mausoleum. Large Glass Niches are 2x the size of Medium Glass niches, so their pricing is 2x that of Medium Glass niches. Serenity will have the same tiered pricing structure of Sanctuary of Devotion.

Large Glass Rows 3-5 - $13,807.04
NEW: Niche columbarium area. The fee for marble niches is the same as all marble niches throughout the Mausoleum. Large Glass Niches are 2x the size of Medium Glass niches, so their pricing is 2x that of Medium Glass niches. Serenity will have the same tiered pricing structure of Sanctuary of Devotion.

Large Glass Row 6 - $12,491.61
NEW: Niche columbarium area. The fee for marble niches is the same as all marble niches throughout the Mausoleum. Large Glass Niches are 2x the size of Medium Glass niches, so their pricing is 2x that of Medium Glass niches. Serenity will have the same tiered pricing structure of Sanctuary of Devotion.

Medium Glass Rows 2-6 - $6,903.52
NEW: Niche columbarium area. The fee for marble niches is the same as all marble niches throughout the Mausoleum. Large Glass Niches are 2x the size of Medium Glass niches, so their pricing is 2x that of Medium Glass niches. Serenity will have the same tiered pricing structure of Sanctuary of Devotion.

Medium Glass Row 7 - $6,245.81
NEW: Niche columbarium area. The fee for marble niches is the same as all marble niches throughout the Mausoleum. Large Glass Niches are 2x the size of Medium Glass niches, so their pricing is 2x that of Medium Glass niches. Serenity will have the same tiered pricing structure of Sanctuary of Devotion.

Marble - $2,721.98
NEW: Niche columbarium area. The fee for marble niches is the same as all marble niches throughout the Mausoleum. Large Glass Niches are 2x the size of Medium Glass niches, so their pricing is 2x that of Medium Glass niches. Serenity will have the same tiered pricing structure of Sanctuary of Devotion.

Corner - $9,689.06
Effective 7-1-25, this should have been $9,379.54 but was missing from the Fee Schedule. It is the same cost as Corner under the Sanctuary of Devotion section as these niches are the same size. For FY 26-27, the CPI adjustment of 3.3% is applied to $9,379.54 which results in the proposed fee of $9,689.06.

Eternal Light Extra Large Marble
Niches
NEW: These are a row of marble-front spaces in the Mausoleum's Eternal Light crypt section that are too small to be crypts for caskets due to the building's architecture by the elevator. As they are large enough to accommodate 8 sets of cremated remains, they are to be sold as extra large marble cremation niches. The fee for eye level (Rows 2 and 3) spaces are based on the fee for a small marble niche x 8. Tiered pricing structure for this row of spaces follows that of the neighboring row of single crypts.

Row 7 - $14,770.14
NEW: These are a row of marble-front spaces in the Mausoleum's Eternal Light crypt section that are too small to be crypts for caskets due to the building's architecture by the elevator. As they are large enough to accommodate 8 sets of cremated remains, they are to be sold as extra large marble cremation niches. The fee for eye level (Rows 2 and 3) spaces are based on the fee for a small marble niche x 8. Tiered pricing structure for this row of spaces follows that of the neighboring row of single crypts. *Above list reflects fee changes other than the customary CPI adjustment F-1 Attachment F

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Attachment F - Cemetery Fee Revisions (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement Pr) Proposed Updates to Cemetery Fee Schedule*
Item Description Current Fees
(effective 7-1-25)
Proposed Fees
(Effective 7-1-26 with

3.3% CPI adjustment)
Description
Row 6 - $16,411.27
NEW: These are a row of marble-front spaces in the Mausoleum's Eternal Light crypt section that are too small to be crypts for caskets due to the building's architecture by the elevator. As they are large enough to accommodate 8 sets of cremated remains, they are to be sold as extra large marble cremation niches. The fee for eye level (Rows 2 and 3) spaces are based on the fee for a small marble niche x 8. Tiered pricing structure for this row of spaces follows that of the neighboring row of single crypts.

Row 5 - $16,411.27
NEW: These are a row of marble-front spaces in the Mausoleum's Eternal Light crypt section that are too small to be crypts for caskets due to the building's architecture by the elevator. As they are large enough to accommodate 8 sets of cremated remains, they are to be sold as extra large marble cremation niches. The fee for eye level (Rows 2 and 3) spaces are based on the fee for a small marble niche x 8. Tiered pricing structure for this row of spaces follows that of the neighboring row of single crypts.

Row 4 - $14,770.14
NEW: These are a row of marble-front spaces in the Mausoleum's Eternal Light crypt section that are too small to be crypts for caskets due to the building's architecture by the elevator. As they are large enough to accommodate 8 sets of cremated remains, they are to be sold as extra large marble cremation niches. The fee for eye level (Rows 2 and 3) spaces are based on the fee for a small marble niche x 8. Tiered pricing structure for this row of spaces follows that of the neighboring row of single crypts.

Row 3 - $9,300.27
NEW: These are a row of marble-front spaces in the Mausoleum's Eternal Light crypt section that are too small to be crypts for caskets due to the building's architecture by the elevator. As they are large enough to accommodate 8 sets of cremated remains, they are to be sold as extra large marble cremation niches. The fee for eye level (Rows 2 and 3) spaces are based on the fee for a small marble niche x 8. Tiered pricing structure for this row of spaces follows that of the neighboring row of single crypts.

Row 2 - $8,205.64
NEW: These are a row of marble-front spaces in the Mausoleum's Eternal Light crypt section that are too small to be crypts for caskets due to the building's architecture by the elevator. As they are large enough to accommodate 8 sets of cremated remains, they are to be sold as extra large marble cremation niches. The fee for eye level (Rows 2 and 3) spaces are based on the fee for a small marble niche x 8. Tiered pricing structure for this row of spaces follows that of the neighboring row of single crypts.

Row 1 - $8,205.64
NEW: These are a row of marble-front spaces in the Mausoleum's Eternal Light crypt section that are too small to be crypts for caskets due to the building's architecture by the elevator. As they are large enough to accommodate 8 sets of cremated remains, they are to be sold as extra large marble cremation niches. The fee for eye level (Rows 2 and 3) spaces are based on the fee for a small marble niche x 8. Tiered pricing structure for this row of spaces follows that of the neighboring row of single crypts.

Marker Installation (Adult Grave or
Cremation Grave) $699.91 $723.00 This language has been missing from this description Single Sandblasting for Crypt Front $576.40 $1,125.00
Fee adjustment necessary due to vendor price increase to $450. With standard cemetery 2.5x multiplier applied to $450, the proposed fee for FY 26- 27 should be $1,125.00
Double Sandblasting for Crypt Front $741.09 $1,437.50
Fee adjustment necessary due to vendor price increase to $575. With standard cemetery 2.5x multiplier applied to $575, the proposed fee for FY 26- 27 should be $1,437.50
Special Care of autopsied remains $280.69 $290.69 Vendor/Contractor fee increases by $10 on 7/1/2026. With the additional cost of $10, the proposed fee for FY 26-27 is $290.69
Funeral Coach (Hearse) 4 hours (Each
additional hour charged at
$150 per hour) (Beyond 30 miles,
charged at $3.00 per mile)
$923.68 $976.00
Fee adjustment necessary due to vendor price increase to $488. 2.0x multiplier is used for transportation costs to remain industry competitive. With the 2.0x multiplier applied to $488, the proposed fee for FY 26-27 should be $976.00
8 Pass Limo - 4 hours (Each additional
hour charged at $150 per hour) (Beyond
30 miles, charged at $3.00 per mile)
(Occupant count includes driver)
$1,024.38 $1,040.00
Fee adjustment necessary due to vendor price increase to $520. 2.0x multiplier is used for transportation costs to remain industry competitive. With the 2.0x multiplier applied to $520, the proposed fee for FY 26-27 should be $1,040.00. In addition, new text per vendor service description. *Above list reflects fee changes other than the customary CPI adjustment F-2 Attachment

7.A.f
F
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Attachment F - Cemetery Fee Revisions (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement Pr) Proposed Updates to Cemetery Fee Schedule*
Item Description Current Fees
(effective 7-1-25)
Proposed Fees
(Effective 7-1-26 with

3.3% CPI adjustment)
Description
10 Pass Limo - 4 hours (Each additional
hour charged at $150 per hour) (Beyond
30 miles, charged at $3.00 per mile)
(Occupant count includes driver)
$1,069.53 $1,104.82 New text per vendor description of provided service Flower Van - 4 hours (Each additional
hour charged at $150 per hour) (Beyond
30 miles, charged at $3.00 per mile)
$583.38 $656.00
Fee adjustment necessary due to vendor price increase to $328. 2.0x multiplier is used for transportation costs to remain industry competitive. With

2.0x multiplier applied to $328, the proposed fee for FY 26-27 should be $656.00.

Additional livery charges to Riverside
National Cemetery $224.55 $243.00 Increase to $243. This is based on the standard mileage fee of $3.00 per mile x 81 miles to Riverside National Cemetery.

Scattering at sea (unwitnessed, Los
Angeles County) $221.19 $228.49 New text added per vendor description of provided service Refrigeration of remains (beyond 21
days, charged an additional $26.14 per
day)
$25.30 $26.14 Item description updated to reflect the FY 26-27 proposed fee Witness Cremation - $400.00
NEW: Fee charged by the crematorium for families to witness the cremation of a loved one. This is considered a cash advance service (third party service paid upfront by Woodlawn) which is then charged back to the client.

Rush Cremation - $250.00
NEW: Fee charged by the crematorium for families to expedite the cremation of a loved one. This is considered a cash advance service (third party service paid upfront by Woodlawn) which is then charged back to the client . *Above list reflects fee changes other than the customary CPI adjustment F-3 Attachment

7.A.f
F
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Attachment F - Cemetery Fee Revisions (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement Pr)

PROCUREMENT SYSTEM
This fiscal policy (“Policy”) is prepared pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.24.030.

Ethics in Procurement
General Code of Ethics for City Staff
City of Santa Monica staff should always strive for the highest ethical standards.

To strengthen the City’s commitment to the highest standards of good governance, Santa Monica City Council adopted a values-based Code of Ethics for all City staff on November 24, 2015. It is based on the principles of fairness, transparency, accountability, and integrity.

Procurement Staff Code of Ethics
In addition to the General Code of Ethics, the Procurement Division will abide by the following additional principles:
 Strive to obtain the maximum for each public dollar expenditure.  Decline personal gifts or gratuities.
 Provide all competitive suppliers equal consideration insofar as state or federal statute and City policy permit.
 Conduct business with potential and current suppliers in an atmosphere of good faith, devoid of intentional misrepresentation.  Require honesty in sales representation whether offered through the medium of a verbal or written statement, an advertisement, or a sample of the product.
 Request and obtain consent of originator of proprietary ideas and designs before using them for competitive purchasing purposes.  Make every reasonable effort to negotiate an equitable and mutually agreeable settlement of any controversy with a supplier.  Communicate with all who offer to provide legitimate business to the City of Santa Monica.
 Collaborate with trade, industrial, and professional associations and with governmental and private agencies for the purposes of promoting and developing sound business methods.
 Foster fair, ethical, and legal trade practices
Conflicts of Interest Not Allowed
No employee or agent of the City is allowed to participate in the selection, award, or administration of a contract if he or she has a real or apparent conflict of interest. Such a conflict of interest would arise when the employee or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Attachment G - Fiscal Policy (Procurement) (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed financial or other interest in or a tangible personal benefit from a firm considered for a contract. The employee or agent of the City must neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from contractors or parties to subcontracts. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is not a violation of this Procedure to accept an unsolicited gift of nominal value. Any violations of these requirements shall subject the employee or agent to disciplinary actions.

Questions regarding potential conflicts of interest may be directed to the Purchasing Agent, who shall seek final determination from the City Attorney as appropriate.

Communications During Competitive Solicitation Period
Once a solicitation is open (posted to the online bid system), no employee or agent of the City, excluding Procurement staff, shall discuss or otherwise communicate with any firm or the public specific information related to a competitive solicitation, such as Invitation for Bid (IFB) or Request for Proposals (RFP) process prior to award with the following exceptions:
 For questions or requests for clarification received prior to question and answer (Q&A) period and in accordance with the solicitation documents, questions will be answered and posted to the online bid system by Procurement staff. This process makes certain that all potential bidders/proposers receive the same information at the same time, which ensures no person(s)/firm(s) benefits from an unfair advantage, which could be gained by way of a direct communication with a City employee or agent.
 After the close of the Q&A period and prior to the award, only Procurement staff is permitted to communicate with employees, agents, firms, and the public. This strict communication requirement is but one aspect to maintain the integrity of the solicitation process.

If City staff or agents are contacted by person(s)/firm(s) or the public during a solicitation process, he/she shall forward the call and/or written communication to Procurement staff.

Reporting Suspected Impropriety, Gross Waste, Fraud and Other Acts Any City official, employee, and/or vendor who suspects any type of impropriety relating to procurement or contracting activities, or gross waste, fraud, or abuse of City funds or resources, a gross abuse of authority, a specified and substantial danger to public health or safety due to any act or omission of any City official, employee, or vendor, or the use of a City office or position or of City resources for personal gain, should report the act by calling the City’s Integrity Line at (866) 428-1509. All such reports shall remain anonymous if desired by the reporting party.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Attachment G - Fiscal Policy (Procurement) (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Methods of Competitive Procurement
When initiating the procurement process, staff shall determine the procedure to be used based on the item being purchased and the dollar amount of the purchase. Items are categorized as goods, contractual services, technology services, and professional services.

The following definitions are guidelines for use of these terms:
 Goods: physical items
 Contractual services: services for routine, non-professional functions that are predominantly physical, manual or routine. For example: custodial services, temporary agency services, security services, and trades services (plumbers, electricians, painters, etc.).
 Technology services: agreements primarily for software, software-as-aservice, cloud-based platforms, hosted services, software licenses, subscriptions, implementation, maintenance, support, and other technology-related services.
 Professional services: services that require specialized expertise: training in a professional field, or other developed skills or training. This includes any work performed by a professional: for example, an auditor, attorney, doctor, architect, engineer, land surveyor, construction project manager, appraiser, systems analyst or software designer, expert, or consultant.

Services provided by vendors with a National/State license or certification are generally considered professional services. Vendors providing services that do not require a National/State license may also qualify as professional services, consult the Procurement Division for guidance  Public works projects: the construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, improvement, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or demolition of any public building, facility, infrastructure, street, sidewalk, utility, park, cemetery, irrigation system, open space improvement, or other public improvement (collectively “Public Works Projects”). Public Works Projects include the full project-development lifecycle, including pre-project, pre-design, design, preconstruction, construction, construction management, inspection, closeout, and related post-construction services performed in connection with an existing, proposed, planned, or potential public improvement.

Related services for such Public Works Projects may include feasibility studies, needs assessments, site investigations, surveys, geotechnical and hazardous-materials testing, CEQA and environmental review, programming, concept development, master planning, architectural and engineering design, permitting, cost estimating, value engineering, constructability review, scheduling, bid document preparation, construction management, and preconstruction services associated with a Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR), design-build, progressive design7.A.g Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Attachment G - Fiscal Policy (Procurement) (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed build, job order contracting, or similar delivery methods. This definition is based on and intended to be consistent with the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) definition of “public works” for purposes of prevailing wage requirements under California Labor Code Section 1720 et seq. This definition is intended to identify the category of procurements and contracts administered as Public Works Projects under this Policy.

Applicable state-law requirements, including prevailing wage and outsourcing requirements, will be determined based on the scope of work and applicable law. With the exception of Public Works Projects, the Public Works Department is still subject to the ordinary procurement process.

Procurement rules for goods and contractual services are often the same. Some procurements may not clearly fall into one of the categories defined above, particularly mixed procurements involving technology, training, implementation, consulting, or support services. Departments unsure of the category for a particular procurement shall consult with procurement staff prior to commencing the procurement process.

Amendments, Change Orders, Renewals, and Extensions
For purposes of applying this Policy, the value of a contract is cumulative and includes the original contract amount together with any amendments, change orders, renewals, extensions, or other modifications. Departments should consider the total contract value when determining the applicable approval authority and procurement requirements.

Departments should not divide contracts or related modifications for the purpose of avoiding approval thresholds or competitive procurement requirements.

Additional procedures for amendments, change orders, renewals, extensions, and other modifications may be established by administrative instructions.

Competitive Bidding Requirements
Informal procedures ($100,001 - $250,000 for goods, contractual and technology services / $100,001 - $125,000 professional services)
Informal solicitations shall be subject to the following procedures, as conducted by the Purchasing Agent or Designee:
a) Issue a notice inviting bids or request for proposals and solicit not less than three bids or proposals via City's online vendor portal website, electronic

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Attachment G - Fiscal Policy (Procurement) (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed mail request, direct mail, or by telephone. The Purchasing Agent may require additional notice as the Purchasing Agent deems appropriate. b) May reject any and all bids or proposals received whenever, in the opinion of the Purchasing Agent:

1. The bid(s) or proposal(s) received do not comply with the specifications of the notice inviting bids or request for proposals;

2. The proposed project or purchase should be abandoned or delayed;

3. The materials or services may be purchased more reasonably on the open market or the work done less expensively by City personnel;

4. The bids or proposals are higher than anticipated and a new solicitation would result in savings to the City; or

5. The best interests of the City would be served by a rejection of any or all bids or proposals.
c) Compile and tabulate all timely bids or proposals received and refer them to the appropriate City Department for evaluation. d) Provide notice of the recommended award to all bidders or proposers through the City's online vendor portal website or by other means as determined by the Purchasing Agent.
e) The City Manager or Designee shall award the contract after the protest period has expired or after a final determination of a denied protest has been made in accordance with Section 2.24.110.

The Purchasing Agent may establish procedures for disclosing bids or proposals after a recommended award has been identified, consistent with the Public Records Act. These procedures may include, for example, requiring bidders or proposers to submit proposed redacted copies of their submitted bids or proposals and to identify the legal basis for any requested redactions. The City retains final authority to determine what information is subject to disclosure under applicable law.

Formal procedures (Above $250,000 for goods, contractual and technology services / above $125,000 professional services)
Formal solicitations shall be subject to the following procedures, as conducted by the Purchasing Agent or Designee:
a) Issue a formal notice inviting bids or request for proposals and shall solicit bids and proposals by:

1. Posting on the City's online vendor portal website.

2. For Public Works Projects - Advertising in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Santa Monica;

3. Issue an additional notice, if determined to be in the best interest of the City; and

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Attachment G - Fiscal Policy (Procurement) (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed b) At the time specified in the notice inviting bids or request for proposals, all timely bids or proposals received shall be opened and declared publicly, either in person or through the City's online vendor portal website. c) May reject any and all bids or proposals received whenever, in the opinion of the Purchasing Agent:
a. The bid(s) or proposal(s) received do not comply with the specifications of the notice inviting bids or request for proposals; b. The proposed project or purchase should be abandoned or delayed;
c. The materials or services may be purchased more reasonably on the open market or the work done less expensively by City personnel;
d. The bids or proposals are higher than anticipated and a new solicitation would result in savings to the City; or
e. The best interests of the City would be served by a rejection of any or all bids or proposals.
d) Compile and tabulate all bids or proposals timely received and refer them to the appropriate City Department for evaluation.
e) Provide notice of the recommended award to all bidders or proposers through the City's online vendor portal website or by other means as determined by the Purchasing Agent.
f) If above $500,000 for goods, contractual services and technology services or above $125,000 professional services:
a. Formal procedures shall apply and the City Manager shall present the recommendation to City Council for award after the protest period has expired or after a final determination on a denied protest has been made in accordance with Section 2.24.110.

Under these formal procedures, the Purchasing Agent may establish procedures for disclosing bids or proposals after a recommended award has been identified, consistent with the Public Records Act. These procedures may include, for example, requiring bidders or proposers to submit proposed redacted copies of their submitted bids or proposals and to identify the legal basis for any requested redactions. The City retains final authority to determine what information is subject to disclosure under applicable law.

As-Needed Services Agreements for Public Works Projects (Section 2.24.090) Pursuant to Section 2.24.090(c), the Director of Public Works, the City Engineer or the Capital Improvement Manager, is authorized to issue task orders for as-needed master services agreements. Construction, maintenance or repair services pursuant to such asneeded services agreements in accordance with the following terms and procedures:

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Attachment G - Fiscal Policy (Procurement) (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed a) The City shall solicit, review and evaluate the qualifications of prospective contractors for as-needed services agreements in accordance with rules and regulations established by the Director of Public Works; b) The Director of Public Works shall pre-qualify contractors for as-needed service agreements;
c) The City Council may award as-needed services agreements to prequalified contractors, in amounts not to exceed five million dollars and with terms of no more than five years;
d) When the need arises for the performance of specific tasks within the scope of as-needed service agreements, the Director of Public Works, or designee, shall seek bids from at least three prequalified contractors and, using the evaluation criteria set forth under Section 2.24.100, issue a task order to the best bidder in an amount not to exceed one million dollars for a specifically defined scope of work.
e) If the Director of Public Works, or designee, seeks but is unable to obtain three bids, the Director may issue a task order to the best bidder of the bids submitted; f) The Director of Public Works, or designee, may reject any and all bids received in accordance with the standards set forth in the formal procedures subsection (c), above;
g) Prequalified contractors performing task orders under as-needed services agreements shall file payment and performance bonds in conjunction with each task order awarded as required by the Director of Public Works or applicable law; and
h) The Director of Public Works shall submit a report to the City Council on an annual basis containing information about the implementation of this subsection, including a listing of task orders issued pursuant to this subsection.

Procedures for Emergency Needs
a) In the event of an emergency, the City Manager, the Emergency Services Manager, the Purchasing Agent or one of their designees pursuant to subsection (b) below is authorized to:
1) Shorten or waive all required notice periods and competitive solicitation procedures set forth in this Chapter;
2) Secure in the open market at the best reasonable price, contracts for public works projects, goods and services;
3) Negotiate or execute such contracts, agreements, applications or other documents with such other federal, state or local agencies or other groups and organizations as are necessary to provide or obtain emergency aid, assistance or services to the City of Santa Monica; and
4) Contract for the immediate expenditure of public funds to safeguard life, health or property.
b) The City Manager, the Emergency Services Manager, or the Purchasing Agent may delegate authority to make purchases and awards under this Section. All such delegations shall be in writing and dated and shall

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Attachment G - Fiscal Policy (Procurement) (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed specify the limits of the authority delegated, including, without limitation, the type of purchase, dollar amount, and the terms of any contracts that will be executed under the delegation. All such delegations of authority shall be kept on file by the Purchasing Agent.
c) Within thirty days after any purchase or contract is made pursuant to this Section, the City Manager shall submit in writing to the City Council a full explanation of the emergency circumstances under which the purchase or contract was made. This writing shall be open to public inspection and, to the extent possible, presented as a Consent Item as part of a regular meeting of the City Council.
d) For purposes of this section, an emergency shall include:
1) A declared federal or state emergency;
2) A local emergency as declared by the City Council, the City Manager, or the Emergency Services Manager; or
3) An urgent, unforeseen event that threatens life, property, or the general public health, safety and welfare.

Exceptions to the competitive process
The competitive selection processes set forth in this Chapter do not apply when:
a) Funds are expended to secure membership or participation in professional organizations, meetings, or conventions;
b) Competition does not reasonably exist because only one vendor possesses the unique ability or capability to meet the particular requirements of the solicitation, such as when a good or service is copyrighted, patented or otherwise only available from one license holder, including, for example, proprietary goods of original equipment manufacturers and/or their authorized exclusive distributors; c) Competitive procedures were followed by a governmental agency, including a federal, state, county, city, joint powers agency, special district, or cooperative purchasing agency consisting of one or more such agencies, that are equivalent to the procedures set forth in this Chapter, and the goods or services are supplied to the City at the same or better price as the price obtained by that agency;
d) The items to be purchased are for resale to the public, such as, but not limited to, cemetery services or products;
e) The items to be purchased are circulating library materials, including books, periodicals, films and recordings;
f) Special conditions attach to a grant, donation, gift or other legal document that require the use of particular goods and/or services; g) A contract is entered into for specialty services related to fiscal and/or personnel related matters;
h) The individual or entity with authority to make a purchase or award determines and documents in writing in accordance with procedures set forth in administrative regulations that the time necessary to use the

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Attachment G - Fiscal Policy (Procurement) (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed competitive solicitation processes set forth in this Chapter, due to circumstances outside of the control of the City, would result in a substantial economic loss to the City, substantially compromise a legal position, or substantially interfere with a required City operation; or i) A contract is entered pursuant to procedures adopted by the City Attorney to secure legal services, including, but not limited to, services provided by outside legal counsel, investigators, consultants or experts in conjunction with a claim against the City, pending or anticipated litigation, or an administrative or legal proceeding; or j) A solicitation is made under the emergency procedures set forth in this Policy.
k) A contract for utility services.
l) Other: Reasoning can include: Standardization; Temporary Procurement to allow for competitive solicitation process; Project completion shortfall of no more than 15% of overall project.
 The exception for standardization is limited to purchases that are necessary to: (a) maintain compatibility with existing assets; (b) avoid loss or impairment of existing warranty or vendor support; or (c) avoid duplicate licensing or implementation costs.

Other Procurement Requirements
Surplus Property
Surplus property shall be disposed of according to the related Administrative Instruction. The Procurement Manager shall have the authority to make transfers between departments of any usable surplus supplies or equipment, to exchange or trade new supplies and equipment, or to sell all supplies and equipment which cannot be used by any department or which have become unsuitable for City use. Donations of surplus property may be made as described in Donation of goods section of this Policy.

Sale of goods
Goods that have been declared surplus, obsolete or unused by the Purchasing Agent shall be sold to the best bidder, applying the criteria in Section 2.24.100 of the Municipal Code, by bid, auction, negotiated sale, trade-in or exchange as follows:
(a) The sale of goods valued at twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less shall be sold according to procedures established by the Purchasing Agent. (b) The sale of goods valued over twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.01) or below two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) shall be subject to the informal solicitation procedures set forth in Competitive Bidding Requirements section.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Attachment G - Fiscal Policy (Procurement) (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed (c) The sale of goods valued at more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars shall be subject to the formal solicitation procedures set forth in Section Competitive Bidding Requirements section.

Donation of goods
Goods that have been declared surplus, obsolete or unused by the Purchasing Agent may be donated as follows:
(a) Goods valued at twenty-five thousand dollars or less may be donated in accordance with procedures established by the Purchasing Agent. (b) Goods valued at more than twenty-five thousand dollars may be donated to the best bidder applying the criteria set forth in Competitive Bidding Requirements section in accordance with the formal solicitation procedures.

Federal and State Grant Awards and Agreements
All procurements must comply with the City’s policies and procedures. When federal and/or state grant funds are involved, procurements must also comply with federal and/or state law and Uniform Guidance provisions (CFR Title 2: Grants and Agreements, Subtitle A, Chapter II, §200).

In the event of a contradiction between City’s policy and procedures and federal and/or state requirements, the more restrictive method must be followed.

Sustainable Procurement
City employees will endeavor to procure products and services in a manner that integrates fiscal responsibility, social equity, environmental stewardship and community enhancement.

Sustainable Purchasing Objectives
The City’s sustainable purchasing objectives will include acquisitions that:
• Conserve natural resources
• Reduce the use of water and energy
• Minimize environmental impacts such as pollution and use of water and energy
• Eliminate or reduce toxics that create hazards to our workers and our community
• Support strong recycling efforts and utilize products where a high likelihood of recycling exists (e.g. steel and paper products) • Reduce materials that are placed in landfills
• Increase the use and availability of environmentally preferable products • Encourage vendors to reduce environmental impacts in their production and distribution systems
• All buyers shall consider short-term and long-term cost in comparing product alternatives when feasible. This includes evaluation of total cost

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Attachment G - Fiscal Policy (Procurement) (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed expected during the time a product is owned, extended warranties, operation, supplies, maintenance, disposal cost and expected lifetime compared to other alternatives
Departments should use the Office of Sustainability and the Environment (OSE) Easy Guides, available on the City’s intranet under Employee Resources/ Sustainability, to assist with sustainable purchasing. The Easy Guides include an introduction to the good or service; how to get it in accordance with sustainability guidelines; required and preferred environmental performance specifications; relevant eco-labels; important notes; benefits; and more. When purchasing goods or services, Departments shall reference and comply with the requirements listed in the Easy Guides if one has been developed for the good or service. OSE staff will develop and revise Easy Guides alone or in conjunction with other Departments. For example, the Information Systems Department (ISD) could assist OSE staff with an Easy Guide for computers purchases. OSE staff provide training on the Easy Guides and any website tools. If an Easy Guide has not been developed, the Sustainable Procurement Advisor and Procurement Manager will provide direction on the best sustainable procurement practices.

Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE):

The City must ensure opportunities for DBE’s to participate in acquisitions financed in whole or in part by federal and/or state funds. Steps include:
 Assure qualified businesses are solicited when appropriate  Efforts to divide total requirements, when feasible, into smaller tasks to permit use of qualified businesses
 Use assistance from Small Business Administration (SBA) DOC, MBDA, et al.  Require prime contractor, if subcontractors used, to make good faith efforts to find other DBEs to do the work.

Price Preference For Local Businesses
In determining the best bidder for solicitations of goods and services subject to the informal and formal procedures set forth in this Policy, the Purchasing Agent shall provide a price preference for local businesses as follows:
(a) The Purchasing Agent shall provide a two percent price preference to all City businesses submitting bids or proposals upon which will be levied a State of California sales tax. The Purchasing Agent shall administer the bidding preference so that bid amounts received from such City businesses are reduced by two percent to determine the rank order of the bids in the selection process. If, after the two percent preference is applied, a City business has submitted a bid which is equal to or lower than all other proposals, the City Council shall award the contract to the City business so long as it is otherwise the best bidder or best qualified person or firm.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Attachment G - Fiscal Policy (Procurement) (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed (b) For purposes of this provision, a City business shall have its primary physical place of business within the City and be licensed by the City of Santa Monica to conduct business in the City.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Attachment G - Fiscal Policy (Procurement) (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed 1 David Yakobson
From: Matt Goldenberg D.O. <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2026 7:29 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Oliver Chi; Jenny Rogers; Micah Akerson; Tony Lopez; Christopher Dishlip; Recreation and Arts Department; John Smith; Barry Rosenbaum; [email protected]; Karen Melick; Maryanne LaGuardia; Steven Johnson; Sonam Makker; Bradley Ewing Subject: Support for Parks and Recreation: 7A Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing in advance of Tuesday's budget discussion to express appreciation for this council's commitment to Santa Monica's parks, and to share a few thoughts on the opportunity this budget cycle presents.

What this council has accomplished deserves to be memorialized. In January you voted 7-0 to adopt the Parks and Recreation Vision Plan, banned new artificial turf on city-owned land, and set Memorial Park on a path to construction. On May 9, thousands of Santa Monicans spread blankets on the grass at Tongva Park for the first full-scale concert ever held there, proof that the vision of parks as living civic spaces is already becoming reality. Douglas Park's ribbon cutting delivered our fifth universally accessible playground, and Tony Lopez, recently honored as Employee of the Year, deserves recognition for work that is thoughtful, community-centered, and built to last. You accomplished all of this while navigating a $29.6 million General Fund operating deficit.

Before turning to what more this council can accomplish, I want to gently flag one item in the proposed CIP: the Airport Park synthetic turf replacement. Given January's unanimous ban, I encourage the council to ensure that project is consistent with the Vision Plan's direction. The ban was a statement of values. I wonder if this project might be an opportunity for the council to ask staff to explore natural alternatives.

The proposed budget includes no dedicated parks land acquisition capacity for the communities most in need of green space. Mid-City alone has over 17,000 residents and is nearly 80% renters, families without yards, without private green space, and without a park within walking distance. Memorial Park is moving toward construction and Virginia Avenue Park Phase III continues the city's commitment to equity in the Pico Neighborhood. However, the communities north of Memorial Park, where thousands of new family-sized units are on the horizon, have no equivalent investment in green-space forthcoming.

The Joint Use Agreement with SMMUSD expires in 2027. This week the SMMUSD Board passed a resolution committing to keep school fields open to the community even after expiration. That resolution, paired with the recently extended Measure YY/GS Facilities Agreement, creates the conditions for what the Recreation and Parks Department has proposed: folding the expiring agreement into the already-extended YY/GS agreement, securing community field access in a confirmed written Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.k
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Written Comments (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement 2 contract. I encourage this council to support that approach. With access secured, the approximately $12 million annually freed from the General Fund can continue benefiting Santa Monica's children through parks, fields, and green space.

Please also consider directing staff to use LA County Measure A funds, which previously supported Douglas Park's shade structure improvements, to acquire smaller parcels in our most park-poor neighborhoods for passive park use. A pocket park serves a community immediately and can grow over time. And as FIFA, Super Bowl, and Olympic licensing revenues materialize beyond the $6.8 million already conservatively held off-budget, any surplus represents another opportunity to seed a parks acquisition reserve for these underserved neighborhoods.

The Vision Plan is the roadmap. The Airport Conversion is the horizon. The tools are available right now.

Thank you for your service, your vision, and the genuine progress this budget represents.

Best,
Matt Goldenberg, NOMA Co-Chair (sent in my personal capacity) Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.k
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Written Comments (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement 3 David Yakobson
From: Matt Goldenberg D.O. <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2026 7:32 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Oliver Chi; Jenny Rogers; Micah Akerson; Tony Lopez; Christopher Dishlip; Recreation and Arts Department; John Smith; Barry Rosenbaum; [email protected]; Karen Melick; Maryanne LaGuardia; Steven Johnson; Sonam Makker; Bradley Ewing Subject: Re: Support for Parks and Recreation: 7A Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget

EXTERNAL
"Recreation and Parks Department" was in error and should have read: "Recreation and Parks Commission".

I apologize for any confusion.

Matt G.

On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 7:29 PM Matt Goldenberg D.O. <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor Torosis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing in advance of Tuesday's budget discussion to express appreciation for this council's commitment to Santa Monica's parks, and to share a few thoughts on the opportunity this budget cycle presents.

7.A.k
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Written Comments (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement 4 moving toward construction and Virginia Avenue Park Phase III continues the city's commitment to equity in the Pico Neighborhood. However, the communities north of Memorial Park, where thousands of new family-sized units are on the horizon, have no equivalent investment in green-space forthcoming.

The Vision Plan is the roadmap. The Airport Conversion is the horizon. The tools are available right now.

Thank you for your service, your vision, and the genuine progress this budget represents.

Best,
Matt Goldenberg, NOMA Co-Chair (sent in my personal capacity) Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.k
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Written Comments (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement 5 David Yakobson
From: Karen Melick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 12:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Oliver Chi; Jenny Rogers; Micah Akerson; Joelle Simmons
Cc: Clay Evans; Kathryn [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Item 7A - Fee Study - Please don’t raise the aquatics adult permit group fees

EXTERNAL
Hello,
Adult Swimming Program - SCAQ
I am the Vice Chair of the Recreation and Parks Commission but I’m writing this email on behalf of myself and SCAQ, an adult swimming program that started here in Santa Monica 47 years ago that I’ve been swimming with for 38 years. About 30% of our swimmers at the Swim Center are seniors like me. The community benefit of this program is high as swimming is one of the best if not the best exercises for seniors. The comradery of the team and the goals of competing are inspiring. I’m looking forward to next year when I turn 70 so I’ll be the youngster in the 70 to 74 age group and hopefully be able to win a national title like I did 3 years ago.

Oppose the Fee Study Increases for Adult Aquatics Permit fees I’m glad to see that the fee increases for Community Recreation are modest, from zero to 9%. There’s no explanation as to why the aquatics permit groups fees are being raised by the highest percentage 8 to 9%. The City’s aquatics programs have no proposed increases.

Adult Aquatics Permit Groups Have a High Cost Recovery Rate The cost recovery rate for the aquatics permit groups including youth and adult programs, is 76%. The City Aquatics programs recovery rate is 28% and SMC, which is supposed to be paying full cost, is only 32% recovery rate. The permit group recovery rate is a combined rate between the youth permit groups that pay half the fee that the adult permit groups pay. So, the adult permit groups are paying a cost recovery rate of much higher than 76%. This year’s User Fee Summary Sheet only shows the roll up of aquatic permit fee revenues, not the separate lines for youth permit groups and adult permit groups like the previous years so I can’t determine the exact cost recovery but it’s already probably close to 100%.

Santa Monica Aquatics Adult Permit Fees are Much Higher than Comparable Cities The fee comparison part of the fee study has a line for Swim Permits but it has the Santa Monica fee listed as $30 which doesn’t match any current Santa Monica aquatics permit group fee. In the listings for the comparable Cities, it mostly mentions the event rental rates. The two Cities that have permit group rates (per lane per hour) are Culver City and West Hollywood. Both are significantly less than Santa Monica’s adult rates. Neither City (nor any other city I know) has a youth permit group rate. Their rates are $6 to $12 and $8 to $14 respectively compared to Santa Monica’s current rates of $11 to $46 per lane hour for adult groups. The range is due to lower fees for non-profit organizations and resident groups.

Past Fee Increases Did Not Significantly Increase Revenues The past three aquatics fee increases that raised fees cumulatively from 2013 by 38% to 100% did not significantly increase aquatics revenues. Revenues were $1,304,618 in 2013-14 and $1,370,099 in 2023-24, only a 5% increase. Raising the already high aquatics fees does not significantly increase revenues, it suppresses use.

Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.k
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Written Comments (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement 6 Please Do Not Increase the Adult Permit Group Rates
The adult permit group rates are already much higher than the comparable cities, the cost recovery rate is high and increasing already high fees does not result in increased revenues. The adult permit fees should not be increased.

Approve the Parks CIP Budget Plan
I ask that you approve all of the proposed Parks and Recreation CIP programs. It’s particularly great to see the Memorial Park expansion finally being funded for construction.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Karen Melick
Sunset Park

Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.k
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Written Comments (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement 7 David Yakobson
From: Steven Johnson
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 2:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell
Cc: Oliver Chi; Jenny Rogers; Micah Akerson; Eric Johnson; Christopher Dishlip; Tony Lopez; Amelia Feichtner; Linda Cogswell; Federico Bianchi; ASA; Susan Jain Subject: Item 7.a - Rec & Parks Commission Support for Parks-Related CIP Budget Priorities Attachments: 0525-RPC-CIP-Letter.pdf
RE: Item 7.a CIP Budget Priorities for Parks
Dear Mayor Torosis and Esteemed City Councilmembers,
The Recreation and Parks Commission met last Thursday and was given a preview presentation of the parksrelated CIP budget priorities you'll see tomorrow night, Tuesday, May 26.

The Commission strongly and unanimously supports staff recommendations, especially noting funding for two long-deferred projects:
1) Memorial Park Expansion
2) Airport Park Sports Field Replacement
3) Virginia Avenue Playground
4) Camera Obscura
5) Tongva, Gandara and other park repair improvement projects 6) Beach and Pier Vision Plan
Memorial Park Expansion
In 2004, the City of Santa Monica purchased the former Fischer Lumber Yard site for the expansion of Memorial Park. After more than 20 years of planning, community engagement and delays, this latest plan is the most workable and achievable. The smart inclusion of a 1.5 million gallon stormwater capture facility demonstrates Santa Monica's commitment to sustainability, but also leverages alternate funding to support the overall park plan. Additional support comes from commitments by SMC and SMMUSD, plus designated Santa Monica City Parks Impact fees and County Measure A grant funding, reducing General Fund impact dramatically. The current project plan is phased in a practical way that mitigates downtime. The final design increases accessibility, as well as the number of diamonds that can be used at the same time. The new fields support championship play for both softball and baseball.

This critical field replacement project has been passed over for several cycles, but cannot wait another two years. Per Council direction, a study will be conducted to evaluate the feasibility of replacement with natural grass or turf. The urgent need is to move quickly in order to maintain our current level of play, ideally with work commencing during the off-season.

Virgina Avenue Park Playground Replacement
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.k
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Written Comments (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement 8 Eligible for federal CDBG grant funding, the time to move on Virginia Avenue Park Playground replacement is now, especially as the current Administration in Washington continues its efforts to end the program. Following on the success of Douglas Park, which was largely funded by County Measure A, the VAP project demonstrates the resourcefulness of our Public Works Department in combining funding sources, grants and thoughtful planning to lower costs to the General Fund.

Camera Obscura
A long-neglected historic landmark in our world-famous Palisades Park, Camera Obscura is a great investment for the City as a flexible event location and arts venue, while activation improves public safety. Though highlighted for 2028 Olympics use, the community benefits will be enjoyed long into the future.

The remaining CIP budget proposal items address needs prioritized in the recent comprehensive Parks Conditions Assessment, with funding coming from a mix of General Fund, Parks Impact Fees, Measure A, CDBG funding and applied-for grants as they become available.

In summary, the Recreation and Parks Commission feels that these CIP budget priorities, as presented, align with long-standing community goals, and ask that you enthusiastically support the thoughtful efforts of Public Works and the Recreation & Arts Department when this comes to vote June 23.

Sincerely,
City of Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commission
Steven Johnson, Chair
Karen Melick, Vice Chair
Maryanne Laguardia
John Cyrus Smith
Barry Rosenbaum
Sonam Makker
Bradley Ewing
CC: Oliver Chi, Jenny Rogers and team, Chris Dishlip and team, Federico Bianchi (FSAC), Susan Jain (Arts Commission)
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.k
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Written Comments (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Monday, May 25, 2026
RE: Item 7.a CIP Budget Priorities for Parks
Dear Mayor Torosis and Esteemed City Councilmembers,
The Recreation and Parks Commission met last Thursday and was given a preview presentation of the parks-related CIP budget priorities you'll see tomorrow night, Tuesday, May 26.

Airport Park Sport Field Replacement
In 2000, Santa Monica Airport Park became the City's first and only dedicated soccer field (until the opening of Belmar in 2021). Supporting more than 2,700 hours of use per year, 7 days a week, the original playing surface at Airport Park is now long past due for replacement, and is at risk of being shut down entirely for being unsafe. Losing Airport Park will have a devastating impact on soccer, lacrosse and rugby, for youth and adults. This critical field replacement project has been passed over for several cycles, but cannot wait another two years. Per Council direction, a study will be conducted to evaluate the feasibility of replacement with natural grass or turf. The urgent need is to move quickly in order to maintain our current level of play, ideally with work commencing during the off-season.

Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.k
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Written Comments (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Virgina Avenue Park Playground Replacement
Eligible for federal CDBG grant funding, the time to move on Virginia Avenue Park Playground replacement is now, especially as the current Administration in Washington continues its efforts to end the program. Following on the success of Douglas Park, which was largely funded by County Measure A, the VAP project demonstrates the resourcefulness of our Public Works Department in combining funding sources, grants and thoughtful planning to lower costs to the General Fund.

Tongva, Gandara and other Parks Improvements
Our City parks require a variety of functional, aesthetic and safety improvements, ranging from restoring the water feature at Tongva parks to lighting, court resurfacing, furnishings, etc., across our network of facilities. The remaining CIP budget proposal items address needs prioritized in the recent comprehensive Parks Conditions Assessment, with funding coming from a mix of General Fund, Parks Impact Fees, Measure A, CDBG funding and applied-for grants as they become available.

Sincerely,
City of Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commission
Steven Johnson, Chair
Karen Melick, Vice Chair
Maryanne Laguardia
John Cyrus Smith
Barry Rosenbaum
Sonam Makker
Bradley Ewing
CC: Oliver Chi, Jenny Rogers, Chris Dishlip, Federico Bianchi, Susan Jain Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.k
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Written Comments (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement 9 David Yakobson
From: Sam Shapiro-Kline <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 8:38 PM
To: Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems
Subject: Capital Budget - Prioritize Neighborhood Greenways

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
The city should prioritize faster completion of the Michigan and Washington Ave Neighborhood Greenways. Currently in the CIP, the target completion date is 2028-2029.

In particular, Washington Ave was identified as a target bike boulevard in the 2020 Bicycle Action Plan.  In 2024, I and other residents began engaging with city staff, who quickly began preparing a grant application with SCAG, for which Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets and Santa Monica Forward submitted letters in support. That grant application was submitted in September 2024, and the grant was received by January 2025 for $875,000. At this time, we expected that implementation of some treatments could begin in summer 2025.  In July 2025, city staff communicated that procurement for a consultant would begin shortly, with project kickoff in early 2026. This timeline was designed so changes could be implemented in Summer 2026, before the coming school year.

Now, the project has been further delayed, to begin in 2027-28 and finish as late as 2029, which is deeply disappointing for what could be a simple project. This project is a crucial improvement to safety in our neighborhoods and encouraging students and families to arrive to school without driving.

Please consider expediting the Michigan and Washington greenway projects.

Thanks,
Sam Shapiro-Kline
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.k
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Written Comments (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement 1 David Yakobson
From: Ruthann Lehrer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public input on item 7 Study Session

EXTERNAL
City Council Meeting May 26, 2026
Agenda Item 7: Study Session
Number 4: Fee Study Report
Honorable Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
The Santa Monica Conservancy would like to offer our comments on the Fee Study Report, for your consideration regarding the upcoming City budget.

Historic preservation is defined in our LUCE as a core value and as a community benefit, enriching our economy and neighborhoods. Our legal system considers designating and protecting historic places to be a public benefit that serves the public interest by promoting community well-being and shared memories.

The policy for full-cost-recovery for city services that benefit individuals makes sense, regardless of the City’s financial situation. However, the fees charged for historic preservation fail to take into account the significant public benefits resulting from the protection of our historic and cultural resources.

In fact, rather than personally benefiting from landmark status, owners of designated properties take on significant regulatory burdens to conserve the historic value of their properties. Though they are eligible for the Mills Act Property Tax abatement contracts, this contract is costly to obtain and requires them to make significant personal financial investment in the rehabilitation and maintenance of the landmark – which serves the public interest in ensuring that historic structures will continue to convey their significance into the future.

An applicant for landmark designation is charged over $6,000 to pay for an outside professional consultant’s report plus an application fee of approximately $1,200. This far exceeds corresponding fees for any other California city. Many cities charge no fee or a nominal fee in order to encourage community participation in the program, and most conduct evaluations of landmark nominations in-house, with qualified staff, which Santa Monica is not currently staffed for, resulting in the hiring of costly outside consultants.

In recent years, the national cultural heritage spotlight has turned to the historical legacy of communities whose histories had been overlooked. The Santa Monica Landmarks Commission in partnership with the Committee for Racial Justice did a local study on the matter and concluded that both the cost and the procedures surrounding our landmark nomination process discourage people from coming forward to nominate significant but overlooked places. As Santa Monica begins its journey towards restorative justice, identification and protection of places that embody our diverse history should be brought within reach to all community members, particularly those who wish to tell their own stories and not have them told for them.

Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.k
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Written Comments (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement 2 Please take another look at the steep application fee for the nomination of landmarks in our historic preservation program, noting that the total cost would not be particularly substantial for the city, and taking into consideration the vital public benefit of this program and its value in helping us address equity issues by giving people an opportunity to safeguard their cultural histories.

Thank you for your consideration.

Ruthann Lehrer and Nina Fresco
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.k
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Written Comments (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement 3 David Yakobson
From: Steven Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:27 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; Jenny Rogers; Micah Akerson; Noe Mendoza; Karen Melick; Maryanne LaGuardia; John Smith; Barry Rosenbaum; Sonam Makker; Bradley Ewing; Federico Bianchi
Subject: Item 7.a - Rec & Parks Commission Additional Concern for Joint Use Attachments: 0526-Joint Use-Letter.pdf
RE: Item 7.a – Additional Concern for the Joint Use Agreement Dear Mayor Torosis and Esteemed City Councilmembers,
Attached under Item 7.a in tonight’s agenda as part of his report, Finance Director Oscar Santiago offers a detailed explanation of the budgetary impact of the City's expiring Joint Use Agreement with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.

Noted that with the agreement's end date of June 30, 2027, there is a $12 million savings to the General Fund, which appears to be the lynchpin of our balanced budget.

The Recreation and Parks Commission continues to be very concerned about the prospects for continued Joint Use at our current level, and asks that Council direct staff to negotiate now with the school district to add expiring supplemental agreements to the recently renewed YY/GS Master Facilities Use Agreement, safeguarding access regardless of the parcel tax outcome.

What’s At Stake
Missing from the Finance Director’s assessment is that nothing in the parcel tax ballot language secures joint use of district facilities, even if the initiative passes. This is a potential loss of nearly 25,000 hours of Citypermitted use across the middle and elementary schools, and merits Council discussion.

Despite the School Board’s May 19 resolution declaring a commitment to joint use and open campuses, there is significant worry within the sports community and those dependent on City-run programs at the school sites.

In his report, Director Santiago says, "...a citizens’ initiative is currently being advanced such that, if it qualifies for the ballot and is approved by the voters, would establish a parcel tax to provide a new revenue stream for the City." But is it really new revenue for the City?
On the contrary, the parcel tax ballot language reads, "All revenue from this local Parcel Tax will stay in the School District and cannot be taken away by the Federal, State, County, or City government," and later declares "the funds raised herein shall be transferred by the City to the School District, to be spent at the discretion of the School District’s Board of Education." Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.k
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Written Comments (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement 4 Among both supporters and detractors of the parcel tax, there are many who argue that there is no legal requirement to attach joint use or any other obligation to voter-approved taxes for schools. The ballot language reflects this.

This does not sound like a bargaining position for the City. If the tax wins, the District achieves a new permanent funding source for the schools with no strings attached. If the tax loses, we’re back to where we are now.

This was a critical debate when joint use was first launched in 2002, and again when YY/GS were merged in 2018. It is a critical debate now.

There Are Two Joint Use Agreements
It is also important to remember that there are currently two Master Facilities Use Agreements (MFUA) in effect.

In your January 27 Council meeting, you voted to extend the YY/GS agreement with the school district. The MFUA for YY/GS includes joint use for Samohi and Los Amigos Park, assures the annual transfer of ~$18 million of tax dollars to the school district, and was not due to expire until June 2028.

Meanwhile, the more impactful and more longstanding MFUA, that has grown from $4.5 million in 2002 to ~$12 million now, is due to expire in June 2027. This agreement includes middle and elementary schools, playground access and after school programs.

Why proactively extend one agreement 2½ years early, while taking a “wait and see” approach for the other? RPC Suggested Solution
Our Commission sent you a letter on May 4 suggesting that the best course of action would be to resolve the matter well before the parcel tax vote in November. One straightforward solution would be to fold the supplemental agreements from the expiring Joint Use Agreement into the newly renewed YY/GS MFUA, which was extended by Council for 10 years.

Without a secured Joint Use Agreement, this $12 million savings may turn into a devastating cut in recreation for Santa Monica, as the lost field time and programming cannot be made up anywhere else. Please consider acting now to preserve Joint Use.

Thank you again for your consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,
City of Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commission
Steven Johnson, Chair
Karen Melick, Vice Chair
Maryanne Laguardia
John Cyrus Smith
Barry Rosenbaum
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.k
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Written Comments (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement 5 Sonam Makker
Bradley Ewing
CC: Oliver Chi, Jenny Rogers, Federico Bianchi (FSAC)
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.k
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Written Comments (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Tuesday, May 26, 2026
RE: Item 7.a – Additional Concern for the Joint Use Agreement Dear Mayor Torosis and Esteemed City Councilmembers,
Attached under Item 7.a in tonight’s agenda as part of his report, Finance Director Oscar Santiago offers a detailed explanation of the budgetary impact of the City's expiring Joint Use Agreement with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.

Noted that with the agreement's end date of June 30, 2027, there is a $12 million savings to the General Fund, which appears to be the lynchpin of our balanced budget.

What’s At Stake
Missing from the Finance Director’s assessment is that nothing in the parcel tax ballot language secures joint use of district facilities, even if the initiative passes. This is a potential loss of nearly 25,000 hours of City-permitted use across the middle and elementary schools, and merits Council discussion.

This was a critical debate when joint use was first launched in 2002, and again when YY/GS were merged in 2018. It is a critical debate now.

Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.k
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Written Comments (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity There Are Two Joint Use Agreements
It is also important to remember that there are currently two Master Facilities Use Agreements (MFUA) in effect.

Thank you again for your consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,
City of Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commission
Steven Johnson, Chair
Karen Melick, Vice Chair
Maryanne Laguardia
John Cyrus Smith
Barry Rosenbaum
Sonam Makker
Bradley Ewing
CC: Oliver Chi, Jenny Rogers, Federico Bianchi (FSAC)
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.k
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Written Comments (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement City Council – May 26, 2026
Budget Study Session for the FY 2026-27 Proposed Budget and FY 2026-28 Biennial Capital Improvement Program
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and

1. Proposed FY 2026-27 Operating Budget and
adjustments

2. Proposed FY 2026-28 Biennial Capital Improvement
Program Budget

3. Fee Study Reports & Fee Revisions

4. Updates to Fiscal Policies – Incorporating the
modernized procurement policy
Agenda – Budget Study Session
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and The Budget is the result of collaboration between the community, City Departments led by the City Manager’s Office, and the City Council June 2025
Public Hearing and
Adoption of the 1st
year of the Biennial
Budget and 2nd year
of the Biennial CIP
Budget
October 2025
Santa Monica
Realignment Plan
March 2026
Santa Monica
Realignment Plan
Update
May 26, 2026
Proposed FY 2026-27
operating Budget and
FY 2026-28 biennial CIP
Budget presented to
City Council
June 23, 2026
Public Hearing and
Adoption of the 2nd
year of the Biennial
Budget and 1st year
of the Biennial CIP
Budget
Santa Monica's Budget Process
March 2025
Council Priority
Setting for the FY
2025-27 Biennial
Budget
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and • FY 2025-26 General Fund operating budget is tracking to achieve a year-end surplus of $8.95 million when taking into account options related to the joint use agreement with the SMMUSD
• <$3 million> being set aside for the Economic Recovery Reserve • $5.95 million being carried forward.

Where We Are Today: A Stronger Fiscal Foundation
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and • Joint Use Agreement —$12 million annually to SMMUSD for community use of District facilities; the Agreement is scheduled to expire in 2027 under the terms set in the April 2022 First Modification.
• Fiscal Impact in 2027 — When the Agreement sunsets, the $12 million annual obligation comes off the City’s books, contributing to the General Fund reaching structural balance by the end of FY 2026-27.
• Citizens’ Initiative — A proposed parcel-tax initiative, if qualified and approved by voters, would create a new revenue stream and could support renegotiating and extending the Joint Use Agreement, subject to Council direction. • Scenario Without New Revenue — If the measure does not qualify or is not approved, any Council-directed extension of the Agreement beyond 2027 would require continued General Fund support, necessitating identification of operational cost savings and potentially service-level reductions.

Joint Use Agreement with the SMMUSD
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and $109.8 $19.9
$798.4
$525.2
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
Citywide* General Fund
(in millions)
Operating
Capital
FY 2026-27 Proposed Budget
Citywide Expenditures - $908.1 million*
• FTE Net Change 7.0 FTE:

General Fund - $545.1 million
• FTE Net Change 7.0 FTE:
*Citywide expenditures are net of reimbursements and transfers between funds $908.1
$545.1
Budget Overview – FY 2026-27 Proposed Budget
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Federal Reserve
• Maintained the federal funds target range at 3.50% - 3.75% in April 2026 • National inflation was 3.3% year-over-year in March 2026 • Gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an annual rate of 2.0% in the first quarter of 2026
California’s Economic Growth
• Slower economic growth than the national average
• State’s unemployment rate was 5.5% in February 2026 compared with

4.3% nationally in March
Overview of Economic Conditions
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Santa Monica
• Downtown revitalization continues to be a priority
• Third Street Promenade recorded 346,147 visitors in March 2026 • Ground-floor retail occupancy was reported at 76% as of April 1, 2026 • Upcoming major regional events may boost visitor activity (2026 FIFA World Cup, etc.)
Overview of Economic Conditions
Property Tax- stable, with assessed valuation up 3.98%
Real Property Transfer Tax- variable but has averaged $10m annually.

Sales Tax- Growth 3.6% next year
Transient Occupancy Tax – Growth 6% this year and 9% next year Parking Revenues- Rate restructuring now fully implemented $40.6m next year December April
2024 2025 2025 2026
Occupancy: 62.1% 62.5% 74.59% 79.51%
ADR: $ 331.00 $ 328.28 $ 353.18 $ 376.45
Hotel Activity
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and General Fund - Proposed Adjustments to the FY 2026-27
Total FTE Changes +7.0
Permanent +7.0
Expenditures
• Fire Department - Aqueous Film-Forming
Foam Removal and Disposal Project
• Staffing changes for various program
enhancements
• Contract services in support of the
Realignment Plan and Airport Conversion
Project
• Adjustments to more accurately reflect true
capital expenditures
• Reassessment of current operational needs,
spending trends, and refined cost estimates
Revenues
• Reduced hotel tax and parking revenue
• Partially offset by new revenues
associated with the completed fee
studies and greater than projected
revenues from business license tax and
investment earnings
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Non-General Fund –
Proposed Adjustments to the FY 2026-27 Revised Budget Plan Revenues
• Increases in the BBB Fund from project
drawdowns and reimbursements to align
with projected capital expenditures
• Decreases in the Airport, Local Return,
Miscellaneous Grants, and Internal Service
Funds
• Increases in the Self-Insurance, Bus (Transit
Liability) and Wastewater Funds
Expenditures
• Programming Measure GS funding for Santa
Monica Rent Aid Program, housing services,
and homelessness prevention programs
• Adjustment to more accurately reflect true
capital expenditures and program
contributions from all other funds
• Payment to the Self-Insurance, Bus (Transit
Liability) Fund from the Big Blue Bus Fund
• Increase for new grant awards
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Proposed FY 2026-28 Biennial
Capital Improvement Program Budget
Capital Improvement Program
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Capital Improvement Program
77 Projects in the Proposed Budget
(17 – General Fund, 60 – Other Funds)
All Funds
FY 2026-27: $109.8 million
FY 2027-28: $116.6 million
General Fund
FY 2026-27: $19.9 million
FY 2027-28: $17.6 million
General Fund

16.54%
Misc Grants

11.75%
Local Return &
Gas Tax

6.78%
Water, Wastewater,
Clean Beaches

30.47%
Resource Recovery &
Recycling

0.26%
Airport

5.49%
Big Blue Bus

14.88%
All Others

13.84%
Proposed Budget FY2026-28
(two year total by percentage)
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Signature Capital Investments
Preparing for Major Events & 2028 Olympic Games • Major Event Infrastructure ($2M) • Pier Infrastructure ($21.2M) • Camera Obscura ($3M) • Tongva Park Repairs & Improvements ($1.8M) Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Signature Capital Investments
Reinvesting in Parks & Open Space • Memorial Park ($60M) • Airport Park Sports Field Replacement ($2M) • Virginia Ave. Park Playground Replacement ($700k) Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Signature Capital Investments
Citywide Infrastructure Recovery • Facility Renewal Program ($20M) • Main Library Renovations ($3.5M) • Citywide Workspace Optimization ($3M) Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Signature Capital Investments
Modernizing Transportation & Mobility
• Annual Paving Program (Santa Monica Blvd. & Chelsea Intersection) ($30M)
• 14th St. Bike & Pedestrian Improvements ($12.5M)
• Smart Curb Management Program ($1.7M)
• Streetlight Modernization ($21.8M)
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and What is a Fee Study?
• A study which calculates the true & full cost to deliver fee-for-service activities. Fee studies ensure fees are current, fair, defensible, and aligned with cost-recovery goals.
• Santa Monica conducts a comprehensive citywide User Fee/Cost of Service Study at least once every five years
2026 Fee Study Findings
• Over 800 individual fees across multiple City operations were analyzed, identifying $32.8 million in annual fee-supported service costs • Cost recovery revenue is projected to increase by $2.1 million across all Funds if the recommended fees are approved
City Fees, Fines, & Rates
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Citywide Fee Study
• 311 proposed fee increases, 180 proposed fee decreases, 71 new fees, and 29 fee deletions are being recommended to better align with current operations
Fire Department Fee Study
• 10 new fees are being proposed, and 5 existing fees will continue to align with the LA County Ambulance Rate Schedule for better cost recovery for the ambulance transport program
Other Fees
• Several new fees and fee updates are being proposed for the Cemetery to align pricing with comparable items, correct inconsistencies, and account for increased vendor costs City Fees, Fines, & Rates
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Modernized Procurement Policy, following Council’s adoption of the updated Purchasing System ordinance in March.

This modernization:
• Updates thresholds to reflect inflation and market conditions, • Clarifies competitive bidding and source selection requirements, and • Establishes consistent standards for cooperative purchasing, emergency procurement, and alternative delivery methods.

This is a major step toward a more efficient, transparent, and modern procurement system.

Fiscal Policy Updates
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Tonight’s Recommended Actions

1. Review and provide direction to staff regarding the FY 2026-27 Proposed Operating Budget Adjustments and FY 2026-28
Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget

2. Direct staff to proceed with setting the FY 2026-27 Operating and FY 2026-28 Biennial Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget Adoption hearing on June 23, 2026

3. Approve the position and classification changes

4. Review and comment on the recommendations of the Fee Study Report, Fire Fee Study Report, and Cemetery Fee revisions

5. Review and comment on the recommended updates to the Fiscal Policies
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and June 23, 2026 – Public Hearing: Adoption of the FY 2026-27 Operating and FY 2026-28 Biennial Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) Budget
• Final Changes
• Changes from this evening
• Resolutions
Next Steps
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Questions?
Next Steps
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.l
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026

7.A.m
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Presentation Item (7207 : Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 26, 2026
Agenda Item: 12.A
1 of 9
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jing Yeo, Director, Administration
Subject: Introduction and Adoption of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Establishing Standards and Procedures for Light Fleet-Based Service with Electric Vehicle Charging
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Introduce and Adopt an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica to Establish Standards and Procedures of Approval for Light Fleet-Based Service With Electric Vehicle Charging, and Creation of a Use Classification for Light-Fleet Based Service With Electric Vehicle Charging.

Summary
Recent development proposals have introduced high-intensity fleet maintenance operations co-located with Electric Vehicle (EV) charging. While EV charging infrastructure is protected under State law (Government Code Section 65850.7), these hybrid uses introduce land use impacts not fully addressed by existing regulations.

The City’s regulatory approach must balance:
• State-mandated ministerial approval for EV charging
• Local authority to address land use impacts and public safety This report presents a regulatory framework to address the growing co-location of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure with light fleet-based services (e.g., delivery, ride-hailing, or autonomous fleets). While State law requires streamlined, ministerial

12.A
Packet Pg. 718
2 of 9
approval of EV charging facilities, emerging operational patterns—particularly fleet staging, maintenance, and dispatch—have raised concerns. Key concerns identified include:
• Queuing and staging in the public right-of-way
• Obstruction of emergency access routes
• Noise and lighting impacts on nearby residential areas • Lack of operational accountability for fleet dispatch systems The proposed framework maintains compliance with State mandates while introducing a new use classification for light fleet-based services that are associated with EV charging and objective operational standards to mitigate impacts from fleet operations. A limited discretionary review process is retained only for rare cases involving site specific, documented public health and safety impacts in accordance with State law. This framework reflects several policy priorities:
• Mobility Innovation: Balances support and consistency with State law for electric vehicle charging stations while establishing objective standards for fleet operations including maintenance
• Neighborhood Protection: Establishes enforceable safeguards for adjacent residential areas
• Legal Compliance: Aligns with State requirements for streamlined EV permitting • Operational Accountability: Places responsibility on operators to actively manage impacts
At least one application for a light fleet-based service with electrical charging located in close proximity to residential neighborhoods is pending. Staff has determined that without operating conditions this facility will result in specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. Staff made this determination based on documented operational patterns at comparable facilities that have demonstrated recurring traffic obstructions, queuing spillback into public rights-of-way, and emergency access blockages that the proposed facility . These impacts arise from concentrated arrival surges, limited driveway capacity, and how long autonomous vehicles spend time on a site that present foreseeable risks. Continuous 24-hour operations further exacerbate these risks by

12.A
Packet Pg. 719
3 of 9
introducing nighttime queuing, noise, and light intrusion during sensitive hours, as evidenced by over 140 complaints associated with similar facilities. Additional inquiries for similar facilities have been received.

Ministerial review, without specific operating conditions attached, does not provide sufficient authority to regulate fleet dispatch practices or impose enforceable operational controls necessary to prevent these impacts. As a result, there is an urgent need to establish objective operational standards through the proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance. The emergency interim ordinance would become effective immediately upon adoption and remain in effect for 60 days (July 25, 2026) unless extended pursuant to SMMC Section 9.46.090(C).

Background
In recent years, the State of California has enacted legislation intended to accelerate the deployment of electric vehicle (“EV”) charging infrastructure and reduce local barriers to electrification and emerging transportation technologies. Two significant measures affecting local land use and permitting authority are Assembly Bill 1236 and Assembly Bill 970.

Assembly Bill 1236 (AB1236) – Electric Vehicle Charging Station Streamlining AB1236 was enacted in 2015 and established a streamlined, expedited permitting process for EV charging stations. The legislation added Government Code Section 65850.7 and requires cities and counties to adopt an ordinance creating an administrative, nondiscretionary review process for eligible EV charging station installations.

AB1236 was intended to reduce permitting delays and support statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals by treating EV charging infrastructure similarly to other ministerial building permit activities. Under the law, local agencies must:
• Develop and publish a checklist for EV charging station permit applications • Approve qualifying applications through a ministerial process

12.A
Packet Pg. 720
4 of 9
• Conduct only limited review focused on health and safety impacts, and • Avoid unreasonable restrictions that increase the cost or complexity of EV charging stations.

Assembly Bill 970 – Permitting Timelines for EV Charging Stations AB970 was enacted in 2021 and expanded upon the State’s prior EV charging streamlining laws by specifying timelines for determining application completeness and permit approval based on the number of proposed EV charging stations.

While AB 1236 and AB970 streamline permitting for EV charging equipment itself, the law does not eliminate a city’s authority to regulate land uses and operational characteristics that are distinct from the charging equipment itself including vehicle storage, fleet operations, maintenance activities, circulation, noise, lighting, or other compatibility considerations. Local agencies may continue to address issues such as:
• Fleet vehicle staging and storage
• Vehicle maintenance and cleaning activities
• Traffic circulation and queuing
• Hours of operation
• Noise, lighting, and neighborhood compatibility, and
• Compliance with zoning, building, fire, and public safety standards not preempted by State law
Potential Impacts from Light Fleet-Based Vehicle Services Associated with EV Charging Light fleet-based vehicle service operations are a distinct land use separate from EV charging-only facilities due to their centralized dispatch characteristics. Fleet operations, involve higher traffic volumes due to coordinated vehicle returns, continuous nighttime activity, simultaneous charging demand, extended dwell times, and the requirement for on-site staff to maintain and monitor the vehicles, making the facility function more like an industrial worksite. These operational characteristics can create concentrated queuing conditions that exceed available on-site storage capacity and

12.A
Packet Pg. 721
5 of 9
affect adjacent public rights-of-way. The City’s experience with fleet operations indicate that operational impacts are associated with the fleet-based nature of the use itself.

Queuing and Right-of-Way Obstruction
Existing fleet charging facilities in the city have shown recurring vehicle queues extending into adjacent alleys and circulation areas. Observed conditions included:
• Queuing within alleys
• Vehicles pausing within travel lanes
• Reduced circulation capacity
• Manual intervention by on-site personnel, and
• Interference with access and circulation
Queue lengths at existing facilities have been observed to reach approximately 15 vehicles. Applying conservative vehicle storage assumptions, a queue of this size would occupy approximately 330 to 375 feet. If not managed appropriately, vehicle queuing could potentially obstruct the public right-of-way and depending on site specific conditions, could interfere with:
• Turning movements
• Sight distance
• Transit operations
• Access to adjacent driveways
• Curbside parking
• Traffic signal operations and
• Vehicle merging activity near intersections
This potential spillover into the public right-of-way could obstruct adjacent streets and alleys. In the case of autonomous vehicles, this may result in longer obstruction duration due to delays in manual intervention to reposition vehicles during congestion events. This extended obstruction could potentially interfere with:
• Emergency vehicle access
• Fire apparatus maneuverability

12.A
Packet Pg. 722
6 of 9
• Refuse collection, and
• Service vehicle circulation
Noise & Light Impacts From Continuous 24-hour Operation Existing fleet operations facilities operate continuously on a 24-hour basis and have resulted in noise and light impacts, particularly during sensitive overnight periods adjacent to residentially-zoned properties.

Discussion
Based on the City’s observations of existing facilities, the potential impacts from light fleet-based vehicles services associated with EV charging stations include a potential public right-of-way obstruction due to a higher-volume traffic environment and light and noise impacts due to continuous operational intensity adjacent to residential neighborhoods particularly during overnight hours. These potential impacts warrant creating a framework to establish objective standards that would clarify locational restrictions for light fleet-based vehicle services associated with EV charging and create enforceable operational conditions to mitigate the potential impacts of future uses on adjacent residential neighborhoods.

1. New Use Classification
The proposed interim ordinance includes a new use classification called “Light FleetBased Service with Electric Vehicle Charging”. The classification applies to passenger transportation services, delivery services, medical transport services, autonomous vehicle fleets, and similar operations involving fleets of three or more vehicles under 10,000 pounds that utilize on-site EV charging infrastructure. The proposed use classification distinguishes fleet operations from traditional EV charging-only facilities.

The proposed interim ordinance establishes new objective operational standards for light fleet-based vehicle services associated with EV charging stations within the General Commercial (GC), Industrial Conservation (IC), and Transit Adjacent (TA)

12.A
Packet Pg. 723
7 of 9
zoning districts. For facilities within 100 feet of residentially-zoned property, the proposed interim ordinance establishes additional noise and light restrictions related to:
• Noise mitigation
• Overnight operational restrictions
• Sound walls; and
• Lighting orientation and shielding and
• Headlight and glare controls.

2. Permitting Framework
Qualifying projects would generally be processed ministerially through building permit review and compliance based on objective conditions. However, the ordinance retains a limited Minor Use Permit process if the Director determines, based on substantial evidence, that the project could result in a site specific adverse impact to public health or safety, as defined by Government Code Section 65850.7.

The purpose of the MUP is to hold a public hearing to gather information that would inform the development of site-specific operational conditions. The MUP cannot be denied.

This structure balances compliance with State law while preserving targeted oversight for situations where the potential for site-specific adverse health and safety impacts may occur.

3. Objective Operational Standards
The ordinance establishes objective operational standards designed to mitigate impacts associated with fleet charging operations, including:

A. Dispatch Coordination
• Required Parking and Loading Operations Plan
• Real-time management of vehicle arrivals and site capacity • Integration of dispatch systems with on-site conditions B. Prohibition on Off-Site Queuing

12.A
Packet Pg. 724
8 of 9
• No staging or idling in public streets or alleys
• All queuing must occur on-site
• If vehicles are enroute to the site and they must delay or circulate, such circulation shall not occur within one-half mile of the site.

C. Limits on total vehicles based on on-site capacity
• The number vehicles on site cannot exceed the number of available parking spaces
D. Minimum Emergency Access Clearances
• Maintain a mandatory 11-foot emergency access on streets and alleys E. On-Site Staffing
• Minimum of two trained personnel at all times
• Active monitoring of site operations and surrounding right-of-way • Authority to regulate or suspend dispatch activity
F. Monitoring and Compliance
• Ongoing City oversight
• Mandatory coordination meetings and updated plans as needed • Required operational adjustments if impacts occur
G. Additional Requirements
• Site liaison contact with requirement that operator respond to complaints in a timely manner
• Targeted zoning exemptions recognizing the unique nature of light fleet-based vehicle service associated with EV charging
For sites within 100 feet of residentially-zoned property, the following additional noise and light restrictions would apply:

A. Noise Controls
• Compliance with City noise standards
• Restrictions on noise levels overnight operations (11 PM – 6 AM) • Sound wall and site design requirements where applicable B. Lighting Controls
• Shielded lighting to prevent glare

12.A
Packet Pg. 725
9 of 9
• Illumination limited to minimum safety requirements
• Restrictions on overnight lighting levels (11pm – 6am) Environmental Review
The proposed EIZO would create new objective, operational standards for light-fleet based services with electric vehicle charging that are designed to reduce impacts of such facilities and, as such, is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines which state that CEQA does not apply “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.”
Financial Impacts
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.

Prepared By: Jing Yeo, Director
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO re Light Fleet Services +EV Charging 05.22.2026 B. Written Comments

12.A
Packet Pg. 726
1 City Council Meeting: May 26, 2026 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN EMERGENCY INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SANTA MONICA TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES OF

APPROVAL FOR LIGHT FLEET-BASED SERVICE WITH ELECTRIC VEHICLE

CHARGING FACILITIES AND CREATE A USE CLASSIFICATION FOR LIGHT-FLEET

BASED SERVICE WITH ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
WHEREAS, the State of California has enacted legislation intended to accelerate the deployment of electric vehicle (“EV”) charging infrastructure and reduce local barriers to electrification and emerging transportation technologies; and WHEREAS, significant measures affecting local land use and permitting authority include Assembly Bill 1236 (2015) (“AB 1236”) and Assembly Bill 970 (2025) (“AB 970”); and
WHEREAS, AB 1236 establishes a streamlined, expedited permitting process for EV charging stations and requires cities and counties to adopt an ordinance creating an administrative, nondiscretionary review process for eligible EV charging stations installations; and
WHEREAS, AB 1236 was intended to reduce permitting delays and support statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals by treating EV charging infrastructure similarly to other ministerial building permit activities; and
WHEREAS, AB 1236 requires local agencies to: (1) Develop and publish a checklist for EV charging station permit applications; (2) Approve qualifying applications through a ministerial process; (3) Conduct only limited review focused on health and

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO re Light Fleet Services +EV Charging 05.22.2026 (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV 2 safety impacts; and (4) Avoid unreasonable restrictions that increase the cost or complexity of EV charging installations; and
WHEREAS, AB 970 expands on California’s prior EV charging streamlining laws by further limiting local discretionary review over certain EV charging and associated infrastructure projects; and
WHEREAS, AB 970 establishes additional timelines and procedural requirements for local agencies reviewing qualifying projects; and
WHEREAS, although AB 970 further constrains local discretion over qualifying EV charging infrastructure, cities retain authority to regulate land uses and operational characteristics that are distinct from the charging equipment itself; and WHEREAS, recent development proposals have introduced high-intensity fleet maintenance operations co-located with EV charging facilities; and WHEREAS, while EV charging infrastructure is protected pursuant to Government Code section 65850.7, these hybrid uses introduce land use impacts not fully addressed by existing regulations; and
WHEREAS, documented key concerns include, but are not limited to: (1) Queuing and staging in the public right-of-way; (2) Obstruction of emergency access routes; (3) Noise and lighting impacts on nearby residential areas; (4) Lack of operational accountability for fleet dispatch systems; and
WHEREAS, based on prior documented occurrences, additional impacts may arise due to concentrated arrival surges, limited driveway capacity, and the duration autonomous vehicles remain on-site; and

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO re Light Fleet Services +EV Charging 05.22.2026 (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV 3 WHEREAS, continuous 24-hour operations further exacerbate these concerns by introducing nighttime queuing, noise, and light intrusion during sensitive hours, as evidenced by over 140 complaints associated with certain existing facilities; and WHEREAS, this emergency ordinance provides a framework that maintains compliance with State mandates while introducing a new use classification for fleet maintenance and objective operational standards to mitigate impacts from this kind of land use; and
WHEREAS, the emergency ordinance provides a limited discretionary review process retained only for rare cases involving documented adverse health and safety risks in accordance with State law; and
WHEREAS, this emergency ordinance balances state-mandated ministerial approval for EV charging with the City’s local authority to address land use impacts and public safety; and
WHEREAS, several applications for high-intensity fleet maintenance operations co-located with EV charging facilities have necessitated the immediate need for the City to address these land use impacts; and
WHEREAS, adoption of this Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance is necessary to preserve public peace, health, safety and welfare as it will allow the City to address land use impacts and public safety associated with high-intensity fleet maintenance operations co-located with EV charging.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO re Light Fleet Services +EV Charging 05.22.2026 (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV 4 NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.165, Light Fleet-Based Service with Electric Vehicle Charging, is hereby added and shall read as follows:

9.31.165 Light Fleet-Based Service with Electric Vehicle Charging A. Purpose and Applicability. The purpose of this Section is to set forth specific standards for Light Fleet-Based Service with Electric Vehicle Charging, as defined by Section 9.51.020(D)(6.5), in order to mitigate impacts to public right-of-way, impacts on adjacent residentially zoned property, and documented adverse impacts upon public health or safety.

B. Location. Light Fleet-Based Service with Electric Vehicle Charging shall be permitted in the General Commercial (GC), Industrial Conservation (IC), and Transit Adjacent (TA) Zoning Districts, subject to ministerial approval or a Minor Use Permit as set forth in subsection (C), below.

C. Procedure.

1. Ministerial Approval. Except as provided for in subsection (C)(2) below, applications for Light Fleet-Based Service with Electric Vehicle Charging shall be reviewed and approved administratively through the issuance of a building permit subject to compliance with the requirements of this section.

2. Minor Use Permit Required. A Minor Use Permit shall be required in accordance with Chapter 9.41 if, during the course of plan check review, the Director, or designee, determines, based on substantial evidence, that the Light Fleet-Based Service with EV Charging could have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO re Light Fleet Services +EV Charging 05.22.2026 (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV 5 For purposes of this section “specific, adverse impact” shall have the same meaning as set forth in Government Code section 65850.7(i)(5). If a Minor Use Permit is required, the City shall send a written determination to the applicant in compliance with the applicable time periods set forth in Government Code section 65850.71. A Minor Use Permit application shall be submitted to the City in compliance with Chapter 9.41.

3. The Minor Use Permit shall contain site-specific operational conditions to mitigate the specific, adverse impacts upon the public health or safety.

D, Use Standards

1. Dispatch Coordination Plan
a. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a Parking and Loading Operations Plan with a fleet dispatch coordination component that indicates when dispatching and vehicle arrives will be slowed, held, or suspended for review and approval by the Mobility Division. The plan shall demonstrate how vehicle arrivals will be managed to prevent queuing in the public right-of-way. b. The plan shall coordinate dispatch timing with available charging capacity and internal site circulation and shall include, at a minimum, procedures for managing arrival rates, monitoring site occupancy in real time, and preventing vehicle staging when the facility is at capacity.
c. Operation of the facility shall be conducted in accordance with the approved plan.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO re Light Fleet Services +EV Charging 05.22.2026 (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV 6 2. Prohibition on Off-site Queuing and Emergency Vehicle Access Clearance a. Queuing.
i. Fleet vehicles shall not queue, stage, or idle in the public rightof-way, including adjacent alleys, or nearby residential streets. ii. All queuing must be accommodated within the site. Vehicles shall circulate off-site if the facility is at capacity. iii. If vehicles already en route to the site must delay or circulate in order to comply with the approved arrival-rate and occupancy management strategy, such circulation shall not occur within a half mile of the site.
b. Adjacent alleys.
i. Adjacent alleys shall not be used for routine vehicle staging or queuing and may only function as an emergency overflow relief (“safety valve”) to preserve required clearance and prevent obstruction of highervolume streets. ii. Any temporary use of the alley for this purpose shall maintain the required 11-foot clear path at all times and shall be actively managed by on-site personnel.

3. Minimum Clearance
a. At all times, a minimum 11-foot clear width shall be maintained in all alleys and access ways consistent with all applicable provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code and fire access standards.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO re Light Fleet Services +EV Charging 05.22.2026 (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV 7 b. Vehicles shall not stage, queue, or idle in a manner that obstructs emergency vehicles or essential services on any adjacent public right-of-way.

4. Emergency Operations. Operations shall be conducted such that emergency access is continuously maintained without reliance on ad hoc vehicle repositioning or delayed manual intervention.

5. Limit to total vehicles served. The total number of vehicles on-site shall not exceed the number of available parking spaces on-site.

6. Minimum On-Site Staffing
a. A minimum of two (2) trained on-site personnel shall be present during all hours of operation to actively manage vehicle circulation, coordinate fleet dispatch, prevent queuing in the public right-of-way, and ensure that required emergency access is maintained at all times. At least one staff member shall be assigned to monitor the site entrance and adjacent public right-of-way. b. On-site personnel shall be responsible for real-time coordination with the fleet operator or dispatch system to regulate vehicle arrivals so that vehicles are dispatched to the site only when sufficient on-site capacity is available.

Personnel shall monitor site occupancy, control arrival flow, direct vehicles to available charging spaces, and reposition vehicles as necessary to prevent obstruction of travel lanes, alleys, or emergency access routes. c. Dispatching to the site shall be actively managed. It may be delayed, staggered, or suspended by the operator or on-site personnel as necessary to prevent queuing or circulation conflicts, or resolve queuing or circulation conflicts within five minutes.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO re Light Fleet Services +EV Charging 05.22.2026 (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV 8 d. At least one staff member shall be on-site who can coordinate repair of vehicle malfunctions that result in blocking the public right-of-way or impeded on-site vehicle circulation within five minutes.

7. Operational Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
a. The operator shall cooperate with ongoing City monitoring of site operations.
b. If the City determines that operations are not in compliance with the standards in this ordinance, including but not limited to, queuing, right-of-way obstruction, emergency access interference, or other public health and safety impacts, the operator shall participate in coordination meetings with the City and upon request, submit updated operational plans to mitigate impacts. Such updated plans may include required modifications to operations, including adjustments to staffing, dispatch coordination, or circulation management. Operator shall promptly implement operational modifications to the satisfaction of the City.

8. Site Liaison Contact Required.
a. Applicant shall designate a neighborhood liaison who is available responsible for addressing neighbor and transportation-related concerns and complaints.
b. If the operator receives any complaints about noise, light, glare, or traffic impacts, all reasonable efforts shall be taken to address and remediate the concerns in a timely manner.

9. Special Standards for Sites within 100 feet of residentially zoned property.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO re Light Fleet Services +EV Charging 05.22.2026 (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV 9 a. Noise Control Measures. The following noise control measures shall apply to light-fleet based services as a land use when associated with EV charging and located within 100 feet of a residentially-zoned property at the time the application is determined to be complete.
i. Operations shall comply with all applicable City noise regulations, including SMMC Chapter 4.12 (Noise), and shall be conducted in a manner that minimizes noise impacts on surrounding properties. ii. Operators shall install a sound wall of at least 8 feet high on the perimeter property lines.
iii. The circulation of the site shall be designed to reduce the need to backup vehicles.
iv. Overnight Noise Restrictions. Between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.:
(A) On parcels located within 100 feet of a residentiallyzoned property at the time the application for the operation is determined complete, no light fleet-based service operations, as defined in Section 9.51.030(D)(6.5), shall be conducted, except that charging for non-autonomous vehicles may occur.
(B) No noise shall be generated that is plainly audible from an adjacent residential property line or from a distance of 100 feet from the source of the noise, whichever is closer. For purposes of this section, “plainly audible” shall mean the sound in question can be easily detected, without undue effort, by an enforcement officer of

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO re Light Fleet Services +EV Charging 05.22.2026 (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV 10 normal unaided hearing. Words, phrases, or specific noise signatures need not be discernible or identifiable. When music is involved, the detection of rhythmic bass tones shall be sufficient to be considered plainly audible sound. Plainly audible does not implicate issues of subjective "loudness" – the plainly audible standard simply determines whether any noise can be heard regardless of the perceived "loudness." Plainly audible observation alone is sufficient to support and prove a noise disturbance. b. Lighting and Headlight Control
i. In accordance with Section 9.21.080, any on-site lighting shall be shielded in order to prevent light and glare impacts on nearby properties and uses.
ii. On-site lighting shall be oriented in a manner that faces away from all nearby residential uses.
iii. Between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., site lighting shall not exceed the standards set forth in Section 9.21.080(F).

E. Exemptions for EV Charger Facilities from Active Use, Pedestrian-Oriented Design, Build-to-Lines, and Planting Area requirements. EV chargers and associated amenity buildings, including, but not limited to, restrooms, security kiosk, storage, and break rooms, are exempt from the requirements set forth in Section 9.11.030, subsections (A), (B), (C), and (G).

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO re Light Fleet Services +EV Charging 05.22.2026 (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV 11 F. Exemptions from Certain Development Standards. Light Fleet-Based Vehicle Service with EV Charging are not considered parking lots and therefore the standards in Section 9.26.050(B) shall not apply.

G. Exemptions from Architectural Review. EV Chargers are exempt from Chapter

9.55 of the Zoning Ordinance.

H. Enforcement. If it is determined that the Light Fleet-Based Vehicle Service with EV Charging has violated the use standards in this section, or any MUP issued in accordance with this Section, the City may pursue all available remedies including, but not limited to, those under Section 9.48.

SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.51.030(D)(6.5), Light FleetBased Service with Electric Vehicle Charging, is hereby added and shall read as follows:

9.51.030(D)(6.5) Light Fleet-Based Service with Electric Vehicle Charging.

Passenger transportation services, local delivery services, medical transport, and other businesses that rely on fleets of 3 or more vehicles with rated capacities less than 10,000 lbs. This classification includes the use of on-site electric vehicle charging in conjunction with the following activities, including, but not limited to, parking, dispatching, storage, fueling, cleaning, software servicing, vehicle maintenance and servicing, and offices for taxicab and limousine operations, autonomous fleet vehicles, ambulance services, nonemergency medical transport, local messenger and document delivery services, home cleaning services, and similar businesses. This classification does not include towing operations (see Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Service, Towing and Impound) or taxi or delivery services with 2 or fewer fleet vehicles on site (see Business Services).

This classification also does not include electric vehicle charging only facilities.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO re Light Fleet Services +EV Charging 05.22.2026 (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV 12 SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or any appendix thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. This Ordinance is declared to be an emergency measure necessary for preserving the public peace, health, safety or welfare, adopted pursuant to the provisions of Section 615 of the Santa Monica City Charter. As set forth in the findings above and in the May 26, 2026 staff report, this Ordinance is necessary for preserving the public peace, health, safety, and welfare. As an emergency measure, this Ordinance will be effective immediately upon adoption.

SECTION 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO re Light Fleet Services +EV Charging 05.22.2026 (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV 13 SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be of no further force or as of July 25, 2026, unless it is otherwise extended pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section

9.46.090(C).

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO re Light Fleet Services +EV Charging 05.22.2026 (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV 1 David Yakobson
From: Chris Harding <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:05 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; Jing Yeo; Heidi von Tongeln; Denise Anderson-Warren; Mark Harding; Tom Larmore; Casparian, Thomas; Terry O'Day
Subject: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Establishing Standards and Procedures for Electric Vehicle Charging of Fleet Vehicles
Attachments: CC 2026-05-26.pdf; Legal Alert.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:

Please see the attached letter on Agenda Item 12.A on tonight’s City Council Agenda.

Sincerely,
Chris Harding
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) Christopher M. Harding | Attorney at Law
1250 6th Street, Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90401
May 26, 2026

VIA EMAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]
Re: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Establishing Standards and Procedures for Electric Vehicle Charging of Fleet Vehicles Hearing Date: May 26, 2026
Agenda Item No. 12.A
Dear Councilmembers:

This letter is submitted on behalf of SMF Property Holdings, LLC (“SMF”), owner of the two properties with EV charging facilities at 1222 and 1310 Broadway, Santa Monica. These two facilities are leased by SMF to Voltera Power and operated by Waymo. They were constructed pursuant to building permits issued by the City in 2023 approving EV charging for fleet vehicles on a 24/7 basis, with certain ancillary services specified on the City-approved plans. SMF is informed that Voltera spent in excess of $10 million constructing these facilities in reliance on their City-issued building permits. They have been operated by Waymo continuously since late 2024/early 2025.

This letter addresses the proposed Interim Zoning Ordinance (“IZO”). As this letter explains:
 The proposed IZO lacks clear use definitions distinguishing between two use categories: (1) Light Fleet-Based Service With Electric Vehicle Charging (“Fleet Service”) and (2) electric vehicle charging only (“EV charging”).  In defining the meaning of EV charging (as opposed to Fleet Service), the City must follow State EV Charging Law (Government Code Section 65850.7) and incorporate its protections including for the EV charging of fleet vehicles and activities integral to such charging.

Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) 2  The proposed IZO lacks an applicability provision clarifying that it does not apply retroactively to established uses such as the EV charging use at SMF properties.

Such a provision should be added before the proposed IZO is adopted.  The Staff Report accompanying the proposed IZO overstates the City’s discretion to regulate the use of EV charging, which is strictly limited by State EV Charging Law.

THE PROPOSED IZO LACKS CLEAR DEFINITIONS OF TWO USE CATEGORIES:

FLEET SERVICE AND EV CHARGING
The proposed IZO’s definition of its new use category -- Light Fleet-Based Charging Service With Electric Vehicle Charging expressly excludes “electric vehicle charging only facilities.” (Section 2) (These two use categories are hereinafter referred to as “Fleet Service” and “EV charging”.) SMF’s problem with this key piece of the proposed IZO is two-fold:
 The proposed IZO lacks a definition of what constitutes EV charging.  The definition of Fleet Service is unclear. This definition references EV charging and then strings together a list of “in conjunction” activities preceded by the phrase “including but limited to ….” The definition does not indicate if any one of these activities is enough to push the use from EV charging to Fleet Service or whether more than one such activity necessary. Moreover, at least some of the listed activities are integral to EV charging (and other uses): “fueling” (EV charging is, itself, about fueling vehicles), “storage” (virtually all uses have some storage), and “cleaning” (which is ancillary to EV charging and virtually all other uses).

Given the law’s very different treatment of these two use categories, the proposed IZO needs clear definitions that distinguish between them. In this regard, State EV Charging Law must be considered because it places strict limits on the City’s ability to regulate EV charging.

And, as discussed below, this includes EV charging for fleet vehicles.

STATE EV CHARGING LAW GOVERNS HOW THE CITY DEFINES

EV CHARGING IN ITS PROPOSED IZO
In considering the proposed IZO and the distinction between the two use categories at issue (Fleet Service and EV charging), City Councilmembers should familiarize yourselves with State EV Charging Law and the restrictions it places on municipal regulation of EV charging facilities and uses including by charter cities like Santa Monica.

The State of California has in place strong legal protections for EV charging facilities and uses. State EV Charging Law, codified in Government Code Section 65850.7, contains findings underscoring the importance of EV charging in California and limiting the authority of municipalities to regulate it. These findings are codified in Section 65850.7(a):

Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) 3 (a) “The implementation of consistent statewide standards to achieve the timely and cost-effective installation of electric vehicle charging stations … is not a municipal affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is instead a matter of statewide concern. Therefore, this section applies to all cities, including charter cities.” (Subsection (1))
(b) “It is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies not adopt ordinances that create unreasonable barriers to the installation of zero-emission vehicle infrastructure ….” (Subsection (2))
(c) “It is the policy of the state to promote and encourage the use of electric vehicle charging stations … and to limit obstacles to their use.” (Subsection (3)) (d) “It is the intention of the Legislature that local agencies comply not only with the language of this section, but also the legislative intent to encourage the installation of electric vehicle charging stations … so long as the action does not supersede the building official’s authority to identify and address higher priority life-safety situations.” (Subsection (4)) The California Attorney General has provided cities with guidance concerning State EV Charging Law. In a Legal Alert dated March 18, 2025 (copy attached), the Attorney General explained that State EV Charging Law does not allow cities to deny or condition approvals of EV charging stations based on a property’s zoning district: “Specifically, localities may not limit EV charging stations to commercial areas or refuse to site EV charging stations in residential zones or in locations where EV charging stations are not an allowed site use under local law.” (AG Alert, p. 4.)
The Attorney General has addressed State EV Charging Law’s treatment of EV charging for fleet vehicles. According to the Attorney General, State EV Charging Law protects EV charging for all types of vehicles including autonomous fleet vehicles. The State EV Charging Law does not distinguish between “whether the EV charging stations are for personal, public or fleet use ….” (AG Alert at p. 5.)
The AG Alert also makes it clear that when it refers to “EV charging stations,” it includes fleet operations and related uses that are “integral” to the operation of the EV charging facility. (AG Alert, p. 5) Thus, any municipal regulation addressing EV charging (including the proposed IZO) must protect EV charging and related improvements and services that are integral to EV charging including EV charging for fleet vehicles.

Finally, State EV Charging Law establishes the procedures for municipal regulation of EV charging. State law mandates a ministerial approval process for EV charging, providing:
(a) “A city, county, or city and county shall administratively approve an application to install electric vehicle charging stations through the issuance of a building permit or similar nondiscretionary permit.” (Subsection (b)1)
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) 4 (b) “A city, county, or city and county may not deny an application for a use permit to install an electric vehicle charging station … unless it makes written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record that the proposed installation would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. The findings shall include the basis for the rejection of potential feasible alternatives of preventing the adverse impact.” (Subsection (c)) In other words, State EV Charging Law allows cities to require a Use Permit to impose conditions of approval if the EV charging facility could have a specific adverse impact upon the public health and safety. Moreover, State EV Charging Law requires that any such conditions of approval only if a proposed EV charging facility “shall be designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety at the lowest cost possible.” Section 65850.7(e).

State EV Charging Law does not contemplate a generic imposition of performance standards on all EV charging facilities for fleet vehicles regardless of the particular impacts on public health and safety.

THE PROPOSED IZO SHOULD BE AMENDED TO STATE THAT IT DOES NOT APPLY TO EXISTING EV CHARGING FACILITIES INCLUDING THOSE LOCATED ON SMF’S PROPERTIES The proposed IZO lacks an applicability provision, which is a key weakness in its drafting that should be corrected.

SMF submits that the proposed IZO cannot lawfully be applied to the EV charging facilities at its 1222 and 1310 Broadway properties for two reasons:

1. Because the City previously issued building permits specifically authorizing the construction and use of EV charging at these two properties for fleet vehicles on a 24/7 basis, and SMF/Voltera/Waymo have collectively invested millions of dollars in reliance on these permits, SMF, Voltera and Waymo have a fundamental vested right to operate these facilities for fleet vehicles, 24/7, notwithstanding the proposed IZO. Avco Community Developers, Inc. v.

South Coast Regional Com. 17Cal.3d 785, 791 (1976).

2. State EV Charging Law establishes the sole procedure for the City to impose project conditions on EV charging facilities. This procedure is the Use Permit procedure established in Government Code Section 65850.7. In approving the SMF facilities, the City chose not to impose project conditions. State EV Charging Law precludes the City from imposing such conditions now, via the proposed IZO.

In this regard, the building permits for SMF’s properties approved EV charging use based upon State EV Charging Law, not the City’s Zoning Ordinance. State EV Charging Law has not changed -- it continues to make EV charging (including for fleet vehicles) a permitted use in all zoning districts including in the MUBL district in Santa Monica. Thus, the proposed IZO modifying the City’s Zoning Ordinance does not affect the legal status of EV charging at SMF’s properties: it is a permitted use under State EV Charging Law.

Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) 5 Moreover, in approving building permits for EV charging at SMF’s properties, the scope of the City’s approval included approval of ancillary activities that are integral to the EV charging use. (See AG Alert at p. 5) Specifically, the City-approved plans state:
“It is envisioned that this will be a 24-hour charging facility.” “These two lots are ‘spoke’ locations which means they will be used purely for EV charging. During charging there will likely be some on the spot cleaning or light maintenance of vehicle consumables (e.g., windshield wiper replacement, cleaning fluid top-off) in support of turning them around quickly, much like a traditional gasoline service station.”
“There will be around the clock security in place to protect the investment.”
Accordingly, SMF requests the City Council to, at a minimum, add an applicability provision to the proposed IZO clarifying that existing EV charging facilities constructed in accordance with permits issued pursuant to State EV Charging Law are excluded from the IZO.

THE STAFF REPORT MISREPRESENTS STATE EV CHARGING LAW AS PROTECTING THE

CONSTRUCTION OF EV FACILITIES ONLY AND NOT THEIR USE AFTER CONSTRUCTION The Staff Report, at page 4, misrepresents State EV Charging Law as protecting the construction of EV facilities and not their use after construction. The Staff Report states:
“While AB 1236 and AB970 streamline permitting for EV charging equipment itself, the law does not eliminate a city’s authority to regulate land uses and operational characteristics that are distinct from the charging equipment itself including vehicle storage, fleet operations, maintenance activities, circulation, noise, lighting, or other compatibility considerations.”
This statement is contradicted by the express purpose of State EV Charging Law, which encompasses both the construction of EV charging facilities and their use after construction.

Government Code Section 65850.7(A)(3) states: “It is the policy of the state to promote and encourage the use of electric vehicle charging stations … and to limit obstacles to their use.” (Subsection (3))
Thus, an essential legal premise of the proposed IZO -- broad municipal discretion over the use of EV charging facilities unaffected by State law -- is clearly in error. Municipal discretion over the use of EV charging facilities is, in fact, restricted by State EV Charging Law to imposing conditions of approval specifically tied to a project’s public health and safety impacts.

And such conditions must address public health or safety at the lowest cost possible.

Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) 6 CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, SMF requests that the City Council continue this proposed ordinance for further review and revision to address the concerns identified in this letter.

Above all, the City Council should ensure that municipal regulation affecting EV charging is aligned with State EV Charging Law and the important public policies it serves. And the proposed ordinance should expressly exclude existing EV charging uses such as those in place at SMF’s properties.

Sincerely,
Christopher M. Harding
Enclosure
cc: Oliver Chi
Jing Yeo
Heidi von Tongeln
City Clerk ([email protected])
Mark Harding
Thomas Larmore
Thomas Casparian
Voltera
Waymo
Terry O’Day
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) 2 David Yakobson
From: Kenneth Kutcher <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Oliver Chi; Jing Yeo; Heidi von Tongeln; Denise Anderson-Warren Subject: Agenda Item 12-A (light fleet-based EV charging stations/proposed IZO) Attachments: CC 2026.05.26.pdf; GO-Biz 2023.03.23.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
The attached letter is submitted on behalf of Voltera Power regarding Agenda Item 12-A.

Thank you.

Ken
Kenneth L. Kutcher | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 451-3669 | [email protected]
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) (310) 451-3669
May 26, 2026

VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Item 12-A (light fleet-based EV charging stations/proposed IZO) Our Client: Voltera Power, LLC
Our File No.22705.001
Dear Councilmembers:

This letter is submitted on behalf of Voltera Power, LLC (“Voltera”). Voltera leases property at 1222 Broadway and 1310 Broadway (“Broadway Properties”).

Voltera has a long-term lease for the Broadway Properties. Pursuant to Building Permit Nos. 23BLD-1749 & 1750, at a cost in excess of $10 million, Voltera installed 14 dualport electric vehicle (“EV”) charging stations on each of the Broadway Properties.

Following Voltera’s completion of this installation, Certificates of Occupancy were issued by the City of Santa Monica for both of the Broadway Properties on December 31, 2024. Voltera has a customer that operates the EV charging stations for the customer’s fleet of commercial passenger vehicles, providing ride-hail services in Santa Monica.

We have read the draft emergency interim zoning ordinance (“IZO”) proposing to (1) create a new use classification for light-fleet based EV charging and (2) adopt new standards and procedures for approval of light-fleet based EV charging facilities.

As noted below, we have concerns with the Draft IZO that the City Council should address.

SECTION 9.31.165 REGARDING APPLICABILITY

SHOULD BE REVISED TO CLEARLY EXEMPT

EXISTING EV CHARGING FACILITIES
Voltera hereby requests that the IZO’s Draft Section 9.31.165(A), addressing “purpose and applicability,” be revised to add standard language making it clear that the IZO’s new light fleet-based EV charging regulations do not apply to previously approved and constructed development such as the Broadway Properties. This is a standard [email protected]
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) Santa Monica City Council
May 26, 2026

Page 2 ends

exemption that is commonly adopted when changes are made to the Zoning Ordinance.

For example, see Zoning Ordinance Section 9.01.040(D)(1), which reads as follows:
§ 9.01.040 Applicability.
* * *
D. Effect on Previously Approved Projects and Projects
in Progress. The following projects shall have a vested right to proceed without complying with this Zoning
Ordinance:

1. Previously Approved Development. The erection,
construction, enlargement, demolition, moving,
conversion of, and excavation and grading for any
building or structure for which a valid permit or building permit was issued prior to the effective date of this
Zoning Ordinance and which does not subsequently
expire.

Here, as to the Broadway Properties, not only were valid building permits issued for the installation of the EV charging stations, but also the site improvements and installations were actually completed and certificates of occupancy have been issued. In addition, business licenses have been issued (and subsequently renewed as well) for the light fleet-based EV charging occurring on these sites.1 The installation and operation of those two particular EV charging stations on the Broadway Properties predate the IZO. Accordingly, the IZO should make clear that the Broadway Properties are exempt from the IZO and its attempt to regulate future light fleet-based EV charging stations.

Per the Staff Report, the IZO appears to targeted to apply to pending and future applications, not existing facilities already permitted and constructed:
1 The Zoning Review Form for Business License # 250172 for the 1310 Broadway site states in the “comments” section of the “official use only” portion:
“Electric vehicle recharging facility is a ministerially permitted use per Assembly Bill 970 and as agreed upon by Planning Staff and City Attorney’s office.” Similarly, the Zoning Review Form for Business License # 250243 for the 1222 Broadway site states in the “comments” section of the “official use only” portion: “Use is permitted by-right per State law.”
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) Santa Monica City Council
May 26, 2026

Page 3 ends

“At least one application for a light fleet-based service with electrical charging located in close proximity to residential neighborhoods is pending. Staff has determined that without operating conditions this facility will result in specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.”
(Staff Report, p. 2.)

THE IZO IS AN ATTEMPTED END-RUN ON STATE LAW THAT

PREEMPTS LOCAL ZONING AS TO EV CHARGING,

INCLUDING FOR FLEET VEHICLES
As to local zoning, Assembly Bills 1236 and 970 expressly preempt local zoning regulations as to EV charging stations, including in charter cities such as Santa Monica.

In this regard, Government Code Section 65850.7(a)2 states:

The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1) The implementation of consistent statewide standards to achieve the timely and cost-effective installation of electric vehicle charging stations and hydrogen-fueling stations is not a municipal affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is instead a matter of statewide concern. Therefore, this section applies to all cities, including charter cities.
(2) It is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies not adopt ordinances that create unreasonable barriers to the installation of zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and not unreasonably restrict the ability of . . . business concerns to install electric vehicle charging and hydrogen-fueling stations. (3) It is the policy of the state to promote and encourage the use of electric vehicle charging stations and hydrogen-fueling stations and to limit obstacles to their use.
(4) It is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies comply not only with the language of this section, but also the legislative intent to encourage the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and hydrogen-fueling stations by removing obstacles to, and minimizing costs of, permitting for charging and 2 See also Cal. Atty Gen. Legal Alert No. OAG 2025-01 as to Electric Vehicle Charging Station Permit Streamlining Requirements (Mar. 18, 2025) p. 2 (“These state laws thus apply to all local governments, including charter cities, and preempt local laws and ordinances that conflict with them.”).

Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) Santa Monica City Council
May 26, 2026

Page 4 ends

hydrogen-fueling stations so long as the action does not supersede the building official’s authority to identify and address higher priority life-safety situations.
(Emphasis added.)
Among other things, the Draft IZO purports to attempt to limit the zoning districts where “light fleet-based service with electric vehicle charging” may occur. (See Draft IZO, Section 9.31.165(B).3) However, per the California Attorney General:
“[Government Code] Sections 65850.7 and 65850.71 apply
to EV charging station permit applications even if local zoning laws do not specifically list—or even if they expressly prohibit—EV charging stations as an allowed site use.” (Cal.

Atty Gen. Legal Alert No. AG 2025-01, supra at p. 4
(emphasis added).)
Moreover, the Attorney General has made it clear: “Sections 65850.7 and 65850.71 do not permit localities to condition approval based on the type of proposed EV charging stations installation.” (Id. at p. 5 (emphasis added).) Indeed, the Attorney General has identified “significant and common compliance issues” occurring in certain localities, including:
“Applying local zoning regulations to EV charging station permit application review even though local zoning
regulations are preempted under the charging streamlining laws.” (Id. at p. 2.)
When I was representing EdgeConneX in the permitting process for the Broadway Properties, City Planning Staff took the position that the proposed use of these properties was a Light Fleet-Based Service (see Zoning Ordinance § 9.51.030(D)(6)) and was therefore prohibited in the Mixed-Use Boulevard Low (“MUBL”) Zoning District on Broadway. We disagreed and convinced the City Manager and Planning Director otherwise. Once AB 1236 and 970 took effect in cities of less than 200,000 population, we asserted the right to streamlined processing of these 3 Draft Section 9.31.165(B) reads: “Light Fleet-Based Service with Electric Vehicle Charging shall [only] be permitted in the General Commercial (GC), Industrial Conservation (IC), and Transit Adjacent (TA) Zoning Districts.” By contrast, a hydrogen fueling station can generally be limited to properties zoned for industrial or commercial development. (See Gov’t Code § 65850.7(b)(2)(A).)
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) Santa Monica City Council
May 26, 2026

Page 5 ends

applications. The City resisted. I then wrote to the California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (“GO-Biz”). A copy of my letter is enclosed. GOBiz agreed that the then-proposed use falls within the protections of AB 1236 and 970.4 It was only after GO-Biz discussed this with City Staff that the City agreed it would process the streamlined applications for these two private fleet EV charging stations on the Broadway Properties regardless of their MUBL zoning.

In summary, the City has no right under State law to prohibit fleet-based EV charging in any zoning district whatsoever. Accordingly, the purported zoning district limitations of IZO Section 9.31.165(B) for fleet EV charging locations must be eliminated to comply with State law.

It should also be noted that per State law:
“Any conditions imposed on an application to install an electric vehicle charging station or hydrogen-fueling station shall be designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety at the lowest cost possible.” (Gov’t Code § 65950.7(e) (emphasis added); see also subd. (i)(1) requiring such conditions to be “cost-effective methods.”)

CONCLUSION
Voltera urges the City Council to direct City Staff to revise the IZO to make it clear that the proposed new regulations do not apply to previously approved and constructed sites that are currently under operation such as the Broadway Properties. 4 As the Attorney General confirms: “The charging streamlining laws do not distinguish between installation types—they apply to all [emphasis in original] charging station installations, regardless of whether the EV charging stations are an accessory, incidental, or primary use of a site; whether the EV charging stations are for personal, public, or fleet use; or whether the EV charging stations are for light-, medium-, or heavy-duty vehicles.” (Atty Gen. Legal Alert OAG 2025-01, supra at p. 15 (underlined emphasis added).)
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) Santa Monica City Council
May 26, 2026

Page 6 ends

Voltera hereby reserves all rights to challenge the IZO to the extent that it exceeds Santa Monica’s authority to regulate the installation and operation of EV charging stations in violation of State law governing such uses.

Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
KLK:sna
Enclosure
cc: Oliver Chi (w/ encl.)
Jing Yeo (w/ encl.)
Heidi von Tongeln (w/ encl.)
Heather Hickerson (w/ encl.)
Hannah Goldsmith (w/ encl.)
Sloane Perras (w/ encl.)
Thomas Ashley (w/ encl.)
F:\WPDATA\22705\001 (1222, 1310 Broadway)\Cor\CC 2026.05.26.docx Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities)

(310) 451-3669
March 23, 2023

VIA E-MAIL
Heather Hickerson, Lead Advisor
Hannah Goldsmith, Counsel, Legal Affairs
Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) 1325 J Street, Suite 1800
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: 1222 and 1310 Broadway, Santa Monica
Our File No. 22705.001
Dear Mses. Hickerson and Goldsmith:

I am writing with respect to two proposed EV charging sites in Santa Monica.

I believe the City of Santa Monica may already be in contact with your office about these same sites, but Santa Monica has not responded to my inquiry about whom specifically they are speaking with. So, having read through your Electric Vehicle Charging Station Permitting Guidebook (2d ed.), I am reaching out to both of you.

My client is Voltera, an EV infrastructure provider. https://www.volterapower.com/ They have executed long-term leases for two existing paved surface parking lots at 1222 Broadway and 1310 Broadway in Santa Monica. Broadway is a commercial street, and the two properties are a few blocks outside of Downtown Santa Monica. The properties were in auto dealership auto storage use for decades and are zoned for commercial uses (including Alternative Fuels and Charging Facility by conditional use permit) or mixed-use. Both sites became available after expiration of an auto dealer lease of the properties for auto inventory storage.

Because both sites are already paved surface car dealership parking lots, they require very little change to convert to vehicle charging usage. Fourteen dual-port DC fast chargers will be installed throughout each of the two paved sites. These two new EV charging facilities will be used to serve private passenger-sized zero-emission fleet vehicles—up to 28 ZEVs on each site at any one time.

These ZEV service vehicles will be great for the environment and great for the patrons served. The sites will be used purely for EV charging and on-the-spot cleaning or quick light maintenance of vehicle consumables (e.g., windshield wiper placement, cleaning fluid top-off, etc.) in support of turning the passenger vehicles around quickly to [email protected]
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) Heather Hickerson
Hannah Goldsmith
March 23, 2023

Page 2 ends

get them back on the road for hail-ride services. Any necessary storage or repairs of the zero-emission fleet vehicles will occur elsewhere at a centralized depot, not on these lots. In sum, these sites will be converted to EV charging stations and no more.

As a result, we believe the installation of the 14 charging stations on both lots clearly qualify for the ministerial approvals and streamlined processing established by AB 1236 and AB 970. We are not aware of any conceivable health or safety concerns that would be triggered by these EV charger uses.

Consistent with the State’s Guidebook, I have reached out to Santa Monica Planning Staff and have been in presubmittal discussions with City Planning, City Attorney and City Sustainability staff members to discuss how these applications will be processed by the City of Santa Monica. It is disappointing that, at least thus far, Santa Monica has been unwilling to commit to ministerially process these EV charger applications.

I would welcome the opportunity to hear your thoughts and input on any assistance you might provide in this regard to me, my client or the City of Santa Monica.

As further background I am enclosing preliminary site plans for the two sites.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
KLK:sna
Enclosures
cc: Voltera team
F:\WPDATA\22705\001 (1222, 1310 Broadway)\Cor\Hickerson, Goldsmith 2023.03.23.docx Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) 1 David Yakobson
From: Hannah Goldsmith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 5:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Attorney Mailbox; Clerk Mailbox; Clerk Mailbox; Gia Vacin; Jessie Denver; Jing Yeo; Heidi von Tongeln; Van Nguyen
Subject: GO-Biz Concerns Re: Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance - City Council Meeting Item

12.A.

Importance: High

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon,
The California Governor’s OƯice of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) just became aware of item

12.A. on tonight’s City of Santa Monica, City Council meeting agenda regarding “Introduction and Adoption of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Establishing Standards and Procedures for Light Fleet-Based Service with Electric Vehicle Charging.”
GO-Biz has serious concerns about this proposal moving forward, particularly regarding inconsistencies with Government Code sections 65850.7 and 65850.71, and unintended consequences for other electric vehicle charging use cases. We also have concerns with the lack of transparency of this proposal moving forward, and the amount of notice provided to the public, as this agenda item was noticed only 4 business days prior to the City Council meeting.

We would very much appreciate this item being held for vote until after we’ve had a chance to discuss with you.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Hannah
Hannah Goldsmith (she/her)
Assistant Deputy Director, Legal Affairs
office: (916) 447-7942
1325 J Street, Suite 1800 | Sacramento, CA 95814
Follow: LinkedIn | YouTube
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026
Item 12-A
May 26, 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7689 : Emergency IZO for special standards for EV charging facilities) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 26, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Request of Councilmembers Zernitskaya and Negrete to approve an expenditure of up to $5,000 of Council discretionary funds to support the Route 66 Centennial celebration on the Santa Monica Pier on June 4, 2026 Prepared By: Sergio Ramirez, Chief of Staff
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Discretionary Funds Tracking -05.22.2026

16.A
Packet Pg. 764
FY 2025-26 Council Discretionary Funds
Updated: 5/19/2026 Council Discretionary Funds 01100001.532330.Project# FY 2025-26 - New Appropriation and allocations
Entered
Into Tyler
Project#
Description Amount Programmed Date Negrete Torosis Hall Raskin Snell Zernitskaya Zwick FY 2025-26 - New Appropriation 140,000.00 Budget Adoption FY25-26, 6/24/25, Council meeting, 10/14/25, Item 11B $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 11/26/25 12095 Legado Latino-2025 Dia de Muerto Celebration (6,000.00) Council Meeting 11/18/25, Item 16C (3,000.00) (3,000.00) 12/15/25 12096 SMC Annual Givnig THANKS(giving) Event (3,000.00) Council Meeting 11/18/25, Item 16D (1,000.00) (1,000.00) (1,000.00) 04/02/26 12097 Summer Willis Foundation Denim Run (4/12) (7,000.00) Council Meeting 03/24/26, Item 16I (1,000.00) (1,000.00) (1,000.00) (1,000.00) (1,000.00) (1,000.00) (1,000.00) 4/23/26 12098 The Giving Place 40th Anniv. Celebrarion (4/18) (5,000.00) Council Meeting 04/14/26, Item 16I (1,000.00) (1,000.00) (1,000.00) (1,000.00) (1,000.00) 12091 SM Library's LEGO Club Program (5,000.00) Council Meeting 05/12/26, Item 16C (5,000.00) 5/18/26 12095 Legado Latino Graduation Activities (Match Funds) (5,000.00) Council Meeting 05/12/26, Item 16D1 (2,000.00) (1,000.00) (2,000.00) 12088 Black Student Union Graduation Night (Match
Funds)
(5,000.00) Council Meeting 05/12/26, Item 16D2 (1,000.00) (3,000.00) (1,000.00) TBD TBD Santa Monica Pier Corp-Rt. 66 Event* (5,000.00) Council Meeting 05/26/26, Item ____ (2,500.00) (2,500.00) -
-
-
Total $ 99,000.00
*PENDING COUNCIL APPROVAL
$ 99,000.00 Unprogrammed Balance Available $ 15,500.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 11,500.00 $ 19,000.00

16.A.a
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Discretionary Funds Tracking -05.22.2026 (7739 : Route 66 Centennial) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 26, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: A Request from Councilmember Negrete that the City Council Consider Directing the City Manager to engage with CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project at the Virginia Avenue Apartments as outlined in Attachment A Prepared By: Sergio Ramirez, Chief of Staff
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. LN - FINAL Virginia Avenue Apartment Rehabiliation Project (May 18, 2026) B. Written Comments

16.B
Packet Pg. 766
Memo
To: Oliver Chi, City Manager
From: Lana Negrete, Councilmember
Date: May 18, 2026
Re: Addressing Resident Concerns Regarding Oversight for the Virginia Avenue Apartment Project Seeking City Council support to direct that staff to engage the following efforts outlined below, and to return to Council in June / July 2026 to report back publicly on any findings.

1. Engage with CCSM and provide a presentation to the City Council in June / July regarding the rehabilitation project at the Virginia Avenue Apartments (2033–2101 Virginia Avenue), including project scope, timeline, current construction status, remaining phases, and anticipated completion dates.

2. Have staff provide a full accounting of all City funds allocated, committed, or expended to date on the project, including:
o Original funding approvals
o Subsequent amendments or additional funding requests
o Sources of funds provided
o Total project budget versus actual expenditures
o Itemized cost breakdowns where feasible, including construction, change orders, consultants, relocation, staffing, project management, and contingency expenditures

3. An explanation regarding the recent notification from CCSM that the Virginia Avenue Apartment Project is approximately $3 million over budget.
o What factors contributed to the budget overage?
o How is CCSM attempting to address the budget overrun on the project?

4. Coordinate a meeting for CCSM and the City to hear resident concerns about the Virginia Avenue Project, including habitability issues, project communication, relocation coordination, construction impacts, accessibility, and safety / quality-of-life issues. o Have the City coordinate with CCSM, such that CCSM develops a plan to address these concerns raised by residents.
o Consider working with CCSM to develop a public dashboard where project details would be posted for residents to access information related to status updates, milestones, expenditures, and other related matters.

5. Have City staff provide details regarding our role as the lender of funds to CCSM for the Virginia Avenue Apartment Project, and outline what the City does as the lender to ensure that the project being funded is delivered.

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: LN - FINAL Virginia Avenue Apartment Rehabiliation Project (May 18, 2026) (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 1 David Yakobson
From: Carly Ann <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; Attorney Mailbox Cc: Council Mailbox; [email protected]
Subject: Support for Councilmember Lana Negrete and Agenda Item 16-B Request for Transparency, Oversight, and Accountability Regarding the CCSM Virginia Avenue Project

EXTERNAL
May 25, 2026
Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Support for Councilmember Lana Negrete and Agenda Item 16-B Request for Transparency, Oversight, and Accountability Regarding the CCSM Virginia Avenue Project Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing as a concerned Santa Monica resident in support of Councilmember Lana Negrete’s request for increased transparency, oversight, and accountability regarding the Generations at Virginia Avenue rehabilitation project and Agenda Item 16-B on the May 26 City Council agenda.

This issue is not about opposing affordable housing. It is about ensuring that publicly funded housing projects are managed responsibly, transparently, and safely for the residents who depend on them.

Residents have repeatedly raised serious concerns regarding:
• Lack of transparency surrounding permits, inspections, and construction status updates • Known mold, water intrusion, and structural issues that were reportedly documented before construction began • Escalating project costs and requests for additional public funding • Frequent project management turnover and breakdowns in communication • Questions regarding delays, change orders, contractor obligations, and oversight responsibilities Residents deserve safe housing, honest communication, competent project management, and respect throughout this process. Many of these residents are seniors, working families, and vulnerable community members who have already endured years of disruption, uncertainty, and stressful living conditions. They should not have to fight for basic answers or accountability on a project funded with public dollars.

Santa Monica residents deserve better. These residents deserve better.

Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 2 When millions in public funding are involved, particularly in housing intended to serve vulnerable residents, transparency and accountability are not optional. They are fundamental obligations.

I support the request for:
• Public review of project oversight and construction management • Greater transparency regarding inspections, permits, delays, and change order • Independent accountability measures tied to additional public funding • Improved communication with residents directly impacted by the project • Stronger oversight standards for future publicly funded housing developments Residents should not have to perform the oversight work that public agencies, consultants, and project managers are already being paid to provide.

I appreciate Councilmember Lana Negrete’s willingness to raise these concerns publicly and ask the difficult but necessary questions regarding oversight and fiscal responsibility.

I respectfully urge the City Council to support meaningful public accountability, require transparency from Community Corporation of Santa Monica (CCSM), and ensure that any additional public funding is accompanied by enforceable oversight measures and public reporting requirements.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Carly Ann Port
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 3 David Yakobson
From: Amber James <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:19 AM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; Attorney Mailbox Subject: Support for Councilmember Lana Negrete and Agenda Item 16-B Request for Transparency, Oversight, and Accountability Regarding the CCSM Virginia Avenue Project

EXTERNAL
May 26, 2026
Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Support for Councilmember Lana Negrete and Agenda Item 16-B Request for Transparency, Oversight, and Accountability Regarding the CCSM Virginia Avenue Project Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing as a concerned Santa Monica resident in support of Councilmember Lana Negrete’s request for increased transparency, oversight, and accountability regarding the Generations at Virginia Avenue rehabilitation project and Agenda Item 16-B on the May 26 City Council agenda.

Residents have raised serious concerns regarding lack of transparency surrounding permits, inspections, escalating costs, project delays, communication failures, and questions about construction oversight and financial accountability.

Many residents are seniors, working families, and vulnerable community members who have already endured years of disruption and uncertainty. They deserve safe housing, honest communication, competent management, and respect throughout this process.

Santa Monica residents deserve better. These residents deserve better.

When millions in public funding are involved, transparency and accountability are not optional.

They are fundamental obligations.

Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 4 I support requests for greater public transparency, independent oversight, improved resident communication, and stronger accountability measures tied to any additional public funding.

I appreciate Councilmember Lana Negrete’s willingness to raise these concerns publicly and ask the difficult but necessary questions regarding oversight and fiscal responsibility.

I respectfully urge the City Council to require transparency from Community Corporation of Santa Monica (CCSM) and ensure that any additional public funding includes enforceable oversight and public reporting requirements.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Amber James
Wilmont

Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 5 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:23 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; Attorney Mailbox
Subject: Support for Councilmember Lana Negrete and Agenda Item 16-B Request for Transparency, Oversight, and Accountability Regarding the CCSM Virginia Avenue Project

Santa Monica residents deserve better. These residents deserve better.

When millions in public funding are involved, transparency and accountability are not optional. They are fundamental obligations.

I support requests for greater public transparency, independent oversight, improved resident communication, and stronger accountability measures tied to any additional public funding.

I appreciate Councilmember Lana Negrete’s willingness to raise these concerns publicly and ask the difficult but necessary questions regarding oversight and fiscal responsibility.

Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 6 I respectfully urge the City Council to require transparency from Community Corporation of Santa Monica (CCSM) and ensure that any additional public funding includes enforceable oversight and public reporting requirements.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Raven Littlewing
Pico Neighborhood
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 7 David Yakobson
From: Heather Hodges <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:25 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; Attorney Mailbox
Subject: Support for Councilmember Lana Negrete and Agenda Item 16-B Request for Transparency, Oversight, and Accountability Regarding the CCSM Virginia Avenue Project

Santa Monica residents deserve better. These residents deserve better.

Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 8 When millions in public funding are involved, particularly in housing intended to serve vulnerable residents, transparency and accountability are not optional. They are fundamental obligations.

I appreciate Councilmember Lana Negrete’s willingness to raise these concerns publicly and ask the difficult but necessary questions regarding oversight and fiscal responsibility.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Heather Hodges
Wilmont Neighborhood
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 9 David Yakobson
From: Ashley Oelsen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:32 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; Attorney Mailbox
Subject: RE: Support for Councilmember Lana Negrete and Agenda Item 16-B Request for Transparency, Oversight, and Accountability Regarding the CCSM Virginia Avenue Project

EXTERNAL
May 26, 2026
Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Support for Councilmember Lana Negrete and Agenda Item 16-B — Request for Transparency, Oversight, and Accountability Regarding the CCSM Virginia Avenue Project Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing as a concerned Santa Monica resident in support of Councilmember Lana Negrete’s request for increased transparency, oversight, and accountability regarding the Generations at Virginia Avenue rehabilitation project and Agenda Item 16-B on the May 26 City Council agenda.

Residents have repeatedly raised serious concerns regarding:
• Lack of transparency surrounding permits, inspections, and construction status updates • Known mold, water intrusion, and structural issues that were reportedly documented before construction began
• Escalating project costs and requests for additional public funding • Frequent project management turnover and breakdowns in communication • Questions regarding delays, change orders, contractor obligations, and oversight responsibilities Residents deserve clear answers regarding how taxpayer dollars are being spent and whether appropriate oversight has been exercised throughout this project.

When millions in public funding are involved — particularly in housing intended to serve vulnerable residents — transparency and accountability are not optional. They are fundamental obligations.

Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 10 I support the request for:
• Public review of project oversight and construction management • Greater transparency regarding inspections, permits, delays, and change orders • Independent accountability measures tied to additional public funding • Improved communication with residents directly impacted by the project • Stronger oversight standards for future publicly funded housing developments Residents should not have to fight for basic information about a publicly financed project affecting their homes, safety, and community.

I appreciate Councilmember Lana Negrete’s willingness to raise these concerns publicly and ask the difficult but necessary questions regarding oversight and fiscal responsibility.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Ashley Oelsen
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 11 David Yakobson
From: ALAN MONT <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:57 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Please support Item 16-B on tonights agenda for city council

EXTERNAL
Council Members,
As a resident concerned about the impacts of the CCSM construction project on Pico, I ask that we take a serious look at what we are spending, the burden this is placing on tenants, and how we are treating hardworking people in our city. These are people trying to live their lives and deserve to be treated with dignity.

We should also ask why we are relying on this model of construction at all. There are many ways to complete projects through professional builders that may be far more efficient than working through a nonprofit. A for-profit builder would likely provide a more accurate bid and be much less likely to return later requesting an additional $6 million, leaving us feeling obligated to keep funding a project that has gone off track.

Greater transparency could have revealed many of these problems earlier and allowed them to be corrected before they became such a hardship for residents and such a strain on the city budget.

Thank you for your time and consideration and please support Item 16-B. I look forward to the discussion this evening.

Alan Mont
818-261-8172
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 12 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin
Subject: May 26, 2026 - City Council - Item 16B (Support)

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council -
I support Item 16-B put forth by Lana Negrete. We need:
 A full public accounting of project spending
 Clear timelines and progress updates
 Greater oversight of taxpayer-funded housing projects  Transparency for residents and the public
 Accountability on how decisions are being made
Residents deserve to know:
 Where is the money going?
 Why have costs continued to rise?
 What protections exist for the families affected?
 Why doesn't the city get title to the land for all projects it funds so we can exercise control when conditions deteriorate and also when the deed restrictions wear off? Why would anyone oppose more transparency and accountability when public dollars and longtime resident families are involved?
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 1 David Yakobson
From: tony ponce <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:17 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: Council Meeting Agenda Item 16-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing in support of Lana Negrete’s call for support of Agenda Item 16-B regarding transparency, oversight, and accountability for the CCSM Virginia Ave Project.

Residents deserve transparency throughout the planning and implementation process, including accessible information about project costs, timelines, impacts, and decision-making.

I respectfully urge the City Council to support Agenda Item 16-B and take meaningful steps to ensure greater transparency and public trust regarding the CCSM Virginia Ave Project.

Thank you for your service to our community and for considering residents' concerns and voices.

Sincerely,
Antonio Ponce
Get Outlook for iOS
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 2 David Yakobson
From: sonia sweet <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:19 PM
To: Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: Council Meeting Agenda Item 16-B

As a resident, I believe it is essential that public projects involving community resources and taxpayer funds are handled with clear communication, responsible oversight, and full public accountability. Residents deserve transparency throughout the planning and implementation process, including accessible information about project costs, timelines, impacts, and decision-making.

I respectfully urge the City Council to support Agenda Item 16-B and take meaningful steps to ensure greater transparency and public trust regarding the CCSM Virginia Ave Project.

Thank you for your service to our community and for considering residents' concerns and voices.

Sincerely,
Sonia Ortiz Sweet
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 3 David Yakobson
From: William Flores <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:24 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: Agenda Item 16-B

I respectfully urge the City Council to support Agenda Item 16-B and take meaningful steps to ensure greater transparency and public trust regarding the CCSM Virginia Ave Project.

Thank you for your service to our community and for considering residents' concerns and voices.

Sincerely,
William
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 4 David Yakobson
From: david luis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:30 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: AGENDA item 16-B

I respectfully urge the City Council to support Agenda Item 16-B and take meaningful steps to ensure greater transparency and public trust regarding the CCSM Virginia Ave Project.

Thank you for your service to our community and for considering residents' concerns and voices.

Sincerely,
David Luis
40 year Santa Monica resident
Born and Raised
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 5 David Yakobson
From: Freddy Luis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:31 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: Council meeting agenda item 16B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,

I am writing in support of agenda item 16B. Transparency is something we all keep asking for and CCSM needs to be held accountable to the transparency they promised in the rehabilitation the CCSM Virginia Ave project. Not only do we need it for this current project, but for any other future projects that will be proposed in the future of this beautiful city.

Thank you all for your time and service you provide to Santa Monica. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment on this item.

Freddy Luis
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 6 David Yakobson
From: Archie Ortiz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Meeting Agenda subject 16-B

I respectfully urge the City Council to support Agenda Item 16-B and take meaningful steps to ensure greater transparency and public trust regarding the CCSM Virginia Ave Project.

Thank you for your service to our community and for considering residents' concerns and voices.

Sincerely,
Archie Ortiz
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 7 David Yakobson
From: Luigi Flores <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 4:13 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: Agenda item 16:B

If you say no then we will hold you all personally responsible for the mistakes that CCSM has made. It we never return home it with be because you all didn’t do your job. I thought you looked out for residents not scheme with developers behind our backs.

I respectfully urge the City Council to support Agenda Item 16-B and take meaningful steps to ensure greater transparency and public trust regarding the CCSM Virginia Ave Project.

I
Thank you for your service to our community and for considering residents' concerns and voices.

Sincerely,
Luigi Flores
Of Virginia Ave.
------------------------------------------
Estimado Alcalde y Miembros del Concejo Municipal:

Le escribo en apoyo al llamado de Lana Negrete para respaldar el Punto 16-B de la agenda relacionado con la transparencia, supervisión y rendición de cuentas del Proyecto CCSM Virginia Ave.

Como residente, considero esencial que los proyectos públicos que involucran recursos comunitarios y fondos de los contribuyentes se manejen con comunicación clara, supervisión responsable y plena rendición de cuentas al público. Los residentes merecen transparencia durante todo el proceso de planificación e implementación, incluyendo acceso a información sobre los costos del proyecto, cronogramas, impactos y toma de decisiones.

Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 8 Respetuosamente, exhorto al Concejo Municipal a apoyar el Punto 16-B de la agenda y a tomar medidas significativas para garantizar una mayor transparencia y fortalecer la confianza pública respecto al Proyecto CCSM Virginia Ave.

Gracias por su servicio a nuestra comunidad y por considerar las preocupaciones y las voces de los residentes.

Atentamente,
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 1 David Yakobson
From: Sylvia Luis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:53 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: Virginia ave project

I respectfully urge the City Council to support Agenda Item 16-B and take meaningful steps to ensure greater transparency and public trust regarding the CCSM Virginia Ave Project.

Thank you for your service to our community and for considering residents' concerns and voices.

Sincerely,
Sylvia Luis
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 2 David Yakobson
From: Magdalena Renteria <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 4:41 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall
Subject: Virginia Avenue Project

Residents deserve transparency throughout the planning and implementation process, including accessible information about project costs, timelines, impacts, and decision-making.

I respectfully urge the City Council to support Agenda Item 16-B and take meaningful steps to ensure greater transparency and public trust regarding the CCSM Virginia Ave Project.

Thank you for your service to our community and for considering residents' concerns and voices.

Sincerely,
Magdalena Renteria
2041 Virginia Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90404
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 3 David Yakobson
From: abby <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 4:47 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: Virginia Ave Project

Residents deserve transparency throughout the planning and implementation process, including accessible information about project costs, timelines, impacts, and decision-making.

I respectfully urge the City Council to support Agenda Item 16-B and take meaningful steps to ensure greater transparency and public trust regarding the CCSM Virginia Ave Project.

Thank you for your service to our community and for considering residents' concerns and voices.

Sincerely,
Abigail Hernandez
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 1 David Yakobson
From: Tony Ponce <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 5:03 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: Council Meeting Agenda Item 16-B

Residents deserve transparency throughout the planning and implementation process, including accessible information about project costs, timelines, impacts, and decision-making.

I respectfully urge the City Council to support Agenda Item 16-B and take meaningful steps to ensure greater transparency and public trust regarding the CCSM Virginia Ave Project.

Thank you for your service to our community and for considering residents' concerns and voices.

Sincerely,
Antonio Ponce
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project)

GENERATIONS OF VIRGINIA AVE
2000’S
1970’S
1990’S
1980’S
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation THE

MURILLO
FAMILY 1 ST , 2 ND AND 3RD

GENERATION
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation

THE JIMENEZ
FAMILY
1 ST AND 2 ND

GENERATION
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation

THE PUC
FARFAN FAMILY 1 ST , 2 ND AND 3 RD

GENERATION
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation

THE RENTERIA
FAMILY
1 ST AND 2 ND GENERATION
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation

THE GARCIA
FAMILY 1 ST, 2 ND AND 3RD

GENERATION
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation

THE OLMEDO
FAMILY
1 ST AND 2 ND GENERATION
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation

THE LUIS
FAMILY 1 ST, 2 ND AND 3 RD

GENERATION
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation

THE JIMENEZ
FAMILY
2 ND AND 3 RD GENERATION
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation THE FLORES FAMILY 1 ST AND 2 ND GENERATION
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation

THE FLORES
FAMILY
2 ND AND 3 RD

GENERATION
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation THE PONCE FAMILY 2 ND AND 3 RD GENERATION
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation

THE SERRANO
FAMILY 1 ST AND 2 ND GENERATION
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation

THE DANIELS
FAMILY
1 ST AND 2 ND GENERATION
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation 1 David Yakobson
From: Denise Anderson-Warren
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 11:02 AM
To: David Yakobson
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Issue with Temporary Move for Virginia Ave Apartments David, please save the correspondence below, and include it in the public record for Item 16.B.

Thank you.

Denise Anderson-Warren
Interim City Clerk
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
From: Tara Barauskas <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 9:18:02 AM
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Brittany de Guzman <[email protected]> Cc: Diana Alfano <[email protected]>; Adrian Servetnick <[email protected]>; Linda Flores <[email protected]>; Tony <[email protected]>; Heather Averick <[email protected]>; Oliver Chi <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Issue with Temporary Move for Virginia Ave Apartments

EXTERNAL
Thanks Lana for your concern. We are delivering packing materials today, and Linda/Adrian will be letting residents know. In terms of being ‘flexible’ with government agencies, we have recorded regulatory agreements, and unfortunately we must comply. But our professional relocation experts are working to identify units that each household can quality for, that will meet their needs. I agree Lana, our system is not set up to account for expenses. I am also a single parent so I understand personally that income isn’t the whole story, as you say. But – our society hasn’t gotten there as of yet. Anyway, please know we are doing everything we can to make this bumpy road less bumpy, and we are very invested in supporting our residents through this period.

Thanks to all of you, we’re in it together!
Tara
Tara Barauskas, LEED AP
Executive Director
Community Corporation of Santa Monica
1410 2nd Street, Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 394-8487 ext. 133
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 2 [email protected]
www.communitycorp.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.

From: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 12:04 AM
To: Tara Barauskas <[email protected]>; Brittany de Guzman <[email protected]> Cc: Diana Alfano <[email protected]>; Adrian Servetnick <[email protected]>; Linda Flores <[email protected]>; Tony <[email protected]>; Heather Averick <[email protected]>; Oliver Chi <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Issue with Temporary Move for Virginia Ave Apartments

Good evening, everyone!
I have been following along and allowing the folks in charge at CCSM to respond, but I’m getting a little concerned. We are approaching the weekend and I want to make sure that at the very least the families have all the packing supplies because I know that the process of packing up your life can take quite a while.

I also want to point out that I do find it odd and frustrating that you guys cannot contact government agency reps to inform them as to what is happening to make an exception, considering this is Already stressful for these families. Because these income requirements don’t take into account expenses, my question is do they take into account the medical expenses for the family member who is receiving dialysis and for the cost surrounding their care.

Can we get creative? Can we find ways to make this unit work? If we could all, please put our heads together and get this settled before Friday that seems reasonable given the original email was sent out last week.

I want to confirm that Adrienne is getting these emails as well as I see. He’s the day-to-day contact but I only see your responses Tara.

Thank you to everyone who is working on this? Let’s make this go as smooth as possible! Lana Negrete
MAYOR, Santa Monica
From: Tara Barauskas <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 2:04:50 PM
To: Brittany de Guzman <[email protected]>
Cc: Diana Alfano <[email protected]>; Adrian Servetnick <[email protected]>; Linda Flores Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 3 <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Tony <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Issue with Temporary Move for Virginia Ave Apartments

EXTERNAL

Totally understandable, it’s been a bumpy road. We appreciate the additional information. Please feel free to work directly with Adrian, he really is committed to figuring this out just as soon as possible.

Best,
Tara

Tara Barauskas, LEED AP
Executive Director
Community Corporation of Santa Monica
1410 2nd Street, Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 394-8487 ext. 133
[email protected]
www.communitycorp.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.

From: Brittany de Guzman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 1:52 PM
To: Tara Barauskas <[email protected]>
Cc: Diana Alfano <[email protected]>; Adrian Servetnick <[email protected]>; Linda Flores <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Tony <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Issue with Temporary Move for Virginia Ave Apartments

Hi Tara,

Thank you for taking the time to look into our situation and for your thoughtful response during what has been a very stressful time for our families. We truly appreciate your understanding of our unique circumstances and the effort from you, Adrian, and the Monument team in helping identify a suitable ADA-accessible unit for us.

If it helps expand the options, a unit on the second floor or higher would also work as long as there’s elevator access. I just wanted to mention that in case it helps with the search.

We know this process hasn’t been easy on anyone, and we’re very grateful for your continued support and communication as we work through these next steps together.

Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project) 4 Best,
Brittany

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 8, 2025, at 1:25 PM, Tara Barauskas <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Diana and Brittany,

Please excuse my delay, it does sometimes take a little time to research to be able to provide the proper response.

Unfortunately we are bound by legal agreements that mean that even temporary residents must income qualify for certain units. We've determined that Brittany’s household exceeds the maximum income for these units. Monument and the Community Corp teams are well aware of your household’s unique circumstances, including the need for a ground-floor ADA-accessible unit to accommodate your family’s accessibility and medical requirements. Monument is actively identifying alternate three-bedroom ADAaccessible options that meet your family’s needs.

Adrian has called you, Diana, and will reach out to Brittany but there is definitely urgency to getting this figured out for you. We appreciate your patience as we work diligently on finding suitable housing for you. Adrian is the day to day contact and working round the clock on this. We know this has been a long and frustrating journey and are anxious to get the property rehabilitation started asap so we can get your homes rebuilt.

Respectfully,
Tara
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026
Item 16-B
May 26, 2026

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7740 : CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project)

Santa Monica City CouncilMay 26, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
May 26, 2026