Agenda packet — Santa Monica City Council, June 9, 2026 (part 9 of 10)

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members and City Manager Chi.

At a time when democracy is fighting for its survival, I urge you not to make participation in government more difficult.

Requiring two council members to raise an Item 16 would make it more difficult for opposing views to be heard.

While it may feel like an act of efficiency, making dissent more difficult chips away at a vibrant democracy. Please don’t do it.

Thank you.

Victor Fresco
Santa Monica
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1982 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 14 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete
Subject: Item 11-B - Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I write respectfully to oppose Agenda Item 11-B.

I don’t fully understand the reasons for this proposed change. As I understand the current 16-item practice, any one of our seven Councilmembers our residents elect can use the 16-item portion of the agenda to raise a question, surface a concern, or bring an idea forward on behalf of the people they represent. That seems to me like a healthy and ordinary part of representing a community, and I’m not sure what problem the proposed requirement is meant to solve.

I’d be curious to know how often, in practice, a single Councilmember has actually brought forward a 16 item on their own, and whether there are any patterns in the topics those items tended to raise. That would help all of us understand whether this change is responding to a real and recurring issue, or to something far narrower.

What does concern me is the effect it could have. Requiring a second Councilmember’s support before an item can even be placed on the agenda means that some issues residents care about may never reach a public discussion at all. I’d respectfully ask each of you to consider how it would feel and what your concerns would be if you had an issue you believed was important, one you knew community members wanted brought to light but that your colleagues on the dais didn’t happen to share, would you want to be told you couldn’t even raise it without first finding a second member to sign on? What if you tried and no one would?
It seems to me that the 16-item process isn’t about whether an item ultimately wins a majority. Its strength is that the item gets aired, so that residents can hear it, weigh in, and watch their government engage with it openly. Preserving the ability of any single Councilmember to bring an item forward keeps that process transparent and accountable, and I’d hate to see us narrow it.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to reject Agenda Item 11-B. I think in retrospect you will be glad you did and the community will thank you.

Thank you for your consideration,
Heather Thomason
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1983 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 15 David Yakobson
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11 – B June 9 meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
It’s over obvious that this item was added to ensure nothing of her than GROUP THINK exists among elected officials in this town. It is an abhorrent excuse for dEMOCRACY.

Oppose this shameful recommendation.

Ann Thanawalla
Wilmont
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1984 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 16 David Yakobson
From: Loren Greenfield <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 11B

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to demand preservation of the current system which allows any one of the seven individual council members to place a “16-item” on the Agenda. This is an important means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Attempting to require two council members instead of one will result in the silencing of any council member in the minority and will hinder their right to place an item of interest to residents on the agenda.

This is going to prevent residents’ concerns from being heard which subverts democracy and diminishes our right to have our concerns addressed by those we voted into office.

Santa Monica praises itself as a city that welcomes a diversity of voices yet this is in direct opposition to that ideal. I’m disappointed this is even being considered — please do better for your constituents.

Loren Greenfield
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1985 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 17 David Yakobson
From: ALAN MONT <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:04 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Item 11B

EXTERNAL
City Council Members,
I am asking you to oppose Item 11B on tonight’s agenda.

Every council member should have a voice. Our founders recognized the importance of minority representation. This is one reason the Senate has a filibuster rule.

Thank you for your consideration.

Alan Mont
818-261-8172
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1986 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 18 David Yakobson
From: TheLosAngelesCaliforniaAssembly <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: tuesday proposed change on "item 16"; agenda 11-B

EXTERNAL
Hiya, I am member of the general public in your area and I do not consent to the new proposal to change 'item 16 "; requiring two council members to place a
concern on agenda for the people; it shall remain as one; The role and obligations of the council and any officer holder is to present on the peoples behalf and
to hear their concerns, directives, et;. The council is a service provider, for hire by the people to serve the people and they are not their to obstruct process and
make it more difficult and remove access to be heard;
in the spirit of Freedom
By Diana Rosemary Carey
All rights reserved without prejudice
one of the people on California and Santa Monica Bay Area Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1987 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 19 David Yakobson
From: Suzanne Rode <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:05 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose 11B

EXTERNAL
June 9, 2026
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
We OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

While Agenda item 11-B is not on its face about any one council member, it is clearly aimed at silencing Councilmember Lana Negrete who is frequently a lone voice on the Council raising issues of concern to her constituents.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1988 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 20 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:09 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox; Clerk Mailbox Subject: Agenda Item 11-B Changes To Rule of Order

EXTERNAL
June 9, 2026
To: Santa Monica City Council and City Clerk
From: John Alle
I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Often residents and business owners ask their councilmembers to hear them on certain issues, and present solutions. Any single councilmember has the duty and right to present such an issue as a "16 Item." Each of you is there and elected to serve us. Listening and consideration of all ideas is what you are there for, and is one of many principles upon which our democratic republic was founded.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are a means of fostering open and transparent discuusion andgovernance.

Please save yourselves time and later grief by removing the item from the Agenda or vote NO.

John Alle
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1989 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 21 June 9, 2026
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
We OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.
--
John E. Alle

JOHN ALLE COMPANY

THE SANTA MONICA COALITION / SAFE CITIES
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1990 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 22 David Yakobson
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members:

Please oppose the rule change of item 10-B, out of concern for retaining the means by which individual City Council members may raise issues on behalf of us citizens.

Thank you for acting on my behalf.

Sincerely,
Katharine Dreyfuss
621 25th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1991 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 23 David Yakobson
From: William Schoene <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:12 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
This proposal strikes us as a purely political measure. How would this benefit the residents of Santa Monica?
What is the public justification for curtailing an individual councilmember's responsibility to raise issues on
behalf of his or her constituents?
Please vote against Agenda Item 11-B.

William and Mary Lou Schoene
1519 Oak Street Santa Monica CA 90405

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1992 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 24 David Yakobson
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:17 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11.B. : Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and City Council,
I strongly oppose Agenda item 11.B.: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items).

Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the pracƟce that any one elected could use the secƟon at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask quesƟons, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve. Even if such 16 items fail to gain Council support, they carry significant and essenƟal value in fostering open and transparent governance.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on. The only jusƟficaƟon for this item is a vague appeal to “collaboraƟon”. That is code for silencing of minority points of view. This is clearly aimed at silencing non-majority Councilmembers and is a direct violaƟon of the essence of democracy and free speech. This item is so egregious, the Council has resorted to camouflaging the descripƟon as “cleaning up language and procedures for Council to submit Discussion Items (16-items)…” This is absolutely unacceptable.

This council item also proposes to:
 DisconƟnue the opƟon to request four-minutes to speak when speaking on only one item with the jusƟficaƟon that this would “opƟon would simplify the registraƟon process and give speakers consistent opƟons of one or two minutes.” Under this logic, the ideal simplificaƟon would be to eliminate speakers zero minutes  Movement placing of public comment at the end of the council meeƟngs Combined with the prior changes allowing relaƟves to service on Boards and Commissions, this council seems intent on pursuing a path of seƫng new lows in standards of governance and representaƟve democracy.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1993 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 25 Please reject this resoluƟon and refrain from any future aƩempt to change current procedures regarding these items.

Respecƞully,
Marc L. Verville
Sunset Park
Former Chair, Santa Monica Audit SubcommiƩee
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1994 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 26 David Yakobson
From: Mike Feinstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Comment on 11B - what I do not support

EXTERNAL
Begin forwarded message:

From: Mike Feinstein <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment on 11B - what I do not support
Date: June 9, 2026 at 10:59:14 AM PDT
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>, Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>, Dan Hall <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], Denise Anderson-Warren <denise.anderson[email protected]> Dear Councilmembera
I cannot be with you tonight as I am out of town relaxing in the high desert after my exhausting Secretary of State campaign.

However I wanted you that I fully oppose this particular part of what is proposed under Agenda Item 11B

Increase the number of Councilmembers required to submit Discussion Items to no more than a majority of the Council as prohibited by the Brown Act (ex. No less than two and no more than three Councilmembers); or I find the comment about this being needed because it can increase ‘collaboration’ to be uncomfortably euphemistic. An individual Councilmember can certainly increase the chances of getting Council direction on their Council member discussion item by finding co-sponsors. But I do not believe that should be a pre-requisite for any Councilmember to be able to submit such an item individually.

All seven council members won enough support under our plurality system to be elected, and thereby have - IMHO - a sufficiently significant base of support in the Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1995 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 27 community to be able to introduce a Council member item on their own, if that is their choice.

The problem we’ve had in recent years with Councilmember Discussion items was during the 2021-2022 Council, some newly elected Councilmembers did not seem to understand the jurisdiction of the City Council — and brought forth Councilmember Discussion items that simply were not within the bounds of what the job of the City Council entails and/or the jurisdiction of the City Council itself. That was a different problem - and not something that the proposed change in 11B would solve.

Given that, I think that while the City Staff should not be blamed in the least for bringing back all logical options to cut back on the length of Council meetings -- that is their job and this is not an illogical option in the least to be presented for your consideration — I believe that as elected officials with the responsibility to represent our entire community, you would be doing a grave disservice to cut off the option of a single council member to raise an issue on their own via a Councilmember Discussion Item, and to allow discussion of it to happen in an open and transparent public forum.

If the idea brought forth in a Councilmember Discussion item does not have meaningful support, it won’t take very long for it not to get a second on the dias, and/or not gain a majority vote of the entire council. IMHO that relatively small amount of extra time is well worth ‘suffering’ through for the benefit we gain in an open exchange of ideas and the empowerment of all residents who voted for each and any of the Councilmembers. I do not believe the ’trade-off’ in time ’savings’ is in the broadly defined public interest.

Having served for eight years myself on the City Council, I believe we all who are given that sacred responsibility on behalf of our community must assume the responsibility to hear out the potential business of the City in a variety of forums, including taking the time in public to consider Discussion items from individual Councilmembers.

Good luck tonight with your meeting.

Mike Feinstein
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1996 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 28 David Yakobson
From: Mariana Small <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please preserve single-member access to Councilmember Discussion Items

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am a rent-controlled tenant and Santa Monica resident asking you to reject any proposal that would require more than one councilmember to sponsor a Councilmember Discussion Item before it can appear on the agenda.

Earlier this year, the Council directed staff to study options for increasing collaboration before items come forward, including requiring multiple sponsors for councilmember requests. For tenants and other residents, that is not a neutral housekeeping change. It raises the threshold for getting a community concern in front of you at all.

I am paying close attention as a tenant. For renters facing habitability, renovation, and relocation problems, a single councilmember willing to put an issue forward is often the only route onto the public agenda. Concerns like these rarely arrive with two sponsors already lined up, and a multi-sponsor rule would fall hardest on the residents with the least power to begin with.

If the concern is meeting efficiency, there are narrower tools (time limits, batching similar items, internal guidelines) that do not restrict access to the agenda itself.

Please keep the current rule that lets any individual councilmember bring forward a discussion item raised by constituents.

Sincerely,
Mariana Small
220 San Vicente Blvd Apt 510, Santa Monica, CA 90402
Santa Monica resident and rent-controlled tenant
___
Mariana Small
+1 (858) 405-5313 | [email protected]
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1997 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 29 David Yakobson
From: Paula Goldman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:

Please vote to oppose tonight’s agenda item 11-B, proposed changes to the Council’s “Rules of Order” for bringing individual issues to the full Council’s attention.

We know you have a difficult job, and have to assume that no individual member would bother bringing up frivolous items.

Why would you take away that right from each other?
Wouldn’t you begin to get into Brown Act territory by forcing members to discuss issues in advance? This is something that is not broken, and does not need fixing.

Again, it is pointless to remove an important discussion tool from individual members. It serves no purpose, and is indeed punitive.

Thank you,
Paula Goldman and Brian Wolf
2821 Washington Avenue
Paula Goldman
PaulaGoldman.com
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1998 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 30 David Yakobson
From: Susan Marzec <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:28 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
June 9, 2026
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
We OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items) Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

We do expect to be able to participate in our local government and need for the current council to take our ability to participate seriously, and not take actions to prevent our participation.

Sincerely,
Susan & Randy Marzec
1040 Cedar Street
Santa Monica, CA. 90405
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1999 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 31 David Yakobson
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11-B Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
Hello Council members,
Thank you for pulling Item 10-B.

Now please oppose Item 11-B.

Thank you.

Best,
Katharine (Kit) Dreyfuss
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 2000 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 32 David Yakobson
From: Mindi Shank <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:54 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
It is incumbent upon us to re-establish the most democratic principles in our nationally and locally fraying democracy. Every voice counts.
1) We support capping time by item instead of by section.

2) We support moving general public comment to the end of the meeting.

3) We oppose eliminating 4-minute option for a single comment. If you are already capping us at 6 minutes, why should you care how we use our time when it’s only 4 minutes?

4) We oppose elimination of public comment on Special Items. If you are taking time at a public meeting to hear the item, you should be willing to hear from your constituents about the item.

5) We strenuously oppose restricting Councilmember Items to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers. If one councilmember believes it’s important enough to raise in order for people to be heard, they should be allowed to do so.

6) We oppose restricting censures to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Mindi Shank
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 2001 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 33 David Yakobson
From: Mike Feinstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:40 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; Denise Anderson-Warren; Heidi von Tongeln Subject: Comment on 11B - what I do support

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers
Some brief additional feedback on 11B.
(1) General Public Comment
In the two times that I ran for Secretary of State - in 2018 and 2026 - I used General Public Comment opportunities to speak about how their City’s representation could be affected by changes in how we elect the State Legislature via proportional representation, and why they should be tracking this issue as representatives for their community (especially now that top two jungle primaries are likely going to be repealed) In most cases, I found General Public Comment to be an option at or near the beginning of meetings. Some cities allowed unlimited General Public Comment at that time, while some had a time limit and/or speaker limit for the beginning of meetings, and deferred the rest until the end.

Only in a few cities did it come fully at the end, with no early General Public Comment option.

I think that it is reasonable to allow some at the beginning, but have a limit by time and/or number of speakers. ***But I would be reluctant to make that judgement without hard data about how often this option was exercised by the public. So I would not want to make this decision without asking City Staff to run a count over the last several years, and see how many people actually speak on General Public Comment, and then come back with this at a future date. Presumably this would not be so hard to do with computers being able to search our meeting minutes.***
The reason this is relevant, is it would be helpful to know how often General Public Comment would exceed a speaker and/or time limit - because we don’t want it to squeeze the ability of people to speak on items already on the agenda, but if it is only a relatively small number of people in most cases, to also not have to require people who want to speak on General Public Comment to have to guess to arrive at 11pm or 11:30pm to have their short time at the microphone
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 2002 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 34 (2) Separate meetings to consider Closed Session Items I support this idea in concept. When I first got on the City Council, Closed Session came after all other business was concluded. This allowed the meetings to start earlier and hear from the public earlier. But we rarely had a full Council in closed session when we were making very important decisions, because some Council members simply could not stay that late and still get up in the morning for work. That was unacceptable given the gravity of decisions made in closed session
Starting closed session at the beginning also creates management problems as you know, because it squeezes the Council and the public in other ways.

I think experimenting with quarterly Council meetings to consider Closed Session items only would be a good experiment, while keeping other Closed Sessions at the beginning of the meetings - and see if that could achieve a better balance by reducing the number of Closed Session items that have to precede ever meeting.

Again, this approach probably would have needed more preliminary work by the City Manager and City Attorneys offices to estimate how often Closed Session items are time sensitive and how often they could be addressed via quarterly Closed Session-only meetings.

But without this information, you are just shooting from the hip. (3) Revising total speaker limit
I fully support revising the rule on reducing time for more than 25 speakers registered to speak per public input section to“per agenda item”, rather than in total. The focus on time savings should not be to reduce all speakers ability to express themselves on all items.

The focus should be when there is an item that draws a lot of speakers, many of them will likely be expressing similar viewpoints made by others, and therefore if time per speaker must be shortened, it should be for those specific agenda items, not for the entire night. (4) Meeting starting times
In the end, there is not easy answer or balance, unless you start your meetings at 3pm like Anaheim, Riverside and a few others cities that I am aware of. Otherwise there will always be conflicts in finding the right balance.

Best of luck tonight
Mike
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 2003 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 35 Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 2004 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 36 David Yakobson
From: Leanna Einbinder <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:41 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council member items

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
1) We support capping time by item instead of by section. 2) We support moving general public comment to the end of the meeting. 3) We oppose eliminating 4-minute option for a single comment. 4) We oppose elimination of public comment on Special Items. If you are taking time at a public meeting to hear the item, you should be willing to hear from your constituents about the item. 5)We strenuously oppose restricting Councilmember Items to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers. If one councilmember believes it’s important enough to raise in order for people to be heard, they should be allowed to do so.
6) We oppose restricting censures to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Leanna Einbinder and Chris Knauf (and family)
Sunset Park residents
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 2005 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 8 David Yakobson
From: Alyssa <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: No on 11-B

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica resident
933 9th street #90403
Alyssa Ganezer
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 2006 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Carol Poletti <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Preserve - one council member can place “16-item” on the Agenda

This is going to prevent residents’ concerns from being heard which subverts democracy and diminishes our right to have our concerns addressed by those we voted into office.

Carol Poletti
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 2007 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Rebecca Terlizzi <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 11-B for 6/9/26 Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please maintain the current practice of allowing a single council member to place an item on the agenda as a “16 Item.”
I oppose 11-B. Let concerns be brought to the table and discussed. Adding an item for discussion doesn’t mean it gets passed. It allows concerns to be brought forward. Do not limit any of our representative’s ability to bring something to the agenda.

Thank you,
Rebecca Terlizzi
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 2008 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 3 David Yakobson
From: Wendy Dembo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
As you are well aware, Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them. I would be very nice, if the Council Members actually listened to all residents, and even thought about what they are saying.

It has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

With great regret,
Wendy Dembo
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 2009 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Maya Knauf <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:50 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Santa Monica City Council

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,

1) We support capping time by item instead of by section.

2) We support moving general public comment to the end of the meeting.

3) We oppose eliminating 4-minute option for a single comment.

4) We oppose elimination of public comment on Special Items. If you are taking time at a public meeting to hear the item, you should be willing to hear from your constituents about the item.

5)We strenuously oppose restricting Councilmember Items to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers. If one councilmember believes it’s important enough to raise in order for people to be heard, they should be allowed to do so.

6) We oppose restricting censures to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Maya Knauf
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 2010 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln
Subject: June 9, 2026 - City Council Item 11B - Council Meeting Rules - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
Residents have long been asking for changes to City Council’s extreme limits on public meeting participation, implemented in the name of efficiency, that have resulted in closing down opportunities for the people of Santa Monica to engage with our elected officials on important City Council Agenda items.

Now, after no engagement with the public or study session presenting any facts or analysis, you are updating the meeting rules to make one positive change to mask many negative changes that further erode the ability of the public to address our elected officials.

I support capping time by item instead of by section, a change I have asked for in public comments before.

However, the number of speakers should be higher (at least 30) or no cap at all, as discussed below.

Placement of general public comment requires additional analysis. On the surface, it makes sense to hear agenda items first. However, given the track record of this council, the change appears designed to silence dissent. Requiring people to stay until the end to address council will reduce participation, especially in tandem with your proposed limit on Councilmember Items.

I oppose eliminating 4-minute option for a single comment. If you are already capping us at 6 minutes, why should you care how we use our time when it’s only 4 minutes? Also, this change was made when you eliminated donation of time by claiming it made time donation unnecessary, yet you aren’t restoring time donation. You are just continuing to chip away at our ability to speak.

I oppose elimination of public comment on Special Items. We have seen how this plays out at the school board. The Special Items become unchallenged propaganda sessions for the council majority by silencing those who might take issue with what council chooses to celebrate or make the subject of a resolution. In an election year, these Special Items will become election ads. Hopefully Council and Staff will only bring forward Special Items that reflect our collective values, but maybe they don’t. If you are taking time at a public meeting to hear the item, you should be willing to hear from your constituents about the item.

I strenuously oppose restricting Councilmember Items to those brought by at least two councilmembers.

These items are the only way we have to bring issues forward that are important, yet not of interest to the majority. If one councilmember is willing to bring an item forward to address the legitimate concerns of the people, they should be allowed to do so. Requiring two proponents silences minority viewpoints. This can’t be about efficiency because there is no limit to the number of items, just who can bring them. Furthermore, this is a petty addition on the heels of Lana Negrete’s 16-item at the last meeting, where two other councilmembers were asked and refused to join, and the rest of you appeared more concerned about your appearance than the plight of the residents bringing the issue forward. It was petty.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 2011 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 3 And why are you restricting the ability to censure? Have some of you done something we should know about? I don’t recall ever seeing censure used, so clearly this isn’t about time or efficiency. Therefore, it also appears to be a petty move by the majority to insulate itself from criticism. I oppose restricting censures to those brought by at least two councilmembers.

Since you are amending the meeting rules, below is a list of requested changes I submitted to you back on January 27, 2026, and should be part of a legitimate study session. Ironically I raised these in response to Lana Negrete’s 16-item, which attempted to open up our increasingly top-down local government, which she alone brought forward and then got unanimous support from the other councilmembers. If your new rules are implemented, that item wouldn’t be allowed.

When I challenged Caroline Torosis on these extreme measures on No Kings Day last year, she responded, "It's what the County does." Well, Councilmember Torosis may be beholden to the County (which is its own problem), but we expect better here in Santa Monica.

Undemocratic meeting rules implemented since Covid include:
 Capping total time at 6 minutes, regardless of how many bad or impactful items are on the agenda. If you feel the item is important enough to place on the agenda, the public should be able to comment.
 Limiting the total number of items we can speak to, regardless of how many bad or impactful items are on the agenda. Again, if you feel the item is important enough to place on the agenda, the public should be able to comment.
 Cutting time based on number of speakers. This might have made sense in theory before implementing, but it clearly has produced bad results and a disengaged and angry public. If 100 people show up to speak, it's because you are doing something we don't want and you need to hear us, not cut us to one minute.
 Cutting public hearing time just because the hearing takes place during a council meeting. This is likely a violation of law. Based on our city attorney's advice, we could be denied the ability to speak at a public hearing if they had 7 hearings in one meeting. That is the wrong result and policy when the law separately requires a public hearing.
 Eliminating donation of time. This ensures it is more difficult to convey longer, thoughtful comments, thereby squashing opposition. It also ensures that certain people who are good speakers and leaders are denied the opportunity to present alternatives to the sitting councilmembers and build a following to challenge them in an election.
 Putting closed session in the middle of the meeting. This is disrespectful of the public's time. Closed session should be at the beginning or on a different day. Making people show up at 5:30 and then wait around for an unknown period of time that can stretch from 1 hour to 4 hours is not ok.  Shuffling the meeting order depending on council conflicts. This is disrespectful of the public's time who have planned around a posted agenda. A councilmember's conflict is the councilmember's issue.

They can wait outside instead of inconveniencing everyone else. Or they can eliminate their conflicts.

Or resign.
 Moving public comments to before the item. This creates many problems. First, the correct order is to hear the staff report and clarifying questions before public comment to ensure we are all working with Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 2012 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 4 the same information and are making the most informed comment possible. It's a waste of time to require the public to spend its limited comment time on things that might be clarified or rendered moot by the staff presentation or council questions. Second, combining all public comment into one segment results in confusion as to the item being commented on and bouncing around from item to item, which is no way to thoughtfully consider an item. Third, the practical result of this change is that the public comment becomes separated from the council's discussion, both on the video so it's less likely to be seen, but also in council's mind when the comments are made several hours before the matter is heard.

Staff now uses its staff report to rebut the public comments. Councilmembers do the same and prepare grandstanding speeches that malign the commenters and are disjointed from the public sentiment. The temporal separation is why we can have hundreds of people show up in opposition, with only a few lobbyists in support, and council still votes against the public. The meetings have become mostly performative instead of a real engagement of elected officials with their constituents.  Signing up for remote comments the day before. This is Silicon Beach. Even the school district is able to take remote comments at the time of the meeting. City Staff should be able to manage remote comments in real time to maximize participation.
 Minutes with no information. The minutes no longer list speakers by "for" and "against" an item, so there is no way to know the amount of support for or against the item from the minutes. The minutes also no longer state the issues raised during the meeting unless it's in a clarifying question by council, so when the councilmembers simply ignore hundreds of comments, there is no reflection in the minutes that there was an issue raised and ignored.
 Boards and Commissions follow the same bad rules. Ideally, boards and commissions are where there should be more discussion, not less, so that ideas and policies could be more fully fleshed out and discussed before they make it to city council. Cutting public comment at the boards and commissions ensures the ideas will be pushed through. Furthermore, most boards and commissions don't have written staff reports so it's almost meaningless to force the public to comment before the staff report is presented, guessing at the content. The rules need to be fixed at all levels.  School District follows similar bad rules. Because the same interests control city council and the school board, these bad practices are utilized by both agencies. The school district takes it even farther by no allowing comment on agenda items that aren't a study session, discussion item, or action item. The school district also refuses to maintain a repository of written public comments, claiming they aren't legally required to do so, resulting in there being no record of who lobbied our elected officials and how much support or opposition there was for their decision. This lack of transparency is unacceptable, and all of our public agencies in Santa Monica should be committed to transparent engagement with the public and accountability.

I dream of the day when I won't have to check an agenda on Friday night to see how our lives will be made worse on the following Tuesday. When we no longer have to spend precious weekend hours scrambling to educate neighbors and draft opposition comments, picking the two worst items to speak to, and then spending eight hours at City Hall only to be cut to one minute. It feels like a constant assault on residents by the people elected to represent us and the staff paid to support us.

In addition to giving us our voice back, the single most important thing you can do to make meetings more efficient is WORK ONLY ON THINGS THE RESIDENTS WANT AND NEED. That's it. No more. It's really that simple.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 2013 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 5 Santa Monica Resident and Voter
ps. This gives me another opportunity to use my No Kings sign.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 2014 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
June 9, 2026

To: Mayor Torosis and City Council members

From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park

RE: 6/9/26 agenda item 11-B

The FOSP Board has the following recommendations:

Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
1) We support capping time by item instead of by section.

2) We oppose eliminating 4-minute option for a single comment. If you are already capping us at 6 minutes, why should you care how we use our time when it’s only 4 minutes?

3) We oppose elimination of public comment on Special Items. If you are taking time at a public meeting to hear the item, you should be willing to hear from your constituents about the item.

4) We strenuously oppose restricting Councilmember Items to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers. If one councilmember believes it’s important enough to raise in order for people to be heard, they should be allowed to do so.

5) We oppose restricting censures to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 2015 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 2:22 PM
To: Clerk Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Denise Anderson-Warren
Cc: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Add to Item 11.B: Remote Comment and Meeting Options for Advisory Boards

EXTERNAL
City Council and City Clerk,
As a city commissioner (albeit one not eligible for this particular option) and a resident of Santa Monica, writing only for myself, I wish to bring to your attention that Senate Bill 707 (2025) allows for advisory bodies to meet virtually or in a hybrid fashion. I hope your discussion on Agenda Item #11.B will touch on this, along with the agendized changes to City Council operations.

Allowing for remote or hybrid advisory board participation can expand the pool of people able to serve and can open meetings up to a wider audience. And while virtual public comment is always an option open to a board, even if the members themselves meet in person, holding virtual or hybrid meetings for the board is also a good occasion to figure out the procedures for and to implement virtual public comment for advisory bodies as well (required for virtual/hybrid meetings).

Even if a board plans to mostly continue to meet in person, having a virtual option provides flexibility. For instance, a board could regularly schedule every other meeting virtual and in person. Or a board could generally meet in person but use the virtual option to hold a meeting that would otherwise be canceled for lack of quorum when certain board members are unavailable to come in person. Or a board could always meet in person—with a social (or bylawsmandated) expectation of in-person board attendance—but allow hybrid participation for members to occasionally participate remotely when they can't make it (without having to worry about the strictures of other, more limited hybrid meetings options under state law).

The rules for this include the following:
 City Council must first approve each body's use of these provisions. Then the body itself must approve, in person, before meeting thereafter remotely.
 City Council must renew each body's use of these provisions every six months.  Cameras must remain on if possible at all times.
 A physical location must still be selected by vote of the body to be open for public viewing and comment. A staff person must be there.

These are the types of bodies that are eligible:
"For purposes of this section, 'eligible subsidiary body' means a legislative body that meets all of the following:
 ...Serves exclusively in an advisory capacity.
 Is not authorized to take final action on legislation, regulations, contracts, licenses, permits, or any other entitlements, grants, or allocations of funds.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2016 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 2  Does not have primary subject matter jurisdiction, as defined by the charter, an ordinance, a resolution, or any formal action of the legislative body that created the subsidiary body, that focuses on elections, budgets, police oversight, privacy, removing from, or restricting access to, materials available in public libraries, or taxes or related spending proposals.

An eligible subsidiary body may include members who are elected officials, members who are not elected officials, or any combination thereof."
I believe this applies to the following bodies: Airport; Arts; Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment; Disabilities; Housing; Human Services; Recreation and Parks; Audit; Transit Security; Urban Forest; Community Gardens; Virginia Avenue Park; Field Sports; Santa Monica Aquatics By my read, the following bodies are not eligible for the following reasons: Architectural Review (quasi-judicial/not purely advisory); Building and Fire-Life Safety (quasi-judicial/not purely advisory); Landmarks (quasi-judicial/not purely advisory); Library (may set policy on book availability and not purely advisory—can accept money); Personnel (quasijudicial/not purely advisory); Planning (quasi-judicial/not purely advisory); Public Safety Reform and Oversight (addresses police oversight among primary subject matter); Clean Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight (addresses taxes as primary subject matter); Housing Authority (not purely advisory); Measure GS Resident Oversight (addresses taxes as primary subject matter); Transient Occupancy Tax (addresses taxes as primary subject matter) Jacob Wasserman
90403
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2017 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Magdalia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 8:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Agenda item 11-B - June 9 2026

EXTERNAL
I am a resident of Santa Monica and appreciate the role of city council members. While at times, tough conversations need to be had, that needs to be continued and to eliminate the ability for any one voice to speak up is not acceptable. Therefore city council should NOT pass this agenda item.

Regards,
Magdalia Armstrong
Santa Monica resident
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2018 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 8:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya Subject: ITEM 11-B OPPOSE

EXTERNAL

STOP GAGGING EVERYONE - RESIDENTS AND LANA- YOU HAVE BEEN PLAYING POWER

GAMES WITH THIS SINCE YOU GOT IN- JUST STOP IT
The first is Agenda item 11-B, which would change the City Council “Rules of Order” to eliminate the current practice of allowing one Councilmember to place on the Agenda a "Councilmember Discussion Item" – commonly referred to as “a 16 item” because it is among the last items on the Council Agenda.

Currently any one of the seven individual council members can place a “16 item” on the Agenda.

Council will vote tomorrow (Agenda item 11-B) on whether to end this long standing practice. If 11-B passes on Tuesday, more than one Councilmember will be required to agendize a 16 item.

While the proposed change is not on its face about any one council member, it is clearly aimed at silencing Councilmember Lana Negrete. Negrete is frequently a lone voice to bring forward issues of concern to residents. Negrete is urging residents to fight for the preservation of the current practice.

Even when such items fail to gain Council support, she says, "the 16 items are an important means of fostering open and transparent governance."
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2019 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 3 David Yakobson
From: Shari Phillips <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 12:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear council members,
I ask that you keep 11-B in place. There would be no logical reason to remove it unless you have an ulterior motive.

Let’s keep transparency and fairness a part of the council’s meetings.

Thank you,
Shari Phillips
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2020 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 4 David Yakobson
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 7:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell Subject: 11-B - Oppose

EXTERNAL
This move is truly anti-democratic. We must not have a city council that censors minority views and that is what 11 B does.

Each council member was voted in by the residents. Limiting the ability of one council member to place an item of
interest to the residents on the agenda is negating all those residents’ votes for that council member.

It may in fact be a violation of the first amendment. I’m not a lawyer but if this passes, I am sure it will be challenged
in court. Further, if you support 11B, Santa Monica residents will certainly let you know how we feel at the ballot box. And
we will not support you. Do you really want to be known for supporting censorship? No you don’t.

While the proposed change is not, on its face, about any one council member, it is clearly aimed at silencing Councilmember Lana Negrete (or any council member in the minority on the council in the future) and squashing a council member's right to place an item of interest to residents on the agenda. Former Mayor Lana Negrete is frequently the lone voice raising issues of concern for residents. She has every right to continue doing so. As each of you has every right to raise whatever issue you want to raise.

This is a sad and ugly day in Santa Monica when City Council considers violating our first amendment on the Dais.

Do the right thing. Vote against 11-B.

Sincerely,
Karen Croner
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2021 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 5 David Yakobson
From: Kelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 7:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B -

EXTERNAL
I am writing today to demand preservation of the current 16 item. The 16 items are an important means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Thank you,
Kelli Urode
SM Resident
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2022 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 6 David Yakobson
From: Brittany de Guzman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 8:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall Subject: Agenda Item 11B

EXTERNAL
RE: Opposition to Agenda Item 11B – Proposed Amendments to City Council Agenda Procedures Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing on behalf of residents of the Virginia Avenue Apartments to express our opposition to the proposed changes contained in Item 11B, specifically the requirement that no fewer than two and no more than three Councilmembers sponsor a Councilmember Discussion Item before it can be placed on a Council agenda.

As residents who have spent the last several years advocating for transparency, accountability, and public oversight regarding the rehabilitation of our homes, we are deeply concerned that this proposal would create unnecessary barriers between residents and their elected representatives.

The purpose of electing Councilmembers is to ensure that residents have multiple avenues through which their concerns can be heard and brought forward for public discussion. Requiring a Councilmember to obtain the support of additional Councilmembers before an issue can even be discussed weakens that relationship and limits the ability of individual Councilmembers to independently represent the constituents who elected them.

Our concern is not theoretical. At the start of the Virginia Avenue Apartments rehabilitation project, residents had reached out to Councilmembers individually seeking assistance, oversight, and advocacy.

Those requests were met with silence or no action. In those circumstances, residents relied on finding a single Councilmember willing to listen and help elevate our concerns. Under the proposed rule, even that pathway could be blocked if additional Councilmembers declined to support placing the matter on an agenda.

This proposal risks creating a gatekeeping process that makes it more difficult for residents to have important issues discussed in a public forum. Matters that affect public safety, housing, transparency, accountability, neighborhood concerns, or emerging community issues should not require multiple Councilmembers’ approval before they can be publicly considered. A single elected representative should retain the ability to bring forward issues raised by constituents and allow the full Council to determine their merits during an open meeting.

We are also concerned that requiring multiple sponsors could discourage independent voices on the Council and reduce opportunities for public discourse. Healthy democratic governance depends on the free exchange of ideas, differing viewpoints, and the ability of elected officials to raise issues on behalf of their constituents—even when those issues may not initially have broad political support.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2023 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 7 The residents of Virginia Avenue Apartments strongly oppose any policy that effectively censors or limits the ability of individual Councilmembers to bring constituent concerns before the public. Rather than restricting access to the agenda-setting process, the City should be strengthening pathways for resident engagement and ensuring that every member of the community has meaningful access to their elected representatives.

We respectfully urge the City Council to reject this portion of Item 11B and preserve the ability of individual Councilmembers to place discussion items on the agenda without requiring the approval of additional Councilmembers.

Thank you for your consideration and for your continued service to the residents of Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Brittany de Guzman, Diana Flores, Kiana Achoy, and Soledad Jimenez Virginia Avenue Apartments
@generations_of_virginia_ave
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2024 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 8 David Yakobson
From: John Redfield <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 8:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 11-B

EXTERNAL
Deer Council,
As a many years Santa Monica resident who who follows local politics, I’d urge you all to retain item 16, to maintain the ability for individual council members to keep an open dialogue to the benefit of Santa Monica residents and general public John Redfield Business owner
1501 Colorado Av.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2025 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 9 David Yakobson
From: Mara Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 8:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11B

EXTERNAL
Leave the “16 Item” rule alone. It is critical to allow council minority members a voice to raise issues in a public matter.

Mara Thompson
Santa Monica 90405
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2026 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 10 David Yakobson
From: Brice Cooper <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please vote No on 11-b

EXTERNAL
Council,
Please vote now on item 11 – B.
11 – B allows minorities in their opinion in your council to raise valid concerns of citizens that may not share view points with an overwhelming majority of your council members.

By preserving 11 – B you are preserving what is a positive effect of responsible governance. In today’s’ current political climate, I think we can all agree that silencing those who simply don’t agree with you has rather dangerous implications. You can do better.

Thank you.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2027 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 11 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:21 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B - OPPOSE Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order
June 9, 2026
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
We OPPOSE Agenda item 11 - B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Council Member Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Tricia Crane, Chair with Unanimous Support of the Board of Northeast Neighbors Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2028 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 12 David Yakobson
From: Kiana Achoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:29 AM
To: Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: Opposition to Item 11B - 9JUNE26

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I respectfully oppose the portion of Item 11B that would require multiple Councilmembers to sponsor an agenda item before it can be discussed.

Residents elect Councilmembers to represent their concerns and bring issues forward. Requiring additional Councilmember support before an item can even reach the agenda creates an unnecessary barrier to public participation and limits transparency.

One Councilmember should be able to place an item on the agenda when residents raise concerns that deserve public discussion. Open government depends on allowing issues to be heard, debated, and considered in a public forum.

Please reject this proposed change and preserve direct access between residents and their elected representatives.

Sincerely,
Kiana Achoy
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2029 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 13 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: NO on Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
Hello, the current “rule of order” must not be changed.

The the right ethical thing & bite NO on 11-B.
50 year resident of Santa Monica. Lou Steiner
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2030 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 14 David Yakobson
From: jzhawk13 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FROM Jill Hawkins 11-B preserve current practice.

EXTERNAL
Hello Santa Monica City Council, Regarding. 11B, Please preserve the current practice. Don't be one of those people who vote to silence others.

Sincerely.... Do the right thing.

Jill Hawkins
Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2031 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 15 David Yakobson
From: KAREN HARRIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please do not pass 11-B !!!!

EXTERNAL
Please keep the Rules of Order as is and allow the 16th-item discussion to be introduced by one council member.

Thank you,
Karen Harris
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2032 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 16 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi
Cc: Heidi von Tongeln; Susan Cola; Susan Cline; Denise Anderson-Warren Subject: June 9, 2026 Council Meeting - Item 11-B. - Councilmember 16. Items

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Mr. Chi, and Councilmembers -
I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items) Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

I believe all Councilmembers will appreciate the opportunity to act from time to time as a single voice on the Council raising issues of concern to constituents.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Thank you!
Sincerely, Ann Bowman, Resident 29+ years
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2033 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 17 David Yakobson
From: Gavin Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:08 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: Nicola Scott
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
From: Gavin and Nicola Scott, 1801 Marine Street, Santa Monica CA 90405 We OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items) Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Sincerely,
Gavin and Nicola Scott
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2034 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 18 David Yakobson
From: girltunes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:09 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
From: Ferris Gluck
I stand with the Board of Northeast Neighbors regarding the following letter submitted by them on June 9, 2026::

We OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

You have been methodically chipping away at the democratic processes in Santa Monica - taking away time for citizens to speak at city council meetings, removing funding for neighborhood associations if they don't comply with new anti-democratic rules, reneging on ballot measures passed Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2035 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 19 to preserve our airport as parkland, and on and on. Where will this end? Stop destroying our beloved Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Ferris Gluck
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2036 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 20 David Yakobson
From: Isaac Yerushalmi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:07 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: Opposition to Item 11-B: Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I oppose Agenda Item 11-B. Allowing a single elected Councilmember to place a Councilmember Item on the agenda helps ensure transparency and gives residents a voice, even when that voice is in the minority. Requiring two Councilmembers to do so would make it harder for individual representatives to raise concerns on behalf of their constituents and would diminish open public discussion.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Isaac Yerushalmi
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2037 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Tom Davidson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Councilmember Discussion Item" – commonly referred to as “a 16 item

EXTERNAL
11-B should not be allowed to pass on Tuesday.

A Resident against this
Get Outlook for iOS
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2038 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Neil Kaplan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 7:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 16 Item

EXTERNAL
Please do not remove 16 item.

Thank you,
Neil Kaplan
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2039 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 3 David Yakobson
From: afnelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 8:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request that you NOT pass 11b. Keep present policy in place. Thank you

EXTERNAL
Sent from my Galaxy
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2040 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 4 David Yakobson
From: Helen Landon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:34 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 11-B and the 16 item

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I just learned about the vote to take place tonight to remove the "16 item".

Over the years many important issues have been brought forward by a council member using this process.

Please do not get rid of it. It's a way that residents are heard and can feel like they truly matter and have a say.

A few years ago when one of my daughters was in high school, she wrote to the council multiple times about the Big Blue Bus no longer taking cash payment. She found this discriminatory. Eventually the item was brought forward. She ultimately had a meeting with the head of the Big Blue Bus leadership and cash payment was brought back!
This is only a personal example of something important that was brought forward through this process, but there are many more...

Please do not end this important process.

Helen Zielinski Landon, PhD
resident and business owner Santa Monica
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2041 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 5 David Yakobson
From: Lisa Priestley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16 Council Meeting Vote

EXTERNAL
Hello
I am a long time resident of Santa Monica and want to express my concern that the council plans a vote to change the long standing rule that any one council person can bring a topic up for discussion as an “item 16”. We as residents deserve to be represented by all council members and have a transparent and open discussion of all items of concern.

Sincerely
Elizabeth Priestley
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2042 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 6 David Yakobson
From: Jessica Yingling <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B

This is going to prevent residents’ concerns from being heard which subverts democracy and diminishes our right to have our concerns addressed by those we voted into office.

Santa Monica praises itself as a city that welcomes a diversity of voices yet this is in direct opposition to that ideal.

I’m disappointed this is even being considered — please do better for your constituents.

Jessica Yingling
220 San Vicente Blvd.

Santa Monica, CA 90402
310-991-8495
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2043 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 7 David Yakobson
From: Tracey Hom <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Oliver Chi; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; [email protected]; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Esther Hickman; Molly; Roni Crichton; Lenny Hom; Karen M. Fisher Subject: 11-B

EXTERNAL
Whenever you think you have heard it all, it just gets worse, My entire family is against 11-B. You are trying again to silence the minority and not let contrary opinions have a voice. This measure would prevent a single council person from bring forward a measure. How dare you attempt to silence Lana who sometimes singlehandedly brings forth agenda items. We, your residents deserve to hear all points of view and to have all matters that the minority wants to put in front of the citizens and council. You are getting more trumpish each day.

Just like Torosis preventing people from having time to speak. You prepare for 2 or 4 minutes and get 30 seconds. You are destroying the democracy in Santa Monica.

Tracey P. Hom Esq.
310 749 5343
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2044 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Council members to post a Council member Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2045 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Eve Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:20 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I respectfully oppose the proposal requiring two Councilmembers to sponsor a Councilmember Agenda Item before it can be placed on the agenda.

Good governance depends on the free exchange of ideas, especially ideas that challenge the status quo. Many of the most important discussions begin with a single elected official raising a concern, asking a difficult question, or bringing forward an issue that others may have overlooked. Requiring a second sponsor creates a gatekeeping mechanism that allows majority viewpoints to suppress minority viewpoints before the public even has an opportunity to hear them.

Santa Monica has approximately 90,000 residents and only seven Councilmembers. Each Councilmember represents thousands of residents. When a single Councilmember is prevented from agendizing an item, it is not merely that Councilmember's voice being limited, it is the voice of a significant portion of the community.

The purpose of a Councilmember Agenda Item is not to guarantee adoption of a proposal. It is simply to allow public discussion and consideration by the full Council. If an idea lacks merit, the Council can vote it down. There is no compelling reason to prevent the discussion from occurring in the first place.

I am particularly troubled because this proposal comes on the heels of other actions that have reduced opportunities for public participation. Public comment is already reduced to one minute per speaker when more than twenty residents wish to speak. While efficiency has its place, the cumulative effect of limiting public comment and now limiting the ability of individual Councilmembers to place items on the agenda moves us further away from open government and robust civic engagement.

Councilmembers are elected to represent their constituents, not merely to vote on items selected by others. Requiring a Councilmember to obtain permission from another Councilmember before raising an issue risks silencing independent voices and discouraging thoughtful dissent. A healthy democracy is strengthened, not weakened, by hearing perspectives that differ from others.

I urge the Council to preserve the longstanding practice that allows a single Councilmember to agendize an item.

Transparency, accountability, and public trust are best served when ideas are debated openly rather than filtered out before the discussion can even begin.

Respectfully,
Eve Lopez
Sunset Park
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2046 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 3 David Yakobson
From: David Abrams <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: vote no on 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear council,
Please vote NO on item 11-B. To retain credibility and public trust, you must not silence council members who are doing their jobs and serving constituents by raising, alone, a "16 item" on an agenda.

Regards,
David Abrams
1632 5th St.

Santa Monica, CA
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2047 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 4 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:22 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/9/26 - Item 11-B - Wilmont Board comments on proposed changes to council rules

EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and City Council Members,
With Item 11.B the City Council is doing more than implement SB 707; it is changing local city council procedural rules. The Board of the Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) provides its comments on the options it opposes as well as the options it supports.

Wilmont Board opposes these options:
 Increase the number of council members required to submit Discussions Items to no more than a majority of the council as prohibited by the Brown Act (ex. No less than two and no more than three councilmembers
o While this option has high efficiency it does not have high quality. On a seven-member city council EVERY VOICE counts. What makes a healthy community is not that everyone agrees. It is that people are willing to thoughtfully raise concerns, ask difficult questions and ensure decisions are fully examined before they permanently affect the city. The movie 12 Angry Men reminds us that progress does not always begin with unanimous support. Sometimes it begins with a single person willing to say, "This deserves a closer look". This is not obstruction. This is civic responsibility. Strong communities depend on city council members and residents who are willing to engage, speak thoughtfully and advocate for outcomes that they believe better serve the long-term well-being of residents. We support the city in allowing a single city council member to place a future agenda item forward without having a second to present that item as a 16 item (soon to be called a Council member Discussion Item) without a second. In a seven member council, that ensures even one elected representative - 14.285 % of the council and the residents they represent can raise issues of public importance for discussion. Who knows, maybe that city council member will be similar to juror 8 and help an innocent man be freed or a poor policy/decision be improved or rectified.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2048 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 5  Rule 15. Public Testimony - Oppose "that no general public input shall be taken on any item on a Special Meeting Agenda and Oppose that four minutes to speak when registering to speak on only one item is being deleted
o We continue to see the reduction and degradation of public comment, and specifically resident public comment. This continues an abysmal trend by this city council. You kept the fourminutes of time as a compromise to discontinuing time donation. And now, conveniently you are getting rid of the four minutes. Again, how efficient but lacking in a look to quality. We have no understanding of why there should be no public input on a Special Meeting but would be willing to understand the city council’s logic.
 We oppose restricting censures to those brought by at least two council members.  Current Practice - We oppose the current practice of giving public input before the staff report and clarifying questions and request that public input comes AFTER the staff report and clarifying questions.

Wilmont Board supports these options:
 Setting Closed Session - Support Option - First by keeping the start time of 5:30 pm, and set a time limit to hear the open session at a certain time (ex. Closed Session at 5:30 pm and open session at 7 pm)
o We agree with the staff report regarding this option so a set start time or estimated return for open session to inform the public of when they: can sign up for comment, will be called to speak, and can continue listening to the meeting.
 Setting a Time for Public Input on Non-Agenda Items - Support Option - Move public input on non-agenda items prior to adjournment
o The city council develops an agenda. It has been unclear how they determine what goes on the agenda but we assume it is important. Why are we giving away our earlier times to any issue that anyone wants addressed? It seems generous that the city council gives time to provide public input on non-agenda items at all.
 Managing Speaking Time for 25+ Speakers - Support Option - At whatever threshold of people (see recommendation below) we agree with reduction from two minutes to one minute "per agenda item" with all speakers for other agenda items to retain their requested speaking time o In a survey of public agencies, the standard of 30 people to reduce the amount of public input time is a standard. We would appreciate consideration to expanding that number from 25 to 30 people.

Many thanks,
Board of Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2049 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 6 David Yakobson
From: Carol Dickinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:23 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: NO on Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Council,
As a longtime Santa Monica resident, I strongly oppose Agenda Item 11-B. This would make it more difficult for individual Councilmembers to represent their constituents. It is obvious that the purpose of 11-B is a blatant attempt to muzzle Councilmember Negrete. We don’t need Trump tactics in Santa Monica from our very own leaders! Sincerely,
Carol Dickinson
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2050 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 7 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:24 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
I vigorously OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items).

Once again this Council seeks to silence those who support residents. This proposal negates the right of the people to hear all sides. It is prior censorship and unacceptable.

Each and every councilperson has a right and duty to express an opinion on topics concerning Santa Monica. DO NOT REQUIRE TWO TO MAKE A STATEMENT. If you oppose an idea, vote against it when it comes to a vote. DO NOT SILENCE IN ADVANCE an elected councilmember because you do not agree with her views.

Harriet P Epstein
Santa Monica
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2051 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 8 David Yakobson
From: Stacey Ravel Abarbanel <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:28 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B

EXTERNAL
Dear Council:

I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items).

Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve. Additionally, if ever the council ends up having to move to a district representation model, the ability to speak for a particular area of the city would be increasingly important.

The proposed changes in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on. Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent discussion and governance.

Thank you,
Stacey Ravel Abarbanel
[email protected]
310/736-5300
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2052 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 9 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:29 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE ITEM 11-B. CHANGES TO RULES OF ORDER

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
STOP THE GAMES WITH FREE SPEECH - WITH LANA AND THE RESIDENTS.. STOP YOUR

AUTHORITARIAN GAMES -
I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

DANIELLE CHARNEY
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2053 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 10 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I oppose the proposed change to the “Rules of Order” that eliminates the current practice of allowing one Councilmember to place a "Councilmember Discussion Item" on the public meeting agenda.

Please preserve the current system.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Resident of Santa Monica
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2054 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 11 David Yakobson
From: stephen youngerman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:45 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
Stephen Youngerman Santa Monica resident
I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Stephen Youngerman
310-478-3780
Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse the typos.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2055 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 12 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Chang <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Agenda Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
To Santa Monica City Council:

Dear City Council members,
I am writing to preserve the “Rules of Order” and current practice of allowing one Councilmember to place on the Agenda a "Councilmember Discussion Item" – commonly referred to as “a 16 item.” Any council member should have the option of adding pertinent city discussion topics to the agenda should a subject arise that they feel needs immediate resolve.

Best,
Elizabeth Chang

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2056 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 13 David Yakobson
From: Victor Fresco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:51 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda iten 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members and City Manager Chi.

At a time when democracy is fighting for its survival, I urge you not to make participation in government more difficult.

Requiring two council members to raise an Item 16 would make it more difficult for opposing views to be heard.

While it may feel like an act of efficiency, making dissent more difficult chips away at a vibrant democracy. Please don’t do it.

Thank you.

Victor Fresco
Santa Monica
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2057 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 14 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete
Subject: Item 11-B - Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I write respectfully to oppose Agenda Item 11-B.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to reject Agenda Item 11-B. I think in retrospect you will be glad you did and the community will thank you.

Thank you for your consideration,
Heather Thomason
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2058 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 15 David Yakobson
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11 – B June 9 meeting

Oppose this shameful recommendation.

Ann Thanawalla
Wilmont
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2059 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 16 David Yakobson
From: Loren Greenfield <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 11B

This is going to prevent residents’ concerns from being heard which subverts democracy and diminishes our right to have our concerns addressed by those we voted into office.

Loren Greenfield
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2060 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 17 David Yakobson
From: ALAN MONT <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:04 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Item 11B

EXTERNAL
City Council Members,
I am asking you to oppose Item 11B on tonight’s agenda.

Every council member should have a voice. Our founders recognized the importance of minority representation. This is one reason the Senate has a filibuster rule.

Thank you for your consideration.

Alan Mont
818-261-8172
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2061 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 18 David Yakobson
From: TheLosAngelesCaliforniaAssembly <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: tuesday proposed change on "item 16"; agenda 11-B

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2062 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 19 David Yakobson
From: Suzanne Rode <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:05 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose 11B

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2063 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 20 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:09 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox; Clerk Mailbox Subject: Agenda Item 11-B Changes To Rule of Order

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are a means of fostering open and transparent discuusion andgovernance.

Please save yourselves time and later grief by removing the item from the Agenda or vote NO.

John Alle
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2064 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 21 June 9, 2026
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
We OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.
--
John E. Alle

JOHN ALLE COMPANY

THE SANTA MONICA COALITION / SAFE CITIES
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2065 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 22 David Yakobson
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members:

Please oppose the rule change of item 10-B, out of concern for retaining the means by which individual City Council members may raise issues on behalf of us citizens.

Thank you for acting on my behalf.

Sincerely,
Katharine Dreyfuss
621 25th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2066 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 23 David Yakobson
From: William Schoene <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:12 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order

William and Mary Lou Schoene
1519 Oak Street Santa Monica CA 90405

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2067 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 24 David Yakobson
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:17 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11.B. : Changes to Rules of Order

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2068 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 25 Please reject this resoluƟon and refrain from any future aƩempt to change current procedures regarding these items.

Respecƞully,
Marc L. Verville
Sunset Park
Former Chair, Santa Monica Audit SubcommiƩee
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2069 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 26 David Yakobson
From: Mike Feinstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Comment on 11B - what I do not support

EXTERNAL
Begin forwarded message:

However I wanted you that I fully oppose this particular part of what is proposed under Agenda Item 11B

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2070 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 27 community to be able to introduce a Council member item on their own, if that is their choice.

Good luck tonight with your meeting.

Mike Feinstein
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2071 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 28 David Yakobson
From: Mariana Small <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please preserve single-member access to Councilmember Discussion Items

If the concern is meeting efficiency, there are narrower tools (time limits, batching similar items, internal guidelines) that do not restrict access to the agenda itself.

Please keep the current rule that lets any individual councilmember bring forward a discussion item raised by constituents.

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2072 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 29 David Yakobson
From: Paula Goldman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:

Please vote to oppose tonight’s agenda item 11-B, proposed changes to the Council’s “Rules of Order” for bringing individual issues to the full Council’s attention.

We know you have a difficult job, and have to assume that no individual member would bother bringing up frivolous items.

Again, it is pointless to remove an important discussion tool from individual members. It serves no purpose, and is indeed punitive.

Thank you,
Paula Goldman and Brian Wolf
2821 Washington Avenue
Paula Goldman
PaulaGoldman.com
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2073 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 30 David Yakobson
From: Susan Marzec <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:28 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

We do expect to be able to participate in our local government and need for the current council to take our ability to participate seriously, and not take actions to prevent our participation.

Sincerely,
Susan & Randy Marzec
1040 Cedar Street
Santa Monica, CA. 90405
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2074 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 31 David Yakobson
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11-B Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
Hello Council members,
Thank you for pulling Item 10-B.

Now please oppose Item 11-B.

Thank you.

Best,
Katharine (Kit) Dreyfuss
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2075 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 32 David Yakobson
From: Mindi Shank <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:54 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose 11-B

2) We support moving general public comment to the end of the meeting.

3) We oppose eliminating 4-minute option for a single comment. If you are already capping us at 6 minutes, why should you care how we use our time when it’s only 4 minutes?

4) We oppose elimination of public comment on Special Items. If you are taking time at a public meeting to hear the item, you should be willing to hear from your constituents about the item.

6) We oppose restricting censures to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Mindi Shank
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2076 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 33 David Yakobson
From: Mike Feinstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:40 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; Denise Anderson-Warren; Heidi von Tongeln Subject: Comment on 11B - what I do support

Only in a few cities did it come fully at the end, with no early General Public Comment option.

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2077 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 34 (2) Separate meetings to consider Closed Session Items I support this idea in concept. When I first got on the City Council, Closed Session came after all other business was concluded. This allowed the meetings to start earlier and hear from the public earlier. But we rarely had a full Council in closed session when we were making very important decisions, because some Council members simply could not stay that late and still get up in the morning for work. That was unacceptable given the gravity of decisions made in closed session
Starting closed session at the beginning also creates management problems as you know, because it squeezes the Council and the public in other ways.

Best of luck tonight
Mike
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2078 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 35 Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2079 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 36 David Yakobson
From: Leanna Einbinder <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:41 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council member items

Thank you for your consideration.

Leanna Einbinder and Chris Knauf (and family)
Sunset Park residents
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2080 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 8 David Yakobson
From: Alyssa <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: No on 11-B

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica resident
933 9th street #90403
Alyssa Ganezer
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2081 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Carol Poletti <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Preserve - one council member can place “16-item” on the Agenda

This is going to prevent residents’ concerns from being heard which subverts democracy and diminishes our right to have our concerns addressed by those we voted into office.

Carol Poletti
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2082 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Rebecca Terlizzi <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 11-B for 6/9/26 Meeting

Thank you,
Rebecca Terlizzi
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2083 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 3 David Yakobson
From: Wendy Dembo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

With great regret,
Wendy Dembo
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2084 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Maya Knauf <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:50 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Santa Monica City Council

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,

1) We support capping time by item instead of by section.

2) We support moving general public comment to the end of the meeting.

3) We oppose eliminating 4-minute option for a single comment.

4) We oppose elimination of public comment on Special Items. If you are taking time at a public meeting to hear the item, you should be willing to hear from your constituents about the item.

5)We strenuously oppose restricting Councilmember Items to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers. If one councilmember believes it’s important enough to raise in order for people to be heard, they should be allowed to do so.

6) We oppose restricting censures to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Maya Knauf
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2085 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln
Subject: June 9, 2026 - City Council Item 11B - Council Meeting Rules - OPPOSE

I support capping time by item instead of by section, a change I have asked for in public comments before.

However, the number of speakers should be higher (at least 30) or no cap at all, as discussed below.

I strenuously oppose restricting Councilmember Items to those brought by at least two councilmembers.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2086 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 3 And why are you restricting the ability to censure? Have some of you done something we should know about? I don’t recall ever seeing censure used, so clearly this isn’t about time or efficiency. Therefore, it also appears to be a petty move by the majority to insulate itself from criticism. I oppose restricting censures to those brought by at least two councilmembers.

They can wait outside instead of inconveniencing everyone else. Or they can eliminate their conflicts.

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2087 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 4 the same information and are making the most informed comment possible. It's a waste of time to require the public to spend its limited comment time on things that might be clarified or rendered moot by the staff presentation or council questions. Second, combining all public comment into one segment results in confusion as to the item being commented on and bouncing around from item to item, which is no way to thoughtfully consider an item. Third, the practical result of this change is that the public comment becomes separated from the council's discussion, both on the video so it's less likely to be seen, but also in council's mind when the comments are made several hours before the matter is heard.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2088 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 5 Santa Monica Resident and Voter
ps. This gives me another opportunity to use my No Kings sign.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2089 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
June 9, 2026

To: Mayor Torosis and City Council members

From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park

RE: 6/9/26 agenda item 11-B

The FOSP Board has the following recommendations:

Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
1) We support capping time by item instead of by section.

2) We oppose eliminating 4-minute option for a single comment. If you are already capping us at 6 minutes, why should you care how we use our time when it’s only 4 minutes?

3) We oppose elimination of public comment on Special Items. If you are taking time at a public meeting to hear the item, you should be willing to hear from your constituents about the item.

5) We oppose restricting censures to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2090 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Bob Seldon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 12:03 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
We OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as “16 items”) The changes proposed in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

We believe that Agenda item 11-B is aimed at silencing Councilmember Lana Negrete, who is frequently a lone voice on the Council raising issues of concern to us constituents.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process and are a means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Robert and Lynn Seldon
Santa Monica
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2091 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: lmarreola <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 12:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
Please do not support changes to " Rules of Order"
Larry and Carol Arreola
Sunset Park Residents
Sent from my Galaxy
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2092 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 3 David Yakobson
From: HEIDI JO COREY <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 12:39 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.
茇茈ᕼEIᗪI ᒍO ᑕOᖇEY 깳깶깷깴깵깸310-656-0000
긼긽긾긿김깂깁[email protected]
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2093 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 4 David Yakobson
From: Margaret Frane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 2:09 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 11-B

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica council members
I oppose Agenda item 11-B. Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and as long as I have lived here, any one elected member of the council could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they are there to serve.

The proposed changes in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Agenda item 11-B is clearly aimed at silencing Councilmember Lana Negrete, who frequently raises issues of concern to her constituents. That should be considered a very positive contribution.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process. It helps the residents to have representation on the council.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance, something Santa Monica claims to encourage.

Thank you for your attention.

Long term resident, Margaret Frane
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2094 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Olga Milosavljevic <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 1:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 'a 16 item' - urge you to vote to retain this Rule of Order

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I'm upset to hear that you are considering the elimination of the City Council "Rules of Order" practice that allows any one Councilmember to place an item on the agenda "a 16 item/Councilmember Discussion Item." This eliminates the ability for topics important to Santa Monica residents be raised in a timely manner - last minute if needed.
what is the rationale to remove this item?
/Olga
--
Olga Milosavljevic
[email protected]
What we have before us are some breathtaking opportunities disguised as insoluble problems -- John W.

Gardner 1965
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 2095 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7627 : Amend Council Rules) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 9, 2026
Agenda Item: 12.A
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Christopher Dishlip, Director of Public Works, Water Resources Division Subject: Public Hearing and Approval of the 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report
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. Hold a public hearing, receive public comment, and approve the proposed 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report for the Public Works Department Summary
The California Water Code (CWC) requires all urban water suppliers to conduct an annual water supply and demand assessment. The City’s Public Works Department - Water Resources Division staff completed the assessment for the projected 2026 year (July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027), as defined by the California Department of Water Resources. Details of the annual assessment are included in the attached 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (Attachment B). The annual assessment analyzes current water supply and demand conditions to project water supply reliability over the next year (July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027), identifies potential water supply shortages and, if necessary, implements water shortage response actions to mitigate potential water supply shortage conditions. Based on the findings from the annual assessment, staff recommends remaining in a Stage 2 Water Shortage (20% reduction in water use compared to each customer’s 2013 baseline), per the City’s 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan adopted by City Council in June 2021. Maintaining a Stage

12.A
Packet Pg. 2096
2 of 5
2 Water Shortage is critical to meeting the City’s goal to reduce its reliance on imported water supplies, comply with state regulations to reduce per capita water use, and help preserve this precious resource.

Discussion
In 2018, the California Legislature enacted into law new requirements for urban water suppliers to increase drought resilience and to improve communication of water shortage response actions. Each urban water supplier is required to prepare an Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment (Annual Assessment) and submit an Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (Annual Shortage Report) to DWR on or before July 1, 2022, and every year thereafter.

Assessment Procedure
The assessment required the analysis of current year and projected year water supply and demand. The City currently obtains its potable water supply from a combination of treated local groundwater and imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), which is purchased to supplement local water supplies. The CWC requires water utilities to assess available water supplies under a representative single dry year. Per the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, local groundwater supply available during a single, worst-case dry year is approximately 6,755 acre-feet per year (AFY), which is used for the projected year local supply. For imported water supplies, the assessment assumes only MWD’s Tier 1 water supply allotment of 7,406 AFY is available. The total available supply for the projected 2026 year is therefore 14,161 AF (6,755 AFY local supply + 7,406 AFY MWD Tier 1 allotment).

A conservative approach was used for the projected year demands, as the intent of the assessment and requirements of the CWC are to ensure urban water suppliers are able to maintain reliable water supplies for a projected dry year. Constrained demands for the projected year for all categories were calculated using averages of previous years’ (2021-2025) constrained demand. This projection ensures the City is prepared for a high demand coupled with a dry year (seen in 2021- 2022), while accurately reflecting

12.A
Packet Pg. 2097
3 of 5
recent usage (seen in 2024-2025). The unconstrained demand was calculated by increasing the constrained demand value by 20%. Unconstrained demand is defined by the CWC as water demand absent any water supply and demand restrictions (e.g., water conservation programs). The 20% increase accounts for water usage that would occur without any water conservation activities. For the projected year, the constrained demand was 9,977 AF and the unconstrained demand was 12,472 AF.

Assessment Results
The results of the annual water supply and demand assessment show that without water shortage response actions (e.g., 20% water conservation target), a 14% water supply surplus is projected for the next year. A 14% surplus equates to the State’s Standard Shortage Level 0 (no shortage).

Although the assessment results indicate a State Standard Shortage Level 0, the City recommends staying in Stage 2 for the following reasons:
• Staying in Stage 2 helps the City achieve its long-term water goals to reduce its reliance on imported water supplies and increase local control of water production costs.
• On the state level, the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill X7-7) requires water suppliers in California to increase their water- use efficiency, and California Executive Order B-37-16, Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life, focuses on permanently reducing per capita water use. • If the Stage 2 Shortage was lifted, water demand would increase and result in increased purchase of imported water, which could impact water rates and potentially lead to a heavier burden on the City’s rate payers.

The City has remained in a Stage 2 Water Shortage Level since 2014 and has consistently maintained 20% reductions in water demand from 2013 water usage levels.

Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment Action and Public Outreach

12.A
Packet Pg. 2098
4 of 5
The annual water supply and demand assessment written decision-making procedures include a presentation of the annual assessment to the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment. On February 23, 2026, staff presented the annual water supply and demand assessment findings to the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment.

Public participation is required as part of the annual water supply and demand assessment procedures which include a public hearing and comment period. Public notification regarding a public hearing was published in the Santa Monica Daily Press on March 26, 2026.

Environmental Review
The City’s annual water shortage assessment is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states 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.” The intent of the Annual Water Shortage Assessment is to provide an update on the City’s water supply and assess available water supplies against demands in an effort to protect the environment. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the agreement would not result in adverse physical impacts on the environment, and as such, is exempt from CEQA.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
06/08/2021
(attachment A)
2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage
Contingency Plan Council Meeting Staff Report
05/27/2025
(attachment B)
2025 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment
Council Meeting Staff Report
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions

12.A
Packet Pg. 2099
5 of 5
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: Dinaz Kureishy, Civil Engineering Assistant Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. June 8, 2021 Staff Report
B. Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report
C. 2025 Annual Water Shortage Demand Assessment Staff Report D. PowerPoint Presentation

12.A
Packet Pg. 2100
2026 ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY AND

DEMAND ASSESSMENT
DRAFT
FEBRUARY 2026

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2101 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ii
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 California Water Code Requirements .........................................................................................1-1

1.2 Water System Overview...................................................................................................................1-2 2 ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT............................................2-1

2.1 Decision-making process.................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Key Data Inputs ...................................................................................................................................2-2

2.2.1 Water Demand......................................................................................................2-3

2.2.2 Water Supply.........................................................................................................2-9 3 Supply and Demand Assessment Results and Recommendations.......................3-1

3.1 Recommended Water Shortage Response Stage....................................................................3-1

3.2 Ongoing Reassessments...................................................................................................................3-6 Figures
Figure 1-1. Potable Water System Overview .........................................................................................1-3 Figure 1-2. Components of the 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan ........................................1-5 Tables
Table 2-1. Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Process.............................................2-2 Table 2-2. Constrained Water Demand by Sector in Acre-Feet (2019-2023)...........................2-3 Table 2-3. Current Year and Projected Year Demands (Potable)...................................................2-8 Table 2-4. Current Year and Projected Year Demands (Recycled Water)..................................2-9 Table 2-5. Current Year and Projected Year Potable Supply ........................................................ 2-12 Table 2-6. Current Year and Projected Year Recycled Water Supply........................................ 2-12 Table 3-1. Assessment Results without Water Shortage Response Actions..............................3-1 Table 3-2. Water Shortage Stages and Reduction Targets................................................................3-2 Table 3-3. Summary of Water Shortage Stages and Conditions .....................................................3-2 Table 3-4. Summary of Stage 1 and Stage 2 Water Shortage Response Actions ......................3-3 Table 3-5. Assessment Results with Stage 2 Water Shortage Response Actions .....................3-6

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2102 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report List of Acronyms Page iii
List of Acronyms
AF Acre-Feet
AFY Acre-Feet Per Year
AMI Advanced Metering Infrastructure
AWSDA
AWTF
Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment
Advanced Water Treatment Facility
CWC California Water Code
DWR Department of Water Resources
GAC Granular Activated Carbon
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
MG Million Gallons
MGD Million Gallons Per Day
MTBE Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
PFAS Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
SMB Santa Monica Basin
SMBGSA Santa Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency SMURRF Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility
SWIP Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project
SWMP Sustainable Water Management Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
RO Reverse Osmosis
TBA Tert-Butyl Alcohol
WCU Water Conservation Unit
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
WRD Water Resources Division
WTP Water Treatment Plant
WUA Water Use Allowance

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2103 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report INTRODUCTION 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes findings from the City of Santa Monica (City) 2026 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment (AWSDA). The AWSDA is required by the California Water Code (§10632.1) to analyze current water supply and demand conditions as well as project water supply reliability each year. In doing so, AWSDA’s serve as a tool to help identify potential water supply shortages and to implement water shortage response actions to mitigate possible supply gaps.

Beginning in 2022, the California Water Code (§10632.1) required urban water suppliers to conduct an AWSDA and submit an annual water shortage assessment report to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) on or before July 1 of each year. The annual water shortage assessment report evaluates water supply reliability over the following year and provides an explanation of the process, data, and results of the assessment.

1.1 CALIFORNIA WATER CODE REQUIREMENTS
The City’s 2026 AWSDA was performed in compliance with California Water Code (CWC) requirements. Guidelines for the AWSDA can be found in CWC Section 10632 and a brief summary is provided below.

CWC §10632.1 An urban water supplier shall conduct an annual water supply and demand assessment pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10632 and, on or before July 1 of each year, submit an annual water shortage assessment report to the department with information for anticipated shortage, triggered shortage response actions, compliance and enforcement actions, and communication actions consistent with the supplier’s water shortage contingency plan. An urban water supplier that relies on imported water from the State Water Project or the Bureau of Reclamation shall submit its annual water supply and demand assessment within 14 days of receiving its final allocations, or by July 1 of each year, whichever is later.

CWC §10632(a)(2) The procedures used in conducting an annual water supply and demand assessment that include, at a minimum, both of the following:
(A) The written decision-making process that an urban water supplier will use each year to determine its water supply reliability.
(B) The key data inputs and assessment methodology used to evaluate the urban water supplier’s water supply reliability for the current year and one dry year, including all of the following:

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2104 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report INTRODUCTION 1-2
(i) Current year unconstrained demand, considering weather, growth, and other influencing factors, such as policies to manage current supplies to meet demand objectives in future years, as applicable.
(ii) Current year available supply, considering hydrological and regulatory conditions in the current year and one dry year. The annual supply and demand assessment may consider more than one dry year solely at the discretion of the urban water supplier.
(iii) Existing infrastructure capabilities and plausible constraints. (iv) A defined set of locally applicable evaluation criteria that are consistently relied upon for each annual water supply and demand assessment. (v) A description and quantification of each source of water supply.

The written decision-making process used to determine water supply reliability and key data inputs and assessment methodology used for the 2026 AWSDA are detailed in Section 2 of this report, Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment.

1.2 WATER SYSTEM OVERVIEW
The City’s current domestic water supply consists of local groundwater and purchased imported water (either from the State Water Project or the Colorado River) from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). The City extracts local groundwater from ten active groundwater wells located in the Santa Monica Groundwater Basin (SMB). Five of these wells are located in the Charnock subbasin, two are located in the Olympic subbasin, and three are located in the Arcadia subbasin. Three of the five wells located in the Charnock subbasin are pretreated at the Charnock Water Treatment Plant (Charnock WTP) to remove volatile organic carbon compounds from historical industrial pollution and then blended with the two other Charnock wells prior to being pumped to the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant (Arcadia WTP) for further treatment. Groundwater pumped from the Olympic and Arcadia subbasins are also treated at the Arcadia WTP. The Arcadia WTP provides multi-barrier treatment to the majority of the City’s groundwater wells to reduce hardness in the groundwater and meet all federal and state drinking water regulations. Only one groundwater well, SM-1, located in the Arcadia subbasin is distributed, after disinfection at the well head, directly into the water distribution system as it does not require any additional treatment to meet federal and state drinking water regulations. Final treated water from the Arcadia WTP is sent to the 5-million-gallon (MG) Arcadia Reservoir and distributed for potable water use throughout the City. In addition to the Arcadia Reservoir, the City also owns and operates three additional water storage reservoirs representing a total storage capacity of 40 MG: Riviera Reservoir, Mt. Olivette Reservoir, and San Vincente Reservoir.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2105 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report INTRODUCTION 1-3
The City supplements its local groundwater supply with imported water purchased from MWD. The City, along with 12 other local governments, formed the MWD in 1928. MWD was originally created to build the Colorado River Aqueduct to supplement the water supplies of the original founding members in Southern California. Water was first delivered to the City in 1941 via the Colorado River Aqueduct. In 1972, MWD augmented its supply sources to include deliveries from the State Water Project via the California Aqueduct. Today, MWD serves more than 145 cities and 94 unincorporated communities across Southern California.

An overview of the existing domestic potable water system is shown in Figure 1-1.

Figure 1-1. Potable Water System Overview
The City also has a dedicated recycled water system that provides service to 30 metered locations currently. The primary use of recycled water is for landscape irrigation but is also used for street sweeping, sewer jetting, and for lavatories at two facilities. Recycled water is distributed from the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF), which

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2106 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report INTRODUCTION 1-4
captures and treats urban runoff from the storm drain system, and the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP), which captures and treats wastewater and stormwater.

In November 2018, City Council adopted an updated Sustainable Water Master Plan (SWMP). The intent of the 2018 SWMP update was to refine the pathway for the City to reduce its reliance on imported water. The refined pathway also considered impacts of ongoing drought conditions as well as new regulations that required additional treatment for restoring local groundwater supplies. The 2018 SWMP builds on the City’s previous successes by continuing to develop projects and programs at the local level to enhance the reliability and resiliency of the City’s water supply. The 2018 SWMP consisted of three key components and a brief summary on progress is listed below. • Component 1 – Increasing water conservation efforts to permanently reduce water demand. The City developed its first Water Conservation Master Plan that was completed March 2024 aimed to realign, post pandemic, and increase water conservation efforts to permanently reduce water demand. • Component 2 – Developing sustainable and drought resilient alternative water supplies. A ribbon cutting ceremony was held for the City’s SWIP in November 2022 and began full operations in December 2023, after accelerating regulatory testing for groundwater recharge operations for the majority of 2023. The SWIP leverages stormwater, dry weather urban runoff, brackish groundwater, and municipal wastewater to provide up to 1,650 acre-feet per year of sustainable, drought resilient water supply to the City’s water supply portfolio. The City has also made progress on enhancing the production efficiency at the Arcadia WTP through concentrate recovery by implementing the first municipal installation of Flow Reversal Reverse Osmosis (FR-RO) that provides an additional 1,200 acre-feet per year of drinking water for the City.
• Component 3 – Expanding local groundwater production within sustainable yield limits. To maximize local groundwater supplies, the City has constructed a new well head treatment facility to remove industrial contaminants in the Olympic Well Field and restore it to full production capacity.

The projects outlined in the 2018 SWMP provide a diversified, drought-resilient water supply portfolio that leverages all available water resources to the City. The key components of the SWMP are listed below and shown in Figure 1-2.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2107 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 202
6 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report
INTRODUCTION1-5
Figure 1-2. Components of the 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2108 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT 2-1
2 ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT
AWSDAs analyze current water demand and supply conditions and project water supply reliability over the next year. To analyze current water demand and supply, City staff compiled water use and water supply data over the previous calendar year (i.e., January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025) to project the current year’s trends for water demand and supply. This information, in combination with other considerations such as anticipated growth, weather patterns, State and local regulations and policies, and other plausible factors, were then used to project demand and supply over the next year. Because annual water shortage assessment reports are due by July 1st of each year, the projected water demand and supply is for the period from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027. The CWC requires the projected assessment period to be a dry year. The following sections detail the decision-making process and data inputs used for the AWSDA and water shortage assessment report.

2.1 DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
CWC §10632 requires AWSDAs to be conducted according to a written decision-making process. The City’s written decision-making process is outlined in the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), which serves as the City’s action plan during an actual or predicted drought or a catastrophic water supply shortage. The process includes:
• Presenting the findings to the City’s Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment (formerly the Task Force on the Environment) • Public notification regarding the proposed water supply shortage stage, water shortage response actions, and upcoming City Council meeting for the Public Hearing; and
• Formal adoption of the annual water shortage assessment report findings and proposed water supply shortage stage by City Council.

A timeline for the decision-making process is provided in Table 2-1.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2109 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT 2-2
Table 2-1. Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Process Month Activity
January City of Santa Monica Water Resources Division’s (WRD) commences the annual water supply and demand assessment
February WRD presents annual assessment findings and proposed water supply shortage stage to the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment
March WRD prepares an annual water shortage assessment report and proposed water supply shortage stage, if any, to the Public Works Department Head for approval
April Public notification regarding proposed water supply shortage stage, water shortage response actions, and upcoming City Council meeting
May/June WRD presents annual water shortage assessment report findings and proposed water supply shortage stage to City Council for formal adoption by resolution
On or before
July 1st
WRD submits a final water shortage assessment report to the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR)

2.2 KEY DATA INPUTS
CWC §10632 requires the following data inputs and assessment methodology to be used to evaluate the urban water supplier’s water supply reliability for the current year and one dry year:
• Current year unconstrained demand, considering weather, growth, and other influencing factors, such as policies to manage current supplies to meet demand objectives in future years, as applicable. Unconstrained demand is defined by the CWC as “water demand absent any water supply and demand restrictions”. • Current year available supply, considering hydrological and regulatory conditions in the current year and one dry year. The annual supply and demand assessment may consider more than one dry year solely at the discretion of the urban water supplier. • Existing infrastructure capabilities and plausible constraints (e.g., shutdown of the City’s water treatment plant for extended durations or unforeseen extended outages of the City’s groundwater production wells).
• A defined set of locally applicable evaluation criteria that are consistently relied upon for each annual water supply and demand assessment. • A description and quantification of each source of water supply.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2110 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT 2-3
The following sections describe these inputs in detail.

2.2.1 Water Demand
Water usage for the City is tracked by six customer categories: Single-Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential, Commercial/Industrial, Institutional, Landscape, and Fire Service.

Predominate water use in the City is by residential users, which account for more than twothirds of the City’s total water consumption. Within the residential users, total water usage in the multi-family residential category (roughly 44% of total) is significantly higher than the total water usage of single family residential (roughly 25% total).

Commercial/industrial water consumption is approximately 24% of the total water usage within the City. The other three sectors (institutional, landscape, and fire service) combined account for approximately 8% of total water use in the City. Table 2-2 summarizes the constrained water demand in the City over the last five years in acre-feet (AF). An acre-foot is defined as the volume of water that would cover one acre of land to a depth of one foot. Constrained demand is calculated by subtracting the water demand reduction (e.g., the City’s water conservation program) from the unconstrained demand.

The City’s water conservation efforts to date equates to approximately 20% of the unconstrained water demand.

Table 2-2. Constrained Water Demand by Sector in Acre-Feet (2021-2025) 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Single Family
Residential 2,845 2,577 2,246 2,316 2,450
Multi-Family
Residential 4,752 4,613 4,228 4,283 4,317
Industrial/
Commercial 2,131 2,458 2,340 2,288 2,360
Institutional 267 289 278 262 275
Landscape
Irrigation 576 469 337 421 455
Fire Service 3 3 5 8 31
Water Loss 187 192 1,001 1,015 -
1 Constrained
Demand2
10,761 10,601 10,435 10,593 9,888
1Water Loss Audit has yet to be completed for 2025.
2Demand summarized in this table are actual water demand (or constrained water demand as defined by DWR), which includes water demand reduction from water conservation efforts.

Compared to 2024, single family and multi-family residential water usage in 2025 increased by 34 AF and 134 AF, respectively. The industrial/commercial sector

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2111 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT 2-4
experienced an increase in usage of 72 AF. Institutional usage increased by 13 AF, while landscape usage increased by 34 AF. Fire service usage increased by 23 AF.

Likely contributors to the increase in water usage for 2025 include record high temperatures and lack of rainfall in the state, which lends itself to increased water usage indoors and outdoors. Additionally, the Palisades Wildfire in early 2025 likely contributed to the large increase in fire service usage.

The water demand summarized in Table 2-2 also considered water loss in the water distribution system. Distribution system water loss is defined as the difference between water supplied to the system less authorized consumption. The City meets the Water Loss Audit Standard through its participation in annual water audits. The audits are validated by an independent third-party according to American Water Works Association standards. In 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 the total water loss was 187, AF, 192 AF, 1,001 AF, and 1,015 AF respectively.

2.2.1.1 Water Conservation
The City has a long history of promoting water conservation. In 2002, the City initiated its Water Efficiency Strategic Plan and in 2004 began implementing various conservation programs including the No Water Waste and Green Building Ordinances. On August 12, 2014, City Council adopted a resolution declaring a Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage thereby requiring mandatory water conservation to achieve a 20% reduction in water use compared to 2013. Subsequently, on October 28, 2014, Council also authorized the significant expansion of staffing and funding to augment the City’s water conservation efforts to address the state-wide drought and help the City reduce its reliance on imported water supplies. The City has remained in a Stage 2 Water Shortage since 2014, which has contributed to a water demand reduction of approximately 20% or approximately 2,500 acre-feet per year (AFY). More recently, the City implemented tighter outdoor watering restrictions in July 2022, limiting outdoor watering to two days per week in response to severe drought conditions across the State of California.

Water Demand Management is achieved through implementation of various water conservation and efficiency programs designed to permanently reduce residential and commercial potable water use. Continuation of existing and implementation of proposed conservation measures are essential for the City to reduce overall use in the face of increased demand pressures from new housing and from the commercial and institutional sectors of the local economy. Below is a list of some of the key conservation measures currently being implemented:
• Water Neutrality Ordinance (SMMC 7.16.050): On July 1, 2017, the City’s Water Neutrality Ordinance went into effect which caps water use for new developments to the average five-year historical water use for that individual parcel. If the

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2112 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT 2-5
projected annual water use for the development is greater than existing parcel’s annual average over the past five years, the increased amount must be offset by funding water-efficient retrofits of existing buildings elsewhere in the City. Offset retrofits currently include low-flow indoor fixtures (toilets, urinals, showerheads, aerators). The ordinance applies to pools, ponds, spas and other water features as well. This ordinance was developed and is implemented by Water Conservation Unit (WCU) staff. Implementation includes performing over 500 development project plan checks each year along with determining fees and managing a full-scale Water Neutrality Direct Install program.
• Recycled Water Ordinance (SMMC 7.12.170): On January 1, 2023, the City’s recycled water ordinance went into effect which requires all new development within the recycled water service area and with a total floor area of 7,500 square feet or more to utilize 100% recycled water for surface irrigation and/or dual- plumbing applications, as applicable, serving all non-potable water demands within the development. This includes applications using potable water that can be replaced with recycled water like landscaping, water features, toilet flushing, and cooling towers.
• Water Use Allowances (WUAs): The WUA is a component of the WSCP and is the mechanism to implement the mandatory reduction required by a Water Supply Shortage. WUAs represent the amount of water that can be used by a water customer without risk of receiving an exceedance citation (see below). The WUA for the current Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage is 20% below the amount of water used in 2013. Every water customer in the City receives a WUA uniquely calculated for each billing period.
• Water Use Allowance Exceedance Citations: A water customer can receive an administrative citation for exceeding their WUA for any given billing period. Citation fees are $250 for the first exceedance, $500 for the second exceedance (within 12 months of the first) and $1,000 for the third exceedance (within 12 months of the second). Since 2015, over 1,300 WUA Exceedance Citations have been issued. • Water Use Consultations: WCU staff make onsite visits to customers to validate water meter readings and comprehensively audit indoor water use (measuring flush and flow fixtures, appliances, checking for leaks, behaviors) and outdoor water use (irrigation system, checking for leaks, behaviors). Recommendations for saving water are documented and sent to the customer. Consultations have resulted in the discovery and repair of major leaks, adjustment of irrigation system timers, installation of low-flow devices (aerators and showerheads [free]), toilets and urinals (rebates), and water-use behavior changes. This program is free of charge for any Santa Monica water customer. Since 2015, over 700 consultations have been provided to City customers.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2113 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT 2-6
• Landscape Rebate Program: The City’s most successful rebate program provides rebates for customers that replace their turf grass and overhead spray irrigation with sustainable, drought tolerant, and low-water alternatives using landscapes with no or drip irrigation only. Santa Monica’s unique landscape rebate requirements establish effective water conservation, provide successful and maintainable projects, and ensure an aesthetically pleasing landscape. Since 2015, over 940 rebate projects have been completed removing over 1.5 million square feet of turf at a program cost of $3.5 million.
• Landscape Consultants: The WCU has partnered with professional landscape professionals who meet with potential landscape rebate customers at their property and provide expert advice on sustainable landscaping and completing a rebate. This service is $50 for a two-hour consultation. Since 2015, over 620 Landscape Consultations have been completed. Note: This program was halted in 2020 due to COVID-19 budget cuts.
• Water Waste Response: WCU staff enforces SMMC 7.16.020, the “No Water Waste” ordinance. Responses to inbound water waste complaints are handled immediately, and proactive patrols in the community provide on-site detection of water waste. A Notice of Violation is issued to the water customer with Citations issued as needed if the water waste continues. Since 2015, over 1,500 Notices of Violations have been issued.
• MWD Water Conservation Rebates: As a member-agency of the MWD, the City participates in the MWD’s program to provide rebates for high efficiency toilets, urinals, clothes washers, restaurant appliances, irrigation devices and other devices.

Since 2015, the WCU has increased the supplemental funding added to MWD’s base rebate amounts to further incentivize installation of these water-conserving devices.

Since 2015, over 8,000 devices have been rebated.
• Free Water Saving Items: WCU staff has distributed thousands of water saving items to Santa Monica water customers since 2015. These items include low-flow faucet aerators, low-flow showerheads, automatic shut-off hose nozzles, toilet leakdetection dye tabs, shower buckets, flow-rate bags, and reusable canvas bags. The WCU also provides free tent cards and door hangers for hotels/motels to encourage water conservation by guests through reusing towels and sheets. These free items are available in the City Hall and are also distributed at outreach events. Since 2015, over 17,000 water saving devices have been distributed. • Customer Support: WCU staff provides excellent customer phone and email support every workday regarding any water conservation issue or program. Approximately 300 phone calls and emails from Santa Monica water customers are received and responded to each year.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2114 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT 2-7
Depending on funding, additional conservation measures that are planned for implementation over the next five years include:
• Water Conservation Programs Master Plan: An overall master plan was developed to provide a more detailed water conservation framework and benefit/cost analysis of existing and proposed programs.
• Marketing/Messaging Program for “Conservation as a Way of Life”: A water conservation marketing campaign will be created with messaging aligned with the State’s “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life.” Drought -related information will also become part of the messaging.
• Targeted Commercial Sector Programs: Restaurants, hotels, and medical facilities are the highest commercial users of water in the City. As such, outreach and support programs will be developed for one-on-one audits, evaluations, process recommendations, and rebate incentives for fixtures/devices to provide meaningful water savings in these specific sectors. An outside contractor may be used to develop and implement these programs.
• Performance Pays: This effort will leverage Metropolitan Water District’s Water Savings Incentive Program for unique, innovative water conservation programs.

Potential projects include pump pods for fire department trainings and cooling tower retrofits with new technology.
• School District Retrofits via Water Neutrality Direct Install Program: The scope of properties where the Water Neutrality Direct Install program retrofits fixtures will be expanded from residential and CII to include all City campuses of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.
• Irrigation System Audit and Repair: Much of the outdoor water waste occurs due to incorrect watering schedules programmed in customer’s irrigation timers/controllers (i.e., overwatering). In addition, leaks and broken sprinklers heads go unnoticed as irrigation is typically run at night and not observed. This potential program will utilize a contractor to provide extensive outdoor audits and make necessary timer adjustments and simple repairs to save water.

2.2.1.2 Unconstrained Demand
The CWC requires water suppliers to estimate the current year’s unconstrained demand as part of the AWSDA. Unconstrained demand is water demand absent any water supply or demand restrictions (e.g., voluntary or mandatory conservation). Water suppliers then use the current year unconstrained demand, while also considering other factors such as

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2115 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT 2-8
weather and population growth, to project demand for the twelve-month period following the July 1st AWSDA deadline (i.e., July 1 to June 30).

Table 2-3 summarizes the current year and projected year unconstrained demands as well as constrained demands, derived by subtracting an estimated 20% conservation savings.

This 20% reduction is contributed to water conservation activities, which the City has consistently achieved or exceeded since 2014. Constrained demand for the current year is included from Table 2-2.

Table 2-3. Current Year and Projected Year Demands (Potable) Current Year
Unconstrained
January –
December
2025
(AF)
Projected Year
Unconstrained
June 2026 –
July 2027
(AF)
Current Year
Constrained
January –
December
2025
(AF)
Projected
Year
Constrained
June 2026 –
July 2027
(AF)
Single Family
Residential 3,062 3,109 2,450 2,487
Multi-Family
Residential 5,396 5,548 4,317 4,439
Industrial/
Commercial 2,951 2,894 2,360 2,315
Institutional 343 343 275 274
Landscape
Irrigation 569 565 455 452
Fire Service 39 13 31 10
Water Loss - - - -
Demand 12,360 12,472 9,888 9,977
The City used a conservative approach for the projected year demands, as the intent of the AWSDA and requirements of the CWC are to ensure urban water suppliers are able to maintain reliable water supplies for a projected dry year. Constrained demands for the projected year (July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027) for all categories were calculated using averages of previous years’ (2021-2025) constrained demand. This projection ensures the City is prepared for a high demand coupled with a dry year (seen in 2021, 2022, and 2025), while accurately reflecting recent usage (seen in 2025).

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2116 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT 2-9
As temperatures continue to rise due to climate change, California is likely to experience warming by 2 degrees Fahrenheit or more by 2040. Higher temperatures are likely to result in increased water use from year to year.

2.2.1.3 Recycled Water Demand
The City has a dedicated recycled water system that provides service to 30 metered locations. The primary use of recycled water is for landscape irrigation, but it is also used for street sweeping, sewer jetting, and for lavatories at two facilities. With the implementation of the City’s recycled water ordinance, projected water demand is expected to increase over the coming year as new developments requiring recycled water come online. The SWIP was completed in November 2022, which can produce up to 1,650 acre-feet per year of advanced treated recycled water. Due to advanced water quality testing for a groundwater replenishment permit from the SWRCB, Regional Water Quality Control Board, the City was unable to serve advanced treated recycled water from the SWIP for non-potable reuse until December 2023. The City began groundwater recharge operations using advanced treated recycled water from SWIP in January 2026. Table 2-4 tabulates the current year and projected year demands for advanced treated recycled water.

Table 2-4. Current Year and Projected Year Demands (Recycled Water) Current Year
January – December
2025
(AF)
Projected Year
July 2026 – June
2027
(AF)
Non-Potable Reuse 69 81
Aquifer Recharge (Direct Injection)1 0 200
Total Demand 69 281
1Aquifer injection began in January 2026.

2.2.2 Water Supply
The City currently purchases imported water from MWD to supplement its local water supplies. The City is one of 26 retail agencies served by MWD and receives imported water at two locations: the Arcadia WTP and the Charnock WTP. Both connections are 24 inches in size and are capable of serving 100% of the City’s potable water needs. The City’s Tier 1 imported water supply limit from MWD has been 7,406 AFY since 2016, and the City has been well under this limit in the past 10 years since the Charnock Well Field Restoration Project was completed in 2010 that restored local groundwater supplies. Additional MWD

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2117 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT 2-10
supply beyond the Tier 1 limit is also available to the City at a higher Tier 2 water supply rate.

The California Water Code requires AWSDAs to evaluate water supply reliability for the current year and one dry year. To assess supplies under a single dry year (drought year), the City used the available water supply estimate from the drought risk assessment performed as part of the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. The drought risk assessment projected that under a single, worst-case dry year, the City’s local groundwater supply was approximately 6,755 AF, which equates to the lowest five-year running average for the City’s water supply from 2010 to 2020. The 2010-2020 time period was chosen because it is after the City completed the Charnock Well Field Restoration Project in 2010 and is more representative of current operating conditions (e.g., available groundwater supply and annual MWD imported water use).

2.2.2.1 Existing Infrastructure Capabilities and Plausible Constraints In addition to evaluating water supply reliability for the current year and one dry year, the California Water Code also requires suppliers to consider existing infrastructure capabilities and plausible constraints. Under normal operations, occasionally groundwater wells will require unforeseen maintenance. This will result in temporarily reduced supply availability. In the projected year, the City plans on finishing the replacement of 2 wells in the Charnock Wellfield, which is anticipated to result in a 2-to-3-month shutdown, and therefore a reduced water supply.

2.2.2.2 Regulatory Considerations
Over 20 years ago, Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) and Tert-Butyl Alcohol (TBA), compounds once used as gasoline additives, were detected in three of the Charnock Subbasin wells. These contaminants shutdown production from the Charnock Sub-basin, the City’s largest groundwater supply, until the completion of the Charnock Well Field Restoration Project. The treatment from this project uses Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) filtration, from coconut shells, to successfully treat MTBE and TBA concentrations to levels well below the Maximum Contaminant Level of 5 ppb. As a part of the Charnock Well Field Restoration Project, additional treatment processes were also added at the Arcadia WTP including greensand filtration, RO, and decarbonation to provide multi-barrier treatment for the local groundwater.

More recently in April 2019, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) investigated source water wells in California most vulnerable to Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. This included those near airports and landfills, and later those near secondary sources of PFAS activities. The SWRCB did not require Santa Monica to sample its sources. However, the City proactively sampled the City’s Drinking Water sources, and Perfluorooctanoic acid was detected in the Olympic Well Field. This compound was in addition to 14 other synthetic organic constituents of potential concern, including trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, 1,4-dioxane, and 1,2,3-Trichloropropane, identified

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2118 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT 2-11
in the Olympic subbasin as a result of historical industrial contamination. The City is required to demonstrate compliance with the SWRCB, Division of Drinking Water Process Memo 97-005-R2020 – Revised Guidance for Direct Domestic Use of Extremely Impaired Sources to utilize the Olympic subbasin as a drinking water source. As part of maintaining compliance, the Arcadia WTP expansion now also includes the Olympic Wellfield Restoration Project to remove these constituents through ultraviolet-advanced oxidation processes and two-stage GAC and amend the City’s drinking water permit to perform continuous wellfield monitoring for these substances, including PFOA.

In May 2017, the Cities of Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, and Culver City, and Los Angeles County signed a Memorandum of Understanding to form the Santa Monica Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SMBGSA). The SMBGSA is tasked with implementing an ongoing sustainable groundwater management program for the SMB in conformance with California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014. A key piece of this program is the development of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP), which was approved by the SMBGSA in January 2022.

The GSP is the first comprehensive groundwater assessment and management plan specific to the SMB, which has been identified as a medium-priority groundwater basin by the California DWR. The SMBGSA is required to provide a description of the sustainable management criteria that will be used for the basin. As part of the GSP, sustainable management criteria (e.g., sustainable yield) and interfaces with neighboring groundwater basins (e.g., West Coast Basin and Central Basin) for the SMB was assessed. Projected groundwater levels calculated using a calibrated groundwater model indicate that at a production rate of 9,000 AFY, groundwater elevations will decline and recover based on the volume of recharge available in the SMB. The first GSP was submitted to the California Department of Water Resources on January 2022 and approved on October 2023. The City has already begun implementing projects to aid in maintaining sustainability of the SMB, including groundwater recharge with advanced treated recycled water from SWIP, advancing monitoring wells to eliminate data gaps and refine groundwater modeling efforts, and expanding water conservation programs to permanently reduce water demand.

2.2.2.3 Projected Available Water Supply
Current year and projected year supply used for the AWSDA are provided in Table 2-5. The projected year water supply includes existing infrastructure capabilities, plausible constraints, and regulatory considerations described above. The projected year local groundwater supply is equated to the water supply from the drought risk assessment (6,755 AF), to account for a severe drought scenario. The water supply from the drought risk assessment is the lowest five-year running average for water supply from 2010 to 2020. As a conservative approach, the projected supply assumes that only MWD’s Tier 1 supply is available.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2119 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT 2-12
Table 2-5. Current Year and Projected Year Potable Supply Current Year
January – December 2025
(AF)
Projected Year
July 2026 – June 2027
(AF)
Local Groundwater 4,639 6,755
MWD Tier 1 6,085 7,406
MWD Tier 2 - -
Total Supply 10,724 14,161

2.2.2.4 Projected Available Recycled Water Supply
In 2001, the City began operating the SMURRF to treat dry-weather urban runoff that was previously discharged into Santa Monica Bay from the Pier and Pico-Kenter storm drains.

The SMURRF is operated by Santa Monica, though operating costs and revenues are shared jointly with the City of Los Angeles, as a Best Management Practice facility. Treated water from SMURRF is sent through a City-wide recycled water distribution system that serves parks, medians, Woodlawn Cemetery, and dual-plumbed buildings for toilet flushing. The non-potable water is also used by City operations for street sweeping, sewer jetting, and pressure washing. Due to upgrades being made at SMURRF, the facility is currently offline.

In addition to SMURRF, the City began using the SWIP Advanced Water Treatment Facility (AWTF) to supply non-potable customers in December 2023. The SWIP AWTF is the City’s first wastewater treatment facility and is able to produce up to 1 MGD, on average, of advanced treated recycled water (approximately 10% of the City’s water supply).

Construction was completed in 2022; however, the City opted to complete advanced water quality testing to obtain a groundwater replenishment permit from the SWRCB, Regional Water Quality Control Board, which was successfully obtained in December 2023.

Currently, advanced treated recycled water is being used to meet non-potable reuse demands. The advanced treated recycled water is also being used to augment the groundwater aquifer at the Olympic Well Field via direct aquifer injection as of January 2026. The City is also exploring the potential for direct potable reuse in the future following SWRCB implementation of DPR regulations in December 2023. Table 2-6 summarizes the current year and projected year recycled water supplies available to the City.

Table 2-6. Current Year and Projected Year Recycled Water Supply

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2120 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT 2-13
Current Year
January – December 2025
(AF)
Projected Year
July 2026 – June 2027
(AF)
SMURRF1 0 Up to 560
SWIP 542 Up to 1,120
Total Recycled Supply 542 Up to 1,680
1Offline due to construction.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2121 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report Supply and Demand Assessment Results and Recommendations 3-1 3 Supply and Demand Assessment Results and
Recommendations
Results of the AWSDA comparing anticipated unconstrained demand and total water supply for the projected year are summarized in Table 3-1. A shortage is indicated by a negative number/percentage, while a surplus is indicated by a positive number/percentage.

Table 3-1. Assessment Results without Water Shortage Response Actions Total (AF)
Anticipated Unconstrained Demand 12,472
Anticipated Total Water Supply 14,161
Surplus/Shortage w/out Water Shortage Response Actions1 1,689 % Surplus/Shortage w/out Water Shortage Response Actions 14% State Standard Shortage Level without Water Shortage Response Actions Level 0 (No Shortage)
1 Shortage is indicated by a negative number/percentage; surplus is indicated by a positive number/percentage.

Results indicate that without water shortage response actions, a 14% water supply surplus is projected for the next year. A 14% water supply surplus indicates a State’s Standard Shortage Level 0 (No Shortage) per the WSCP where necessary actions (e.g., water conservation) are not required to be taken to enhance the reliability and resiliency of the available water supply. However, the City recommends staying in a Stage 2 shortage, where conservation is required and a key component to meet the City’s goal of reducing its reliance on imported water supplies as discussed further below.

3.1 RECOMMENDED WATER SHORTAGE RESPONSE STAGE
The City’s WSCP utilizes the same water shortage levels as the State and includes water shortage response actions for each stage. The City’s water shortage stages and associated water use reduction targets from the City’s WSCP are provided in Table 3-2.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2122 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report Supply and Demand Assessment Results and Recommendations 3-2 Table 3-2. Water Shortage Stages and Reduction Targets
Water
Shortage
Stage
Shortage
Level
Water Shortage
Condition
Water Use
Restrictions
City-wide Use
Reduction Goal
Stage 1 ≤10% Minimal Voluntary 10%
Stage 21 10-20% Moderate Mandatory 20%
Stage 3 20-30% Significant Mandatory 30%
Stage 4 30-40% Severe Mandatory 40%
Stage 5 40-50% Critical Mandatory 50%
Stage 6 >50% Catastrophic Mandatory >50%
1Recommended Water Shortage Stage
The recommended Stage 2 Water Shortage Stage includes mandatory water use restrictions with a City-wide use reduction goal of 20% compared to the 2013 water use baseline. Water shortage conditions and actions implemented as part of a Stage 2 Water Shortage Stage are provided in Table 3-3 and Table 3-4.

Table 3-3. Summary of Water Shortage Stages and Conditions Water
Shortage
Stage Water Shortage Level Water Shortage Condition
Stage 1 Up to 10% Using more than 50% of MWD Tier 1
allowance for imported/purchased water
and/or MINIMAL decrease in local ground
water supply
Stage 2 Up to 20% Using more than 50% of MWD Tier 1
allowance for imported/purchased water
and/or MINIMAL decrease in local ground
water supply
Stage 3 Up to 30% Using more than 70% of MWD Tier 1
allowance for imported/purchased water
and/or SIGNIFICANT decrease in local ground
water supply.

Stage 4 Up to 40% Using more than 80% of MWD Tier 1
allowance for imported/purchased water
and/or ADVANCED decrease in local ground
water supply.

Stage 5 Up to 50% Using more than 90% of MWD Tier 1
allowance for imported/purchased water

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2123 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report Supply and Demand Assessment Results and Recommendations 3-3 Water
Shortage
Stage Water Shortage Level Water Shortage Condition
and/or SEVERE decrease in local ground
water supply.

Stage 6 > 50% Exceeding MWD Tier 1 allowance for
imported/purchased water and/or
CATASTROPHIC decrease in local ground
water supply.

Table 3-4. Summary of Stage 1 and Stage 2 Water Shortage Response Actions Water
Shortage
Stage Action
Estimated
Reduction
Stage 1 Offer Water Use Surveys 1% - 2%
Stage 1 Provide Rebates on plumbing fixtures and devices 1% - 2% Stage 1 Provide Rebates for landscape irrigation efficiency 1% - 2% Stage 1 Provide Rebates for Turf Replacement 1% - 2%
Stage 1 Landscape – Restrict or prohibit runoff from landscape irrigation 1% - 2%
Stage 1 Landscape – Limit landscape irrigation to specific times 1% - 2% Stage 1 CII – Restaurants may only serve water upon request 1% - 2% Stage 1 Water Features – Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as fountains 1% - 2%
Stage 1 Pools and Spas – Require covers for pools and spas 1% - 2% Stage 1 Other – Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a timely manner 1% - 2%
Stage 1 Other – Additional conservation measures by City staff 1% - 2% Stage 1 Other – Irrigation Association’s Best Management Practices for all City landscaped areas 1% - 2%
Stage 1 Other – Immediate notification by City staff of any leaks seen on City property or private property 1% - 2%

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2124 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report Supply and Demand Assessment Results and Recommendations 3-4 Water
Shortage
Stage Action
Estimated
Reduction
Stage 1 Other – Immediate notification by City staff of any leaks seen on City property or private property 1% - 2%
Stage 2 Other – Continued implementation of Stage 1 actions 10% - 20% Stage 2 Other – Implement Water Use Allowances (WUAs) for a 20% reduction from the amount of water used in 2013. 10% - 20% Stage 2 Expand Public Information Campaign 1% - 10%
Stage 2 Increase Water Waste Patrols 1% - 10%
The goal of water shortage response actions is to reduce demand and enhance the reliability of the City’s water supply. For a Stage 2 Shortage, the City’s WSCP identifies a list of actions that aim to reduce water demand in the City by 20%. The City has been in a Stage 2 water shortage stage since 2014 and has consistently achieved 20% reductions in water demand. The estimated reduction in water demand resulting from Stage 2 actions for the projected year is approximately 2,495 AF. This reduction is the difference between the projected year’s unconstrained and constrained demands.

In addition to water demand reduction, water supply augmentation may also be used as a water shortage response action. The City plans to use Tier 2 imported water supply from MWD as a supply augmentation action during prolonged, planned local groundwater supply outages (e.g., shutdown of the Arcadia WTP or the Charnock Well Field). As previously discussed, the Arcadia WTP was temporarily offline for construction and during these outages, additional water from MWD, beyond the City’s Tier 1 allocation was purchased to supplement the City’s supply. The proposed supply augmentation budget allowed from the MWD Tier 2 is 5,600 AF, which is equivalent to the current year’s highest six consecutive month total supply and coincides with how long planned outages in local water supplies may last (e.g., construction at the Arcadia WTP or replacement of groundwater wells). Tier 2 water is not listed as a water shortage response action in Table 3-4 because it would only be used in certain circumstances (e.g., planned construction) and is not tied to customer water usage. The WSCP will be revised as part of the 5-year review period to reflect the addition of supply augmentation as a water shortage response.

The City recommends staying In a Stage 2 Shortage for a variety of reasons:
• First, the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill X7-7) required water

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2125 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report Supply and Demand Assessment Results and Recommendations 3-5 suppliers in California to decrease urban gallons per capita water (GPCD) use by 20% by the year 2020. The City met this goal (target was 123 GPCD; actual was 103 GPCD), and by staying in a Stage 2 Shortage, the City would be able to continue meeting this requirement.
• Second, if the Stage 2 Shortage was lifted, water demand could increase due to the public’s perception of relaxed conservation requirements, thus increasing the purchase of imported water, and difficult to restore conservation efforts and practices when it is needed again. This could impact water rates and potentially lead to a heavier burden on the City’s rate payers.
• Third, while California has seen heavy rain the past few winters, this does not completely alleviate the long-term impacts of the most recent drought or the state’s chronic water supply challenges. Forecasters at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration say that the La Niña weather pattern has a 59% chance of persisting from February – April. The last La Niña event contributed to the state’s three straight dry years from 2020 to 2023. While the rain events have been beneficial for the State Water Project (imported water from Northern California), Southern California’s other major imported water supply from the Colorado River has yet to recover from over 20 years of drought conditions, and studies suggest the Colorado River may not recover in our lifetime.
• Lastly, rulemaking to Make Conservation a California Way of Life will establish water use efficiency goals for urban retail water agencies and likely result in increasing water use reduction targets. By maintaining current water conservation efforts will help the City meet future water reduction goals.

Staying in a Stage 2 Water Shortage is prudent for the City in order to maintain demand reduction so that we are prepared for the next inevitable, extended dry period.

California experienced severe drought and extreme rainfall between 2020-2025, and saw the damaging wildfires of 2025, which showcase that climate change results in greater variability and volatility of weather patterns. Investments in the City’s water supply resiliency are necessary to mitigate against these extreme weather events. The SWIP and Arcadia WTP Expansion are examples of the City’s efforts in adapting the City’s water portfolio to climate change impacts. The SWIP leverages stormwater, when it is available during wet weather events, and municipal wastewater to produce purified water to recharge local groundwater aquifers. The Arcadia WTP improves production efficiencies to produce additional drinking water without increasing local groundwater pumping through first-of-its-kind, high-efficiency Flow Reversal RO technology. Coupled with water conservation activities and AMI, these components represent the culmination of the 2018 SWMP to improve water resiliency, self-sufficiency, and sustainability.

The long-term vision of the City is to center on water conservation, per CA Executive Order

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2126 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report Supply and Demand Assessment Results and Recommendations 3-6 B-37-16: Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life. Local conservation goals are detailed in the City’s Water Conservation Master Plan. Implementing cutting edge projects, along with great water conservation efforts from the public, the City is able to prepare for the future. Table 3-5 highlights the benefits of remaining in a Stage 2 Shortage representing a 34% surplus in water supply.

Table 3-5. Assessment Results with Stage 2 Water Shortage Response Actions Total (AF)
Projected Year Supply (Local Groundwater and MWD Tier 1 Supply) 14,161 Total Supply 14,161
Projected Unconstrained Demand 12,472
Benefit from Stage 2 Water Demand Reduction Actions (2,495) Constrained Demand 9,977
Revised Surplus w/ Water Shortage Response Actions
(Total Supply – Constrained Demand)
4,183
Revised % Surplus w/ Water Shortage Response Actions 34%

3.2 ONGOING REASSESSMENTS
The City has been providing monthly water production and conservation reports to the SWRCB since July 2014 to comply with the statewide drought emergency water conservation regulation. While the emergency regulation expired in November 2017, the City continues to report voluntarily. Monthly reports became mandatory again in October 2020 after the SWRCB adopted a new regulation on Monthly Urban Water Conservation Reporting. The new reporting regulation requires monthly reporting of key elements and additional information during water shortages. The reports, compiled by the City, include information on residential water use, total potable water production, measures implemented to conserve water and improve efficiency, and local enforcement actions. The reports are submitted to the SWRCB’s Drinking Water Information Clearinghouse online portal.

The City has upgraded its water meters with AMI, which allows real-time water demand monitoring as opposed to the previous 60-day meter reading cycle. Past studies have shown AMI to reduce water demand by as much as 5-7% of the total water supply. The City has also completed three master planning documents: a Water Master Plan, a Water Conservation Master Plan, and a Recycled Water Master Plan. These master plans helped

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2127 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report Supply and Demand Assessment Results and Recommendations 3-7 identify water system improvements over the next ten years, refine the implementation of water conservation measures to further reduce water demand, and plan for the expansion of the recycled water system.

On the water supply side, the City’s WRD provides monthly water production reports to interested parties within the City. The reports include information on well production, finished local water production and imported water purchased. Staff will continue monthly monitoring of water supplies to assess water shortage conditions.

On the recycled water supply side, the future recycled water supply capability far exceeds projected demand. Through 2026, it is anticipated that the SMURRF and SWIP AWTF will operate to meet non-potable demand and aquifer recharge demand at only one injection well. To maximize the use of advanced treated recycled water, the City is constructing additional injection wells and analyzing potential sites for future injection wells. Finally, the City is exploring the potential for direct potable reuse following implementation of regulations by the SWRCB in December 2023 to further enhance the reliability and resiliency of the City’s water supply portfolio.

As an adaptive management plan, the WSCP will be refined as part of the next Urban Water Management Plan revision to ensure it continues to effectively address potential water shortage conditions. On an ongoing basis, using the reports and compliance tracking process described above, any necessary changes to the WSCP will be identified. In addition, as a part of annual demand and supply assessments, the WSCP will be reviewed with refinements incorporated as needed.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 2128 Attachment: Draft 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City of Santa Monica

12.A. Public Hearing for 2026 Annual Water
Supply and
Demand Assessment
City Council Meeting
June 9, 2026
Item 12-A
June 9, 2026
Item 12-A
June 9, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 2129 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) 2026 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment
1%
• Required by the California Water Code as of 2022
• Helps identify potential water shortages
• Assess dry, hot conditions as projected year
• Projected Year: July 1, 2026 – June 30, 2027
Item 12-A
June 9, 2026
Item 12-A
June 9, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 2130 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) Unconstrained vs Constrained Demand
1%
• Unconstrained demand: Water demand without
any water conservation
• Constrained demand: Potable water demand
with conservation reduction included (e.g., 20%)
Item 12-A
June 9, 2026
Item 12-A
June 9, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 2131 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) Data Inputs – Projected Supply
1%
Imported Water MWD Tier 1 Allocation: 7,406 AF
Local Supplies (2020 UWMP Drought Risk Assessment): 6,755 AF ____________________________________________________
Imported + Local Supplies = 14,161 AF
Item 12-A
June 9, 2026
Item 12-A
June 9, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 2132 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) Assessment Results – Without Conservation
Total (AF)
Anticipated Unconstrained Demand 12,472
Anticipated Total Water Supply 14,161
Surplus/Shortage w/out Water Shortage Response
Actions
1,689
% Surplus/Shortage w/out Water Shortage Response
Actions
14%
State Standard Shortage Level without Water Shortage
Response Actions
Level 0
(No Shortage)
Item 12-A
June 9, 2026
Item 12-A
June 9, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 2133 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) Water Shortage Stage Recommendation
1%
• Recommend staying in Stage 2
• CA Senate Bill SBX7-7 and CA
Executive Order B-37-16 require
meeting conservation targets
• Conservation helps City's broader
water goals
• Increased demand without Stage
2 would result in more imported
water and higher rates
Water
Shortage
Stage
Shortage
Level
Water Shortage
Condition
Water Use
Restrictions
City-wide Use
Reduction Goal
Stage 1 ≤10% Minimal Voluntary 10%
Stage 2* 10-20% Moderate Mandatory 20%
Stage 3 20-30% Significant Mandatory 30%
Stage 4 30-40% Severe Mandatory 40%
Stage 5 40-50% Critical Mandatory 50%
Stage 6 >50% Catastrophic Mandatory >50%
Item 12-A
June 9, 2026
Item 12-A
June 9, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 2134 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) Assessment Results – With Conservation
Total (AF)
Projected Year Supply (Local Groundwater and MWD Tier 1 Supply)
14,161
Projected Unconstrained Demand 12,472
Benefit from Stage 2 Water Demand Reduction Actions (2,495) Constrained Demand 9,977
Revised Surplus w/ Water Shortage Response Actions
(Total Supply – Constrained Demand)
4,183
Revised % Surplus w/ Water Shortage Response Actions 34% Item 12-A
June 9, 2026
Item 12-A
June 9, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 2135 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) Requested Action from the Council
1%
• Staff recommends the Council motion to adopt
the 2026 Annual Water Supply and Demand
Assessment
Item 12-A
June 9, 2026
Item 12-A
June 9, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 2136 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment)

THANK YOU
Item 12-A
June 9, 2026
Item 12-A
June 9, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 2137 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7597 : 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 9, 2026
Agenda Item: 12.B
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Dana Brown, Human Resources Director, Human Resources Department Subject: Public Hearing and Report on City’s Staff Vacancies and Recruitment and Retention Efforts for Calendar Year 2025
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding that this report is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act; and

2. Hold a public hearing and receive the informational report on City of Santa Monica staff vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3.

Summary
The City Council will hold a public hearing and receive a report on the City of Santa Monica’s workforce vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts in compliance with Government Code Section 3502.3.

Background
Assembly Bill (AB) 2561, enacted in 2024 and codified in Government Code Section 3502.3, requires public agencies to hold a public hearing on the status of job vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts at least once per fiscal year and before adopting their final budget. During this hearing, the City must report on vacancy levels, recruitment and retention efforts, and identify any necessary changes to policies, procedures, or recruitment activities that may help address hiring challenges. This new requirement became effective on January 1, 2025.

12.B
Packet Pg. 2138
2 of 6
To comply with this law, City staff will present the following information during the public hearing:

1. The current status of job vacancies across the City of Santa Monica.

2. An overview of the City’s recruitment and retention efforts.

3. An assessment of any policies, procedures, or recruitment activities that may be contributing to hiring challenges.

This report covers calendar year 2025, as the hearing occurs after the end of the calendar year but prior to the close of the fiscal year.

Additionally, AB 2561 provides that recognized employee organizations (bargaining units) have the right to make a presentation at the public hearing concerning vacancies and recruitment/retention efforts for positions within their units.

If job vacancies within any individual bargaining unit meet or exceed 20% of the total authorized full-time positions in that unit, then the City is also required, upon request of the recognized employee organization, to report the following information during the public hearing:

1. The total number of job vacancies within the bargaining unit.

2. The total number of applicants for vacant positions within the bargaining unit.

3. The average number of days to complete the hiring process from when a position is posted.

4. Opportunities to improve compensation and other working conditions.

Workforce Overview
As of December 31, 2025, the City of Santa Monica had 2,117 full-time equivalent (FTE) budgeted positions, excluding Rent Control staff, with 2,064 represented positions and 53 non-represented positions. While EPP was the only group exceeding the 20% vacancy threshold, it is a non-represented group; therefore, no represented bargaining units met the criteria that would trigger enhanced reporting under AB 2561. The City’s overall vacancy rate at year-end

12.B
Packet Pg. 2139
3 of 6
was 7.46%.

Vacancy rates were calculated as follows: Vacancy Rate (%) = (Vacancies / FTE’s Budgeted) x 100.

The following table summarizes the City’s vacancy rate by bargaining unit as of December 31, 2025.

Bargaining Unit/Employee Group FTE’s
Budgeted
Vacancies
As of
12/31/25
Vacancy Rate
As of 12/31/25
Administrative Team Associates 332 39 11.75%
AFSCME LOCAL 4819, Management Team
Association 45 1 2.22%
California Teamsters Local 911 439.60 39 8.87%
Confidential Unrepresented Employees 34 5 14.71%
Executive Pay Plan 19 4 21.05%
Municipal Employees Association 453.90 51 11.26%
Public Attorneys’ Legal Support Staff Union 20 2 10%
Public Attorneys Union 25 0 0%
Santa Monica Fire Executive Management
Association 2 0 0%
Santa Monica Firefighters Local 1109 IAFF 123 8 6.5%
Santa Monica Police Officers Association 232 3 1.29%
SMART-TD, Local 1785 285.5 0 0%
Supervisory Team Associates 106 6 5.66%
City Overall 2117 158 7.46%
Recruitment Information & Efforts
Throughout calendar year 2025, 409.5 positions became vacant and for a variety of reasons, including 84.5 position adjustments (including add/deletes), 162 internal promotions, 75 resignations, 34 retirements, 1 death, and 53 involuntary separations. In calendar year 2025, the City filled 134 permanent/regular status positions, of which 40 vacancies were filled from eligibility lists established following a promotional (i.e., internal) recruitment process, 94 vacancies were filled from eligibility lists associated with the administration of open competitive (i.e., external) recruitments This figure

12.B
Packet Pg. 2140
4 of 6
includes the hiring of 85 Motor Coach Operator Trainees in 2025 and the promotion of 42 Trainees to Motor Coach Operators.

Recruitment Challenges and Opportunities
The City of Santa Monica recruitment team is addressing trends in public sector employment, including budgetary considerations, increased competition for talent, and an evolving public perception regarding the benefits of working in the public sector. In response, the Human Resources Department is actively evaluating recruitment and hiring practices, department-specific needs, and overall workforce conditions to attract and retain a highly qualified workforce. Key strategies include:
• Collaborating regularly with operating departments to prioritize and plan for upcoming recruitment needs.
• Monitoring compensation trends and adjusting salaries when appropriate and feasible.
• Tracking applicant volume and qualifications and extending filing periods as needed to ensure robust candidate pools.
• Reviewing and refining minimum qualification requirements to ensure they are job-related and appropriately aligned.
• Enhancing data collection and metrics to better inform recruitment strategies. • Conducting proactive outreach campaigns to connect potential candidates who may not be actively seeking new roles.
• Assessing and streamlining civil service selection practices to reduce hiring cycle times.
• Implemented a new cloud-based onboarding platform to provide an improved experience for both internal and external users.
• Contributed to the Realignment Plan, which created new staffing needs and opportunities. As implementation continues to progress, recruitment efforts are being adjusted accordingly.
• Collaborated with the Police Department to implement streamlined recruitment and marketing strategies that improve efficiency and strengthen overall hiring efforts for Police Officers Trainees.

12.B
Packet Pg. 2141
5 of 6
• Collaborated with Big Blue Bus as they implemented targeted recruitment strategies focused on sustained outreach, continuous hiring, and ongoing training classes. This joint effort strengthened the Motor Coach Operator candidate pipeline and resulted in zero vacancies in the classification as of December 31, 2025.

Retention Information and Efforts
In 2025, the City of Santa Monica experienced a total of 163 permanent/regularstatus employee separations, resulting in a turnover rate of approximately 7.63%.

These separations included 75 voluntary resignations, 53 involuntary separations, 34 retirements, and 1 death.

To support retention and enhance the overall employee experience, the City continues to prioritize employee engagement and well-being. Key initiatives in 2025 included:
• Maintaining open and ongoing communication with employee bargaining units.
• Hosting employee recognition events to celebrate contributions and achievements.
• Benefit enhancements aimed at supporting employee health and financial security while achieving a greater sense of internal equity. • Winter Closure program, that continues to enhance the City's recruitment and retention appeal.
• Providing telework options for eligible positions to promote work-life balance.
• Equity increases for selected positions to support improved internal alignment and external competitiveness.

Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
The City’s resiliency and recovery will be largely dependent on the ability to recruit, retain, and develop the right workforce. To assist with that effort, a citywide classification and compensation study is underway which will provide a

12.B
Packet Pg. 2142
6 of 6
comprehensive review of job classifications, compensation structures, and internal pay relationships across the entire organization. The results will yield internal equity and external market comparisons enhancing both competitiveness and retention.

Environmental Review
This report on staff vacancies is not a project subject to CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21065, this report and its findings do not meet the definition of a “project” subject to CEQA as it will not “cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” Additionally, per Section 15378(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a “project” does not include organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. However, addressing recruitment and retention issues may involve future budget and bargaining considerations. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.

Prepared By: Stephanie Swofford, Human Resources Manager Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. PowerPoint Presentation

12.B
Packet Pg. 2143
Status of the City of Santa Monica’s Vacancies and
Recruitment and Retention Efforts in Calendar Year 2025 Presented by Stephanie Swofford, Human Resources Manager Item 12-B
June 9, 2026
Item 12-B
June 9, 2026

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 2144 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7709 : City’s vacancies and recruitment and AGENDA
• Overview of AB2561 • Vacancy Rates as of December
31, 2025
• Overview of Recruitment and
Retention Efforts for 2025
• Current Recruitment
Challenges and Strategies
2 Item 12-B
June 9, 2026
Item 12-B
June 9, 2026

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 2145 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7709 : City’s vacancies and recruitment and AB2561 AB2561 - AN OVERVIEW – An Overview
Annual Presentation –
Public Hearing
Employee Organization
Participation
Recruitment & Retention
Efforts
Additional Reporting
>20%
Item 12-B
June 9, 2026
Item 12-B
June 9, 2026

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 2146 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7709 : City’s vacancies and recruitment and # of Vacancies Effective
12/31/25 # of Budgeted FTEs % Vacant
Administrative Team Associates 39 332 11.75%
AFSCME LOCAL 4819, Management Team
Association
1 45 2.22%
California Teamsters Local 911 39 439.60 8.87%
Confidential Unrepresented Employees5 34 14.71%
Executive Pay Plan4 19 21.05%
Municipal Employees Association 51 453.90 11.26%
Public Attorneys’ Legal Support Staff
Union
2 20 10%
Public Attorneys Union0 25 0%
Santa Monica Fire Executive Management
Association
02 0%
Santa Monica Firefighters Local 1109 IAFF8 123 6.5%
Santa Monica Police Officers Association3 232 1.29%
SMART-TD, Local 17850 285.5 0%
Supervisory Team Associates6 106 5.66%
City Overall 158 2123 7.54%

VACANCY INFORMATION
Item 12-B
June 9, 2026
Item 12-B
June 9, 2026

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 2147 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7709 : City’s vacancies and recruitment and 417 Vacancies Created in 2025
Vacancies Resulting from:
 Newly Budgeted Positions (includes add/deletes): 92.5 (22%)  Internal Promotions: 162 (39%)
 Retirements: 34 (8%)
 Involuntary Separations: 53 (13%)
 Voluntary Separations: 75 (18%)
 Deaths: 1 (>1%)

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION INFORMATION
Item 12-B
June 9, 2026
Item 12-B
June 9, 2026

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 2148 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7709 : City’s vacancies and recruitment and 134 Vacancies Filled in 2025
 Vacancies Filled by Open (External and Internal)
Competitive Recruitment: 40
 Vacancies Filled by Promotional (Internal-Only)
Recruitment: 94
* 85 Motor Coach Operator Trainees were hired in 2025, with 42 promoted to Motor Coach Operators.
* The Police Department has streamlined its hiring process and enhanced recruitment efforts, resulting in a significant reduction in vacancies.

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION INFORMATION (CONT.)
Item 12-B
June 9, 2026
Item 12-B
June 9, 2026

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 2149 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7709 : City’s vacancies and recruitment and

RECRUITMENT CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES
 CHALLENGES
• Continuously evolving labor market/Growing competition for talent.
• Changing perception related to the benefits public sector employment.
• Financial constraints impacting salaries and staffing levels.

RECRUITMENT CHALLENGES
Item 12-B
June 9, 2026
Item 12-B
June 9, 2026

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 2150 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7709 : City’s vacancies and recruitment and

RECRUITMENT CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES
 STRATEGIES
• Collaboration with operating departments to prioritize and plan for upcoming recruitment needs.
• Reviewing and refining minimum qualification requirements to ensure they are job-related.
• Benefit enhancements aimed at supporting employee health and financial security.
• Winter Closure program, that continues to enhance the City's recruitment and retention appeal.
• Telework options for eligible positions to promote work-life balance. • Equity increases for selected positions to support internal alignment and external competitiveness.
• A citywide classification and compensation study that will provide a comprehensive review of job classifications, compensation structures, and internal pay relationships across the entire organization.

RECRUITMENT STRATEGIES
Item 12-B
June 9, 2026
Item 12-B
June 9, 2026

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 2151 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7709 : City’s vacancies and recruitment and

THANK YOU
9 Item 12-B
June 9, 2026
Item 12-B
June 9, 2026

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 2152 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7709 : City’s vacancies and recruitment and City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 9, 2026
Agenda Item: 12.C
1 of 8
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Aileen Reynolds, Director, Housing and Human Services Department Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolution Approving the California Municipal Finance Authority (“CMFA”) to Issue Revenue Bonds for the Benefit of Tierra Apts, L.P.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Determine that the development of affordable housing at 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street was previously analyzed in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2020100575), and the issuance of the TEFRA bond for this project has no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

2. Hold a public hearing under the requirements of the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (“TEFRA”) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and

3. Adopt a resolution approving the issuance of bonds by the CMFA in an amount not-to-exceed $28,000,000 for the benefit of Tierra Apts, L.P. to finance and refinance the acquisition, construction, development, and equipping of an affordable multifamily rental housing development to be located at 1402 Wilshire Boulevard and 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street.

Executive Summary
Tierra Apts, L.P. (“Borrower”), the limited partnership created by Hollywood Community Housing Corporation to develop affordable housing to be located at 1402 Wilshire Boulevard and 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street in Santa Monica (“City”), has requested the City’s approval for the California Municipal Finance Authority (“CMFA”), a joint powers authority of which the City is a member, to issue revenue obligations (“Bonds”) in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $28,000,000 to finance and refinance the

12.C
Packet Pg. 2153
2 of 8
acquisition, construction, development, and equipping of an 82-apartment qualified residential rental project (the “Project”) to be owned and operated by the Borrower.

To qualify as tax exempt facility bonds for a residential rental project pursuant to Section 147 (f) of the Internal Revenue Code and the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (“TEFRA”), the elected representatives of the City must approve the issuance of the Bonds at a public hearing.

A proposed resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds by CMFA is included as Attachment A. Approval of the Bonds does not obligate the City financially in any way and it is not an approval of the Project for any other purpose. The recommended action is solely to authorize CMFA’s bond issuance and is not for the purposes of approving any other funding, conditions, or business terms for the development. The tax-exempt bond financing was underwritten into the deal terms that were approved by Council when it authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) for the project on December 17, 2024.

Discussion
The CMFA proposes to issue up to $28 million of tax-exempt revenue bonds for the purposes of making a loan to Hollywood Community Housing Corporation, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (the “Developer”), on behalf of Tierra Apts, L.P., a California limited partnership, or another ownership entity created by HCHC Tierra Apartments GP, LLC, a California limited liability company, its general partner (the “General Partner”), or by another affiliate of the Developer (such limited partnership or other ownership entity, the “Borrower”), to finance and refinance the acquisition, construction, development, and equipping of the “Project” to be owned and operated by the Borrower and located at 1402 Wilshire Boulevard and 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street within the City of Santa Monica, California.

City Council Approved the Project on December 17, 2024

12.C
Packet Pg. 2154
3 of 8
The City owns the land at 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street. The City provided a $6,000,000 loan to HCHC to acquire 1402 Wilshire Boulevard so that HCHC could build 100% affordable housing on the site, consistent with the City’s certified Housing Element. To facilitate the redevelopment of these parcels for 100% affordable housing, the City Council took several actions on December 17, 2024, as follows:

1. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Ground Lease with a fifty five (55) year term, with two options to extend by twenty-two (22) years each, and a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with HCHC for development and operation of senior affordable and senior permanent supportive housing at 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street on property to be acquired by HCHC at 1402 Wilshire Boulevard and deeded to the City;

2. Declare 1402 Wilshire Boulevard “exempt surplus land” as defined in Government Code Section 54221(f) upon the City receiving fee title to the site at closing of construction financing;

3. Adopt a Resolution declaring 1402 Wilshire Boulevard as exempt surplus land, contingent upon HCHC acquiring the site and transferring fee title to the City at closing of construction financing, and authorize the City Manager to take actions necessary to comply with the Surplus Land Act (Government Code sections 54220 et seq.;

4. Authorize the City Manager to submit the report of declared exempt surplus land as part of the Annual Report to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in conformance with state law; 6. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute all necessary documents to make a Housing Trust Fund loan to HCHC in an amount consistent with the Housing Trust Fund Guidelines loan limits;

5. Provide direction to staff regarding public replacement parking including any City investment from the Housing Trust Fund;

6. Adopt a finding that the actions to approve the Ground Leases and DDAs for the Developments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section

12.C
Packet Pg. 2155
4 of 8
15182 and a finding that the Developments have been previously analyzed in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2020100575).

The December 17, 2024 staff report is attached as Attachment B.

The TEFRA Bonds
To finance the development of the Project, HCHC has applied for and successfully obtained 4% tax credit financing, which is supplemented by the loan of bond proceeds issued by the CMFA. A portion of this CMFA loan will be used to repay the City’s $6,000,000 acquisition loan, which allowed HCHC to acquire 1402 Wilshire Boulevard.

The CMFA was formed to assist local governments, non-profit organizations and businesses with the issuance of taxable and tax-exempt bonds aimed at improving the standard of living of California. The CMFA is a public entity, separate and apart from each member, and the debts and obligations of the CMFA do not constitute debts, liabilities, or obligations of the members.

The Bonds to be issued by the CMFA on behalf of the Borrower will be the sole responsibility of the Borrower, and the City will have no financial, legal, moral obligation, liability, or responsibility for the repayment of the bonds. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the Bonds will contain clear disclaimers that the bonds are not obligations of the City or the State of California but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the Borrower.

The Board of Directors of the California Foundation for Stronger Communities, a California non-profit public benefit corporation (the “Foundation”), acts as the Board of Directors for the CMFA. Through its conduit issuance activities, the CMFA shares a portion of the issuance fees it receives with its member communities and donates a portion of these issuance fees to the Foundation for the support of local charities. With respect to the City of Santa Monica, it is expected that that a portion of the issuance fee

12.C
Packet Pg. 2156
5 of 8
attributable to the City will be granted by the CMFA to the general fund of the City. Such grant may be used for any lawful purpose of the City.

There are no costs associated with membership in the CMFA and the City will in no way become exposed to any financial liability by reason of its membership in the CMFA. In addition, participation by the City in the CMFA will not impact the City’s appropriations limits and will not constitute any type of indebtedness by the City. Outside of holding the TEFRA hearing and adopting the required resolution, no other participation or activity of the City or the City Council with respect to the issuance of the Bonds will be required.

The recommended action is solely to authorize CMFA’s bond issuance and is not for the purposes of approving any other funding, conditions, or business terms for the development.

As required by law, a public hearing notice was published in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least 7 days prior to the hearing date.

TEFRA Bonds and the City’s Obligations to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing While the decision to approve the issuance of the Bonds by CMFA is within the City’s discretion, the City is required to additionally consider its legal duty to affirmatively further fair housing. Program 2.E of the City’s certified 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element identified the City-owned site at 1217 14th Street as suitable for a 100% affordable housing project and the City has already committed, by City Council action taken on December 17, 2024, to providing the land to develop 100% affordable housing on the site. According to a technical assistance letter issued by California Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Housing Policy Development, to the City of Concord, dated June 10, 2024, failure to approve the TEFRA resolution could be construed as a denial of the Project and thus subject the City to penalties and other enforcement actions under the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5). HCD’s technical assistance letter is attached as Attachment C.

Fair Political Practices Commission Action

12.C
Packet Pg. 2157
6 of 8
The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has issued a letter dated March 16, 2026 confirming that Mayor Torosis’s employment with the County of Los Angeles did not create a disqualifying conflict of interest for purposes of participating in the December 2024 vote under the Political Reform Act. The letter from the FPPC is attached as Attachment D. Accordingly, Mayor Torosis is eligible to participate in the Tierra Apartments TEFRA hearing.

Environmental Review
The City’s actions have already been subject to CEQA review and are within the scope of the previously prepared EIRs and an Addendum. More specifically, development of affordable housing at 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street (APN #4282003900 and 4282003901) was included in the Housing Element’s Suitable Sites Inventory (SSI) [Category 4 – City Owned Sites listed in Figure F-7] and analyzed in its associated certified EIR. (SCH# 2020100575.) In October 2022, the City subsequently issued an Addendum to the Housing Element EIR, which considered development of 13,600 housing units. Currently, the City’s development inventory is well below that number of new units.

On December 17, 2024 the City took actions associated with both 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street and 1402 Wilshire, including CEQA actions. A “‘project’ refers to the underlying activity which may be subject to approval by one or more governmental agencies; it does not refer to each of the several approvals sequentially issued by different agencies.” (Citizens for a Megaplex-free Alameda v. City of Alameda (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 91, 99.) The City’s actions are within the scope of the General Plan EIR (SCH# 200904117) and Housing Element EIR which contemplated 13,600 housing units in the City. Consistent with the General Plan “Mixed Use Boulevard” designation, the site is zoned as “MUB” Mixed-Use Boulevard, which allows residential uses as a permitted by right use, (SMC § 9.11.020), with heights up to 80 feet (excluding rooftop equipment), and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) up to 3.75 (SMC § 9.11.030.B). The housing development is consistent with these standards insofar as residential use is permitted

12.C
Packet Pg. 2158
7 of 8
by right and the height of the project is less than 80 feet (excluding rooftop equipment).

There are no impacts that are peculiar to the parcel or the project, there are no impacts that were not analyzed in a prior EIR, and there are no more severe impacts than those discussed in the prior EIRs. These developments are consistent with the overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed, and covered infrastructure.

Furthermore, as discussed above, the City's actions simply assist in the application process to the California Municipal Finance Authority, and do not constitute approval of the bonds themselves. The application to another entity is not a project subject to CEQA. (Willow Glen Trestle Conservancy v. City of San Jose (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 127 [The City's action of applying to a responsible agency for a permit is not a discretionary action subject to CEQA.]. Additionally, the approval of the bonds is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines. The bonds are covered by the commonsense exemption which states 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.” The approval of the bonds is an administrative procedure. Therefore, 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 & Budget Actions
The issuance of the Bonds will have no financial impact to the City other than it is expected that CMFA will provide a small portion of the issuance fees to the City. The CMFA will act as issuer and perform all necessary legal and administrative responsibilities associated with the financing. The Bonds are special, limited obligations of CMFA payable solely through the repayment of the loans from the CMFA, which repayment is used to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds. The Bonds issued by CMFA are not an obligation of the City or any CMFA member. Neither the faith or credit, nor the taxing power of the City, any CMFA member, the State or any other political subdivision is pledged to the repayment of the Bonds.

12.C
Packet Pg. 2159
8 of 8
Prepared By: Ayala Scott, Senior Development Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. A. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority to Tierra Apartments, L.P.

B. B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report
C. C. HCD Letter to City of Concord
D. D. Rejection Letter - FPPC Complaint No. COM-01272026-00248; Caroline Torosis_Redacted
E. PowerPoint Presentation

12.C
Packet Pg. 2160
Attachment A
City Council Meeting: June 9, 2026 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NO. _________(CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA

MONICA APPROVING A PLAN OF FINANCE OF THE CALIFORNIA

MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE AND REISSUE

REVENUE BONDS FOR A QUALIFIED RESIDENTIAL RENTAL
PROJECT FOR THE BENEFIT OF TIERRA APTS, L.P., AND CERTAIN

OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO
WHEREAS, Hollywood Community Housing Corporation, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (the “Developer”), on behalf of Tierra Apts, L.P., a California limited partnership, or another ownership entity created by HCHC Tierra Apartments GP, LLC, a California limited liability company, its general partner (the “General Partner”), or by another affiliate of the Developer (such limited partnership or other ownership entity, the “Borrower”), has requested that the California Municipal Finance Authority (the “Authority”) undertake a proposed plan of finance to issue and reissue from time to time one or more series of revenue bonds in an outstanding principal amount not to exceed $28,000,000 (the “Bonds”) to finance and refinance the acquisition, construction, development and equipping of an 82-unit qualified residential rental project (the “Project”) to be owned and operated by the Borrower and located at 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street and 1402 Wilshire Boulevard (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 4282-003-900, 4282-003-901 and 4282-003-020) within the City of Santa Monica, California (the “City”); and WHEREAS, an “applicable elected representative” of the jurisdiction in which the Project is to be located is required to approve the proposed plan of finance for the Project

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 2161 Attachment: A. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal under Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Santa Monica (the “City Council”) is the elected legislative body of the City and is an “applicable elected representative” for purposes of Section 147(f) of the Code; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has advised that the Bonds may be issued pursuant to a “plan of finance” to issue an original issue of Bonds and to issue or reissue one or more additional series of Bonds from time to time after the original issue of Bonds, if necessary or desirable to comply with applicable legal requirements, all in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $28,000,000 to finance the Project, and all within the three-year period commencing on the date of the issuance of the first series of Bonds pursuant to this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the City Council approve the proposed plan of finance in order to satisfy the public approval requirement of Section 147(f) of the Code and the requirements of Section 4 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Municipal Finance Authority, dated as of January 1, 2004 (the “Agreement”), among certain local agencies, including the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the City Council has, following notice duly given, held a public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds, and now desires to approve the proposed plan of finance for the Project;

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 2162 Attachment: A. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal Attachment A
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Santa Monica, as follows:

Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the proposed plan of finance of the Authority to issue and reissue from time to time of one or more series of revenue bonds in an outstanding principal amount not to exceed $28,000,000. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that this resolution constitute approval of the proposed plan of finance for the Project for the purposes of (a) Section 147(f) of the Code by the applicable elected representative of a governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Project is to be located, in accordance with said Section 147(f) and (b) Section 4 of the Agreement.

Section 3. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which they deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this resolution and the financing transaction approved hereby.

Section 4. The City Clerk shall forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Authority in care of its counsel:

Ronald E. Lee, Esq.

Jones Hall LLP
4 West 4th Avenue, Suite 406
San Mateo, CA 94402
Section 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 2163 Attachment: A. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santa Monica this 9 th
day of June, 2026.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Heidi von Tongeln
City Attorney

12.C.a
Packet Pg. 2164 Attachment: A. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2024
Agenda Item: 11.A
1 of 23
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heather Averick, Director, Housing and Human Services Department Subject: Approve Deal Terms and Authorize Development and Disposition Agreements (DDAs) and Ground Leases for 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street, and 1402 Wilshire Boulevard
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Ground Lease with a fiftyfive (55) year term, with two options to extend by twenty-two (22) years each, and a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (HCHC) for development and operation of affordable housing on City-owned property located at 1217 Euclid Street;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Ground Lease with a fiftyfive (55) year term, with two options to extend by twenty-two (22) years each, and a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with HCHC for development and operation of senior affordable and senior permanent supportive housing at 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street on property to be acquired by HCHC at 1402 Wilshire Boulevard and deeded to the City;

3. Declare 1402 Wilshire Boulevard “exempt surplus land” as defined in Government Code Section 54221(f) upon the City receiving fee title to the site at closing of construction financing;

4. Adopt a Resolution declaring 1402 Wilshire Boulevard as exempt surplus land, contingent upon HCHC acquiring the site and transferring fee title to the City at closing of construction financing, and authorize the City Manager to take actions necessary to comply with the Surplus Land Act (Government Code sections 54220 et seq.;

5. Authorize the City Manager to submit the report of declared exempt surplus land as part of the Annual Report to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in conformance with state law;

6. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute all necessary documents to make a Housing Trust Fund loan to HCHC in an amount consistent with the Housing Trust Fund Guidelines loan limits;

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2165 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 2 of 23

7. Provide direction to staff regarding public replacement parking including any City investment from the Housing Trust Fund;

8. Adopt a finding that the actions to approve the Ground Leases and DDAs for the Developments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 and a finding that the Developments have been previously analyzed in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2020100575).

Summary
On March 19, 2024, the City Council selected the development team led by HCHC to construct and operate 100% affordable housing on three City-owned public parking lots located at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street, and 1146 Sixteenth Street (Attachment A). As authorized by the City Council, the City Manager executed an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) (Attachment B) with HCHC to provide an opportunity for HCHC to refine its original development proposal for 130 residences based on community input, due diligence research and financial feasibility analysis.

On August 27, 2024, the City Council gave staff direction to continue exclusive negotiations with HCHC based upon a revised proposal for large family housing on 1217 Euclid Street and senior housing, including 40 senior permanent supportive housing (PSH) apartments, on 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street and 1402 Wilshire Boulevard, provided that 1402 Wilshire Boulevard can be acquired by HCHC from a third party (Attachment C). Per City Council direction, this revised project will be coupled with a City subsidy from the Housing Trust Fund, and development on 1146 Sixteenth Street will remain public parking to mitigate public parking impacts.

Background
On October 11, 2022, the City Council adopted the 2021-2029 Housing Element, a State-mandated plan for meeting the City’s share of regional housing needs. State law requires that the Housing Element include an inventory of land that demonstrates the City’s capacity to realistically accommodate new housing development at all income levels. To address the City’s shortfall of sites suitable for the creation of affordable housing for low-income households, the City committed to developing 100% affordable housing on City-owned sites identified in Appendix F, Figure F-7 of the Housing Element (Attachment D).

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2166 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 3 of 23
As specified in Housing Element Program 2.E (Attachment E), by June 30, 2027, the City must issue at least three requests for proposals (RFPs) for City-owned sites. Below is a summary of key milestones in the development team selection process.

Date Milestone
December 1, 2022
Housing Commission provided advisory input
to Council (Attachment F) on issuance of an
RFP for teams to develop affordable housing
on three City-owned surface public parking
lots located at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217
Fourteenth Street and 1146 Sixteenth Street
(Attachment G).

March 14, 2023
Council declared the sites as exempt surplus
land, allowing the City to move forward with
the RFP in accordance with State law
(Attachment H).

June 22, 2023 City issued the RFP (Attachment I)
February 1, 2024
Housing Commission provided advisory input
to the City Council on the selection of the team
led by HCHC (Attachment J)
March 19, 2024
Council selected the team led by HCHC,
comprised of HCHC as developer, Kevin Daly
Architects (kdA) as the architect, The People
Concern (TPC) as its services provider, and
Morley Builders as its construction estimator.

Council authorized the City Manager to
negotiate and execute an Exclusive
Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with HCHC.

May 31, 2024 City Manager executed ENA with HCHC
HCHC’s original proposal (Attachment K), submitted in response to the RFP, envisioned the following development plan:

Original HCHC Proposal
Site Apartments
Euclid St. 65 (including 40 PSH apartments)
Fourteenth St. 45
Sixteenth St. 20

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2167 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 4 of 23
Total 130
The proposal included a “base case” parking scenario with no off-street public parking replacement. The proposal also included an alternative scenario with a total of 34 offstreet replacement public parking spaces. In the alternative scenario, public parking would be provided on the ground level on the Euclid and Fourteenth street sites, with two levels of underground parking to accommodate resident parking at an estimated cost to the City of $5.5 million.

Original HCHC Parking Proposal
Site Base case Alternative Cost to City
Private
Parking
Public
Parking
(offstreet)
Private
Parking
Public
Parking (offstreet)
Euclid St. 43 0 52 17 $2,800,000
Fourteenth
St. 43 0 52 17 $2,700,000
Sixteenth St. 10 0 10 0
Total 96 0 114 34 $5,500,000
Community engagement
HCHC hosted four community outreach meetings, on May 22, 23, and July 8, 10. Two meetings were held in-person and two virtually. Notices were mailed to residences and businesses within a 750-foot radius of each of the three sites, as well as organizations including Santa Monica Mid-City Neighbors and Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition. The meetings were also advertised on the City Housing Division website, in the Santa Monica Daily Press, and sent to the Housing Division email list. In addition to mailings, a representative from HCHC hand-delivered meeting flyers to businesses.

HCHC also noticed the meetings to organizations that provide housing and/or services to people that may be eligible for affordable or permanent supportive housing.

At the meetings, staff from HCHC, kDa and TPC introduced their organizations, presented the team’s proposal, answered questions and took comments. HCHC also collected comments through a dedicated website and voicemail line it established for

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2168 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 5 of 23
the proposed development (Attachments L and M).

Key concerns raised by community members in the May meetings related to the proposed development on the City-owned lots included:
• Loss of public parking, which serves as visitor parking for residents as well as employees and patrons of neighborhood businesses and UCLA Medical Center • The amount of on-site parking for residents of the proposed developments will lead to increased competition for limited street parking • The potential for increased crime and other safety and quality of life concerns • The scale of the proposed development
• The potential for increased traffic and congestion as a result of the new housing during and after construction
Based on the feedback, the team revised its original proposal and presented the changes at the July meetings. The changes presented in July are summarized in the table below.

Original Proposal Examples of Feedback Proposed Changes Housing Type
Location
Supportive housing
located on Euclid St.

Family apartments
located on 14th St.
14th Street has more traffic
and safety concerns and is
closer to UCLA medical
facilities, and is more
appropriate for Supportive
Housing
Family apartments moved
to Euclid St.

Supportive housing moved
to 14th St.

Alley
Congestion
At grade and
subterranean resident
parking accessed from
alleys
Alleys are narrow and
congested
Vehicle queueing areas
provided within property
lines to minimize impact on
alleys

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2169 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 6 of 23
Original Proposal Examples of Feedback Proposed Changes Staffing Each site will have one
full-time property
manager. Typical office
hours will be 8am to
5pm, Monday through
Friday.

Security issues may arise
after hours or on
weekends
A second full-time
employee will live at the
14th St. property. Job duties
and hours to be determined
and the goal will be to
enhance safety and
security.

Site Security Open access
landscaped front yards
with secured building
door access
Measures to enhance
safety are important and
site perimeters need to be
secured
Perimeter fences, fobaccess gates, and security
cameras installed at all
sites
Services Possible inclusion of a
food pantry to benefit
food insecure
households
Services, such as food
distribution, should not be
open to the broader
community
Services will be for
residents only, not the
broader community
After the July meetings, HCHC conducted additional due diligence to determine how to address community concerns related to the loss of public parking, building height and density, while still achieving the RFP objective to build 130 residences. HCHC determined that acquisition of 1402 Wilshire Boulevard, which currently houses Unleashed by Petco, had been listed for sale and is adjacent to the Fourteenth Street parking lot, would offer a way to preserve some existing parking and mitigate the height adjacent to neighboring residential properties on Fourteenth Street, while also reducing the length of construction time.

The current design reflects community feedback and Council direction as shown in the table below.

Original Proposal Examples of
Feedback
Updates
Population Served Low-income
individuals,
families, and
formerly unhoused
individuals in
supportive housing
There is a need for
senior housing
Family apartments
provided at Euclid St
14th St targeted to
seniors (55+ and up)

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2170 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 7 of 23
Original Proposal Examples of
Feedback
Updates
Public Parking Affordable housing
development
on three public
parking lots
Parking lots are
heavily used
by residents,
businesses, and
hospital visitors
16th St to remain
undeveloped as
public parking
PSH Staffing Each development
site will have one
full-time property
manager. Typical
office hours will be
8am to 5pm,
Monday through
Friday.

Security issues may
arise after hours or
on weekends
Two full-time resident
property managers
will live at the 14th St
property. Security will
be provided on nights
and weekends during
Year 1, subject to
reassessment with
the City
Building Height 14th St building five
to six stories high
Building is too tall
for a
residential street
without other tall
buildings
Combined 14th St &
1402 Wilshire site
design where
building is six stories
along Wilshire Blvd,
stepping down to four
stories on residential
street
Unit Sizes Buildings will
include a mix
of studio, one-, two-
, and threebedroom units
Studio units are too
small. Larger units
should be provided.

No studios will be
provided. All
130 apts will be one-,
two-, or threebedrooms
HCHC presented its revised proposal at a fifth community meeting co-hosted by City staff on October 23, 2024. Written comments submitted to HCHC during the meeting comment period are provided in Attachment N.

Business outreach
City staff conducted door-to-door outreach to businesses on Wilshire Boulevard between Eleventh and Sixteenth streets to obtain information about employees’ and customers’ use of the City-owned parking lots. Staff distributed a survey and/or spoke with owners or employees at 31 businesses. At least 13 other businesses were vacant.

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2171 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 8 of 23
With a few exceptions for walking, cycling/scooters, public transit, and car drop-off (including rideshare), nearly all reported that their employees and customers drive to the business. There were a variety of parking resources utilized, including dedicated on-site parking, street parking (metered and unmetered), and the City-owned lots. Some businesses with on-site parking reported not having sufficient parking for both employees and customers, particularly if the lot is shared with other businesses.

There are two businesses that purchase a total of 13 monthly passes at the Euclid Street City-owned lot and there are no current monthly pass holders at the Fourteenth Street lot. Two business owners specifically mentioned that parking would present a serious obstacle to employee hiring and retention if monthly passes were not available.

One employee reported that her employer purchased a monthly pass for her at the building leased by UCLA Health at Wilshire Boulevard and Twelfth Street. Another business reported that UCLA Medical Center employees regularly park in the business’ on-site customer parking lot and that the employees of the business use the Sixteenth Street City lot (not currently proposed for development).

Discussion
Development
The proposed Developments include 130 new affordable residences distributed between the Euclid and Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Boulevard sites as follows:
1-bedroom 2-bedrooms 3-bedrooms Total Stories
Euclid Street 21 14 13 48 6

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2172 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 9 of 23
Fourteenth
Street/1402
Wilshire
Boulevard
80 2 82 3 - 6
The distribution of residences between the two sites maximizes competitiveness for State tax credit financing. In addition, the combined Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Boulevard site allows the building to be stepped down from six stories to four stories adjacent to existing residential property on Fourteenth Street and to three stories on the Fourteenth Court alley. There are forty residences set aside for senior PSH. The Developments will restrict 100% of the apartments (excluding managers’ units) at or below 60% AMI.

The proposal includes on-site parking for residents as follows:

Number of
residences
On-site resident
parking Parking type
Euclid Street 48 40 Ground level and one
underground level
Fourteenth Street/
1402 Wilshire
Boulevard
82 42 Ground level
Total 130 82
The parking ratios are based on affordable housing leasing and affordable housing best practices, with a higher ratio of spaces provided at Euclid Street where two- and three-bedroom apartments for larger households are proposed and a lower ratio provided at Fourteenth Street for senior apartments. The buildings will have secure bicycle parking available for residents and are located near public transit. The City also operates MODE, a low-cost on-demand rideshare program, for seniors and people with disabilities that residents can utilize.

On-site Resident Services

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2173 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 10 of 23
HCHC will employ one full-time Resident Services Coordinator to facilitate services and activities for the 87 general affordable apartments. Examples of services include linkages to community-based services, GED preparation, resume workshops, and life skills classes. In addition, three full-time Property Managers (one at Euclid Street and two at the Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Boulevard site) will reside on-site. TPC will provide two full-time intensive Case Managers to serve clients in the PSH apartments with the support of a part-time program manager and director. This staffing ratio is aligned with PSH best practices. On-site offices will be provided for HCHC and TPC staff.

In addition to case management, TPC services are tailored to meet individual client needs and may include assistance with applying for benefits; transportation; crisis management; life skills education; social and recreational activities; employment and educational resources; money management/representative payee; and linkages to other resources based on an individual clients’ needs. All services will be provided by case managers on-site, or through linkages to outside service programs. Case managers will make frequent contact with their clients from initial lease-up and movein through residency, with frequency tailored to the client’s need.

DDA Terms Summary
HCHC has entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the owner of 1402 Wilshire Boulevard. Should the City Council authorize execution of the DDA and Ground Lease, HCHC plans to close escrow on 1402 Wilshire Boulevard in the third quarter of 2025 following execution of the DDA. HCHC would own 1402 Wilshire Boulevard until it has secured all construction financing, which is estimated to occur in May 2026. At that point, as will be memorialized in the DDA, HCHC will transfer ownership of 1402 Wilshire Boulevard to the City and the City will concurrently ground lease the combined Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Boulevard site back to HCHC.

To proceed, staff seeks City Council approval of the proposed DDA terms (Attachments O and P), including authorization for the City Manager to finalize and

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2174 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 11 of 23
execute the DDAs and Ground Leases. Key terms include:
• For both the Euclid Street and the combined Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Boulevard sites, the City will provide a ground lease term of 55 years plus two options of 22 years to retain City ownership in exchange for the continued operation of the property as affordable housing.

For each site, HCHC will make an annual ground lease payment to the City of $1 per year plus an amount based on the fair market value of the 1217 Euclid Street and 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street sites at time of construction loan closing. At year 56, assuming extension of the lease is exercised, rent will be equivalent to City’s share of residual receipts. • The City will receive a 50% share of residual receipts for the Euclid site. For the Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Boulevard site, 50% of residual receipts will be split between the City and other public lenders based on their respective shares of project funding. Repayment of the loan shall be paid from the City’s share of residual receipts after payment of the Ground Lease Rent. • The Santa Monica Housing Authority will provide 40 Project-Based Vouchers (PBVs) for the PSH apartments at the Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Boulevard site.
• HCHC will receive a developer fee subject to either the fee limit in the Santa Monica Housing Trust Fund Guidelines at the time of closing or a negotiated fee based on third-party review, up to the maximum allowable developer fee per CA LIHTC regulations at time of closing. • A resident Property Manager will be on duty at each site Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. beginning with move-ins. At the Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Boulevard site, a second resident Assistant Property Manager will be on duty from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with the shift adjustable as needed. At all times when not on duty, the Property Manager or Assistant Property Manager will be on-call and available by phone for after-hours emergencies.

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2175 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 12 of 23
• HCHC will provide security for the first year of operations at the Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Boulevard site during night and weekend hours when a resident property manager is not on duty, with continuation after the first year subject to reassessment with City staff.

Financing Summary
To develop the sites, HCHC will apply for the following financing sources:

1. Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) from HCD

2. 4% and 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits that are competitively awarded by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC)

3. Tax-exempt Bonds from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC)

4. Construction and permanent financing (mortgage) from a conventional lender(s) If a funding gap should occur, City staff can approve Housing Trust Fund (HTF) loans that comply with the underwriting criteria and loan limits within the City’s HTF Guidelines. Any request outside of the HTF limits will be brought before City Council for approval. Currently, HCHC anticipates a total funding gap for both developments of $13,500,000, which falls within the City’s HTF Guidelines. The funding gap is a result of the City not having a sufficient scope of new, unfunded transit improvements in the area to be competitive for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, which was a key funding source anticipated in HCHC’s original proposal.

The anticipated $13,500,000 City loan is inclusive of a $6,000,000 loan to HCHC which will be used to acquire 1402 Wilshire Boulevard and is allowable under the City’s HTF Guidelines. The City would fund the acquisition loan concurrently with HCHC closing escrow on 1402 Wilshire Boulevard in Spring 2025. After HCHC secures construction financing--anticipated in Spring 2026--the City will receive $3,500,000 for the loan to acquire 1402 Wilshire. The remaining $11,000,000 of the City loan will be used to close the financing gap for the Euclid Street development.

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2176 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 13 of 23
Anticipated Funding Timeline for City Loans
1402 Wilshire
Boulevard
Acquisition
Euclid Street
Construction
Start
Fourteenth
Street/1402
Wilshire
Boulevard
Construction
Start
Spring 2025 Fall 2025 Spring 2026 Total
Fourteenth
Street/1402
Wilshire
Boulevard
$6,000,000 (or
purchase price)
($3,500,000)
estimated
repayment to
City
$2,500,000
Euclid Site $11,000,000 $11,000,000
Total: $13,500,000
Replacement Public Parking
The loss of public parking has been a key topic of concern from community engagement meeting feedback. Community members have expressed concerns about the impact of the loss of public parking on local businesses, as well as the resulting increase in competition for limited street parking in the area if public parking is not replaced.

No parking is required for the Developments per the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.28.060 (A)(1)(a) implements Assembly Bill 2097, a State law prohibiting cities from implementing parking minimums for housing projects within a ½ mile from a major transit stop. This property falls within the halfmile radius of a major transit stop, so no parking is required for this site.

The revised proposal preserves 21 existing parking spaces at the Sixteenth Street lot. There are 98 existing parking spaces across the Euclid and Fourteenth Street lots. As part of an ongoing Citywide parking study to inform future parking pricing, a consultant for the City’s Department of Transportation (DOT) analyzed utilization of the City’s structures, lots, and meters. (Attachment Q) is an analysis of parking

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2177 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 14 of 23
demand, including the two surface lots for the Development. The data comes from the City’s online parking data platform, which tracks pay station activity. The chart below shows average occupancy during the year (in the “Average” columns) and peak occupancy on one of the busiest days of the year (in the “Peak” columns).

Occupancy of Santa Monica City Lots
Lot Capacity
Average Peak**
2022 Occ. % 2023 Occ. % 2022 Occ. % 2023 Occ. %
Mid-City Lot 7
(1217 Euclid
St.)
49 15 31% 20 41% 21 43% 28 57%
Mid-City Lot 8
(1146 Sixteenth
Street)
*will remain
public parking
21 16 74% 16 75% 20 95% 21 100%
Mid-City Lot 12
(1211-1217
Fourteenth St.)
49 37 76% 40 82% 51 104% 53 108%
**85th Percentile busiest day (see Attachment Q)
To summarize, Lot 7 (Euclid) and Lot 12 (Fourteenth Street) average a combined 65% utilization and 79% on one of the busiest days of the year, reflecting a potential public benefit if 60-77 of the existing parking spaces were to be replaced. However, the elimination of the retail use at 1402 Wilshire Blvd will alleviate some demand for public parking. Additionally, in other thriving commercial districts in the City, such as Montana Avenue and Ocean Park Boulevard, there are no City-owned public parking lots to support businesses. In those corridors, residents, employees and patrons utilize public on-street parking, privately-owned off-street parking, as well as the robust multimodal options that the City and the private sector provide, such as transit, cycling, and shared use mobility devices.

Based on community feedback, staff and HCHC assessed potential options for

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2178 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 15 of 23
replacement public parking, which are presented below.

On-street perpendicular parking replacement
One option for replacement public parking is to convert one side of the on-street parking into perpendicular (or “nose-in”) to accommodate additional on-street spaces.

Perpendicular parking is already present in the area between Ninth and Sixteenth streets and between Colorado Avenue and Broadway, excluding the signalized corridors, such as Eleventh and Fourteenth streets. Conceptually, it is estimated that reconfiguring street parking to perpendicular on one side of Euclid Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue, and one side of Sixteenth Street between Wilshire Boulevard and California Avenue, could yield additional on-street spaces.

DOT estimates the cost to design and implement this at approximately $60,000 per block. However, staff does not recommend conversion to perpendicular parking as a solution for the following reasons:
• Perpendicular parking is not suitable for streets with traffic signals, since higher-speed and higher-volume traffic flow would present safety issues for drivers backing into and out of perpendicular parking spaces. • Under existing City policy, parking regulations are aligned with the adjacent land use. Since the streets surrounding the proposed Developments are primarily residential, existing preferential parking regulations on those blocks would apply to any new, residential adjacent spaces. On Euclid Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue, the existing preferential parking regulations are: No parking from 7:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m. daily, except by permit. On Sixteenth Street between California Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard, the existing preferential parking regulations are: Two hour parking from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily, and no parking from 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily, except by permit. Therefore, the benefit to non-residents of increased parking would be limited. In addition, some existing metered spaces near the intersection may need to be removed to accommodate perpendicular parking spaces.

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2179 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 16 of 23
• The City’s sustainability approach based on Council direction and adopted City policy is to facilitate a full range of transportation options through policies and infrastructure projects. These include transit service, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, shared use mobility devices, and burgeoning technology services such as autonomous taxis. Expansion of street parking would direct resources away from achieving the City’s sustainability objectives of reducing reliance on cars and prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian safety and effective transit service.

If Council provides direction to further investigate on-street parking reconfiguration in the area, DOT would need to conduct additional analysis to assess how many net new street spaces could realistically be created with a reconfiguration, taking into account factors such as existing street widths, space for loading zones, safety, visibility, and existing bike lanes (for example, Fourteenth Street is not suitable for nose-in parking due to conflicts with the existing bike lane, among other factors).

Enhanced business engagement
The GoSaMo Transportation Management Organization (TMO) could prioritize enhanced engagement with businesses along this stretch of Wilshire Boulevard to better understand the transportation challenges their employees and customers face and connect them to applicable transportation services.

Adjusting time limits on metered parking
According to pay station data, the most frequent lengths of stay at the Euclid and Fourteenth Street lots are one and two hours. For the meters on Wilshire Boulevard between Twelfth and Seventeenth Streets, the average length of stay is 49 minutes, according to a sample of meter data from November 1 – 15, 2024. The majority of meters in the area allow stays of up to two hours. Staff does not recommend shortening the amount of time allowed at meters to under two hours, as that may be insufficient to meet the needs of the majority of meter users. For very short-term uses (such as dry cleaners), the City tends to locate 30 minute or passenger loading nearby.

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2180 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 17 of 23
On-site public parking replacement
HCHC’s original proposal provided an alternative scenario in which 17 off-street replacement public parking spaces could be included at ground level on Euclid and 14th streets, for a total of 34 off-street replacement public parking spaces. The alternative scenario required a second level of underground parking to accommodate resident parking at a cost to the City of $5.5 million ($2.8 million for the Euclid site, and $2.7 million for the Fourteenth Street site). The cost per off-street public space was estimated at nearly $162,000 in the original proposal. Any financing gaps in the Developments resulting from adding on-site, off-street replacement public parking would need to be filled from City sources, as there are no dedicated sources of non-City funding to pay for public parking.

After further due diligence, HCHC revised the design to accommodate site constraints as well as 48 residences on Euclid Street and has identified several barriers, making replacement public parking at Euclid Street site infeasible for the following reasons:
• Due to the revised design, some ground-level parking spaces were removed due to site constraints, which were identified as potential replacement public parking in the original proposal.
• A second level of underground parking would be needed to accommodate resident parking; due to ramping, the number of additional spaces that could be accommodated would be inefficient based on cost.
• Operationally, any replacement public parking would need to be on the street level to ensure security of the building and residents. If replacement public parking is underground, the development would need to have separate entrances, stairwells, and elevator access for both the residents and the public utilizing the replacement parking. The site area is not large enough to accommodate features required to ensure a secure environment for building residents, such as a separate parking entrance, stairwell and elevator to

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2181 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 18 of 23
separate the publicly-accessible and resident parking areas. • Providing public parking at street level would yield few public parking spaces due to required utility and service spaces and would either reduce the overall number of residential units or increase the height of project. Increasing the height of the project any further would require a different and more costly construction type, and would significantly widen the financing gap.

Compared to the Euclid site, the larger footprint of the combined Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Boulevard site offers fewer space constraints to replacing public parking on site. As currently designed, resident parking at the Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Boulevard site is accessed from the Fourteenth Court alley to avoid cars crossing into the existing bike lane on Fourteenth Street to access the building. Adding public parking to the Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Boulevard site would require redesign and a potential delay in obtaining necessary entitlements to apply for financing. If ground level parking is used for the public, a subterranean level of parking would be required for residents. Due to ramping required to reach the subterranean level, five resident spaces would be lost, leaving approximately 37 spaces for residents. HCHC estimates that 35 public parking spaces could be accommodated on site at ground level at a cost to the City of $6,340,316, or $181,152 per space. If non-City funds are used to cover the cost, the resulting shortfall in financing would need to be funded by the City’s Housing Trust Funds.

There are other Council-directed priorities for use of the Housing Trust Funds, including development of affordable housing on other City-owned sites identified in the Housing Element and direct assistance to low-income seniors under the Preserving Our Diversity (POD) program. Additionally, there is still money the City must repay back to the Housing Trust Fund, which continues to impede availability of these funds.

Exempt Surplus Land Declaration
The California Surplus Land Act (Government Code 54220 et seq.) (SLA) governs the sale or lease of surplus lands and requires local agencies to prioritize opportunities for certain uses including affordable housing development for any land the entity may sell

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2182 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 19 of 23
or lease. Surplus land may be declared either “surplus” or “exempt surplus” by the legislative body of the local agency as supported by written findings. Exempt surplus land does not have to follow the procedural requirements of the Surplus Land Act, and includes surplus land that is offered for open, competitive bid for a 100% affordable housing development. The law requires local agencies to report on the list of surplus lands in the General Plan Annual Progress Report, which is due April 1 of each year.

The SLA requires local agencies to formally declare publicly-owned property not necessary for the local agency’s use, as surplus land or exempt surplus land before beginning the disposition process. Surplus land must follow a statutory noticing and negotiation period with certain designated entities, including eligible housing sponsors defined by HCD. Exempt surplus land does not have to follow the procedural requirements of the Surplus Land Act.

As provided in the SLA, exempt surplus land includes “(i) Surplus land that is to be developed for a housing development, which may have ancillary commercial ground floor uses, that restricts 100 percent of the residential units to persons and families of low or moderate income, with at least 75 percent of the residential units restricted to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, with an affordable sales price or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50052.5 or 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for a minimum of 55 years for rental housing, land use for ownership housing, and 50 years for rental or ownership housing located on tribal trust lands, and in no event shall the maximum affordable sales price or rent level be higher than 20 percent below the median market rents or sales prices for the neighborhood in which the site is located. (ii) The requirements of clause (i) shall be contained in a covenant or restriction recorded against the surplus land at the time of sale that shall run with the land and be enforceable against any owner who violates the covenant or restriction and each successor in interest who continues the violation.”
The City Council adopted a resolution declaring the City-owned properties at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street and 1146 Sixteenth Street as exempt

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2183 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 20 of 23
surplus land on March 14, 2023. As required by the SLA, the City submitted the declaration and findings to HCD for review. On October 21, 2024, HCD provided a letter concurring with the City’s exempt surplus declaration for the three sites (Attachment R).

Because the SLA only applies to disposition of publicly-owned land, the proposed resolution declaring 1402 Wilshire Boulevard as exempt surplus (Attachment S) would become effective only upon a concurrent transaction in which HCHC transfers ownership to the City and the City ground leases the combined Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Boulevard Site to HCHC.

Next Steps
With City Council approval, the City Manager will execute a DDA and associated documents to allow HCHC to apply for Tax Credits and other funding sources for the Developments’ construction. HCHC has submitted entitlement applications for the Developments, which are also required to be approved in order to apply for outside financing. The designs (Attachment T) are tentatively scheduled to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board on December 16, 2024 for the Euclid Street site and on a date to be determined in early 2025 for the Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Boulevard site.

For the Euclid Street site, HCHC plans to submit its tax credit funding application to California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) in February 2025. HCHC anticipates receiving its TCAC award in May 2025 and will start construction in late 2025, with construction completion and move-ins estimated in 2027.

For the Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Boulevard site, HCHC plans to submit its MHP funding application to HCD and complete its acquisition of 1402 Wilshire Boulevard in the second quarter of 2025. HCHC plans to submit its tax credit and taxexempt bond funding application to TCAC and CDLAC in August 2025. HCHC anticipates receiving its TCAC and bond award in December 2025 and will start construction in Spring 2026, after all construction financing sources have been

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2184 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 21 of 23
finalized and 1402 Wilshire Boulevard has been transferred to the City. Construction completion and move-ins for the Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Boulevard site are estimated in 2028.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
08/27/2024 City Council direction to proceed with negotiations with HCHC based upon a revised development proposal
03/19/2024 City Council selection of the team led by HCHC for development of the City-owned sites at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street, and 1146 Sixteenth Street
03/14/2023 City Council adoption of a resolution declaring City-owned sites at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street, and 1146 Sixteenth Street as exempt surplus land in accordance with the Surplus Land Act
10/12/2021 City Council adopted the final 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029)
6/25/2021 City Council provided direction to staff on the draft concepts and strategies to include in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Environmental Review
The development of affordable housing on 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street and 1146 Sixteenth Street were analyzed as part of the 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR) [SCH No. 2020100575] that was certified by Council on October 12, 2021, with an Addendum to the EIR approved on October 11, 2022. Development of affordable housing on City-owned properties implements a portion of that 6th Cycle Housing Element and is consistent with the Housing Element EIR. Therefore, no further CEQA review is necessary for the development of affordable housing on these sites.

The DDAs and Ground Leases for the development of affordable housing is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15182 of CEQA. Section 15182 statutorily exempts qualifying residential or a mixed use projects from CEQA that are consistent

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2185 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 22 of 23
with an adopted specific plan. The DDA and Ground Lease for development of affordable housing meets the criteria described in Section 15182 in that the project would have a floor area ratio of at least 0.75, is located in a transit priority area, is consistent with the 6
th Cycle Housing Element for which an Environmental Impact Report was certified, and is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in the Southern California Association of Governments’ Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Additionally, the declaration of 1402 Wilshire Boulevard as exempt surplus land upon transfer of fee title to the City would have no possibility of significant effect on the environment, and therefore, is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is a HTF request of approximately $13,500,000 to cover the current funding gap, which falls within the City’s HTF Guidelines. Staff will return to Council with any investment of HTFs or other City resources that fall outside the City’s HTF Guidelines.

Prepared By: Ayala Scott, Senior Development Analyst
Prepared By: Ayala Scott, Senior Development Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2186 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) 23 of 23
Attachments:

A. A. Selection of Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (HCHC) as the Development Team for Affordable Housing on Three City-Owned Sites Adjacent to Wilshire Boulevard - March 19, 2024 (web link)
B. B. Exclusive Negotiation Agreement and License Agreement, May 31, 2024 C. C. City Council Meeting Minutes, August 27, 2024
D. D. Housing Element Appendix F, Figure F-7
E. E. Housing Element Program 2.E
F. F. Housing Commission Meeting Minutes, December 1, 2022 G. G. Euclid, Fourteenth St. and Sixteenth St. Sites
H. H. Adoption of Resolution Declaring Surplus Properties - March 14, 2023 Staff Report (Web Link)
I. I. 1217 Euclid St., 1211-1217 14th St., 1146 16th St. RFP J. J. Housing Commission Meeting Minutes, February 1, 2024 K. K. Original HCHC Proposal
L. L. Comments Submitted to HCHC - May 8 - 31, 2024
M. M. Comments Submitted to HCHC June 24-July 25, 2024
N. N. Comments Submitted to HCHC - October 9 - October 31, 2024 O. O. Wilshire DDA Term Sheet Euclid
P. P. Wilshire DDA Term Sheet 14th
Q. Q. Surface Lot Replacement Study
R. R. HCD Exempt Surplus Land Declaration Review Letter 10.21.24 S. S. Proposed Resolution Declaring 1402 Wilshire Boulevard Exempt Surplus Land T. T. Exterior Renderings
U. U. HCHC_Dec 2024_OAKS INITIATIVE FORM
V. V. HCHC_Dec 2024_Levine Act Disclosure Form
W. Written Comments
X. PowerPoint Presentation

12.C.b
Packet Pg. 2187 Attachment: B. December 17, 2024 Staff Report (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
June 10, 2024
Mayor Edi Birsan
Vice Mayor Carlyn Obringer
Councilmembers Dominic Aliano, Laura Hoffmeister, Laura Nakamura City of Concord
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
Dear Mayor Edi Birsan, Vice Mayor Carlyn Obringer, and Councilmembers Dominic Aliano, Laura Hoffmeister, and Laura Nakamura:

RE: City of Concord, The Ashbury – Letter of Support and Technical Assistance The purpose of this letter is for the Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) to express support for the approved apartment project The Ashbury (Project) and to remind the City of Concord (City) of its continuing obligations under state housing law.

Background
HCD understands Pacific West Communities, Inc. (Developer), through its affiliate TPC QOZB-Concord, LP, owns 1650 Ashbury Drive, the site of the Project, which will generate 183 new housing units, including 181 units affordable to low-income households (with a range of 30-70 percent of area median income) and two on-site manager’s units. The Project received its entitlements on February 6, 2024, through the streamlined ministerial approval process outlined in Government Code section 65913.4, commonly known as SB 35.

On May 28, 2024, the Concord City Council conducted a Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1986 (TEFRA) public hearing on a resolution to approve the issuance of up to $90,000,000 in California State tax exempt bonds. The bond financing would allow for the acquisition, construction, improvement, and equipping of the Project.

Bond repayment is the sole responsibility of the Developer and the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA); the City is not responsible for the debts, liabilities, and obligations incurred through this bond financing. HCD understands that, at the hearing, the City Council voted to deny approval of the TEFRA resolution.

HCD applauds the City on its prior approval of the Project. Now, HCD understands the Concord City Council may hold a second TEFRA public hearing for the Project. As the

12.C.c
Packet Pg. 2188 Attachment: C. HCD Letter to City of Concord (7606 : TEFRA Hearing - Wilshire/14th) Mayor Edi Birsan, Vice Mayor Carlyn Obringer
Councilmembers Dominic Aliano, Laura Hoffmeister, Laura Nakamura

Page 2 ends

Santa Monica City CouncilJune 9, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
June 9, 2026