City of Santa Monica
City Council Meeting
AGENDA
CAROLINE TOROSIS
MAYOR
ELLIS RASKIN JESSE ZWICK
COUNCILMEMBER MAYOR PRO TEM
DAN HALL BARRY SNELL
COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER
LANA NEGRETE NATALYA ZERNITSKAYA
COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER
OLIVER C. CHI
CITY MANAGER
HEIDI VON TONGELN
CITY ATTORNEY
DENISE ANDERSON-WARREN
INTERIM CITY CLERK
STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR THAT PROMOTE CIVILITY AT ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS:
• Treat everyone courteously; • Embrace respectful disagreement and dissent as democratic rights, inherent components of an inclusive
public process, and tools for forging sound decisions
• Hate has no place in Santa Monica. The City opposes
abusive or threatening hate speech, intolerance, or
dehumanization, and supports basic civil respect and
human decency.
• Listen to others respectfully;
• Exercise self-control;
• Give open-minded consideration
to all viewpoints;
• Focus on the issues and avoid
personalizing debate;
Regular meetings are broadcast live on CityTV cable channel 16 and on the internet at santamonica.gov. Cable television re-broadcasts air on Thursday and Saturday at 11:30 AM. The agenda will air on CityTV on Saturday and Sunday at 11:00 AM and 6:00 PM, and on Monday and Tuesday at 12:30 PM and 6:00 PM.
City of Santa Monica Generated: 6/11/2026 4:53 PM Page 2
RULES OF ORDER FOR THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS (Resolution No.11663(CCS))
WAYS TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT
If you are interested in providing public comment at a City Council meeting, there are several ways to participate:
(1) Written public comment. In lieu of oral public comment, the public is strongly encouraged to submit written public comment on agenda items via email to [email protected]. For written public comment submitted by 12:00 pm on the day of the meeting, best efforts shall be made to have them available online for viewing. Please note the agenda item number in the subject line of your written comments.
(2) Oral public comment.
- In-person: Persons wishing to address the City Council regarding items on the agenda must be present and submit their name and address (optional) to the City Clerk before the public comment section is opened for that item or before the public hearing is opened where one is required by law. Register to speak at the Speaker Kiosk prior to the meeting. - Telephone: Persons wishing to address the Council by telephone must register at santamonica.gov/public-comment no later than 5:00 p.m. the day before a meeting. Showing electronic presentation materials are not permitted when commenting by telephone.
Oral public comment from any one individual is limited to a total of 6 minutes per City Council meeting, with a maximum of 2 minutes per agenda item if speaking on multiple items. A member of the public may allocate time between items in one-minute increments up to 2 minutes and those requesting to speak on only one agendized item for the meeting may speak for up to 4 minutes on that one item. Except for noticed public hearings or quasi-judicial items, if more than 25 speakers are registered to speak during a public input section, the amount of time shall be reduced to 1 minute per speaker during that section.
Except for the author of the request, public comment on 15-items are limited to 1 minute.
Levine Act Disclosure. Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official. Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well. The disclosure must include the name of the party, participant, or agent, and any other person making the contribution; the name of the recipient, the amount of the contribution, and the date the contribution was made. Information regarding the Levine Act can be found here or you can contact the FPPC.
ORDER OF BUSINESS (may not be changed except by majority vote of the City Council.)
1. General Public Input
(Members of the public may address the City Council
only on items not on the agenda, but within the
subject matter jurisdiction of the City and on Special
Agenda Items.)
2. Special Agenda Items (Commendations and
Proclamations presented).
3. Public Comment for Consent Calendar and Closed
Sessions Only.
4. Consent Calendar (All items considered in one
motion unless removed by a City Councilmember for
discussion. No public comment is permitted on
second readings.)
5. Closed Sessions.
6. Public Comment on remaining Agenda Items
7. Study Session.
8. Continued Items.
9. Administrative Proceedings.
10. Ordinances:
• 1
st Reading
• 2
nd Reading (No public comment is
permitted on second readings.)
11. Staff Administrative Item.
12. Public Hearings.
13. Reports of Boards and Commissions.
14. Resolutions.
15. Written Communications (Other than
Reports of Commission and Officers.)
16. Councilmember Discussion Items.
Agendas and reports are accessible on the City's webpage at smgov.net/council/agendas. They are also available at the City Clerk's Office and in alternate formats upon request. For a free email subscription to the City Council Agendas, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or [email protected].
Si desea comunicarse con alguien en español, llame a nuestra oficina al (310) 458-8211 y pida hablar con Esterlina Lugo.
City of Santa Monica Generated: 6/11/2026 4:53 PM Page 3
AGENDAS
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
REGULAR MEETING
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1685 MAIN STREET, ROOM 250,
TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2026
MEETING BEGINS AT 5:30 PM
HOW TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT BY TELEPHONE
Persons wishing to address the City Council by telephone must register at santamonica.gov/public-comment no later than 5:00 p.m. the day before a meeting.
Donation of time and showing electronic presentation materials are not permitted when commenting by telephone.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE / LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ROLL CALL
City of Santa Monica Statement of Accountability (Land Acknowledgement) The City of Santa Monica is located on the land of Tovangaar. With great respect, the City acknowledges the Gabrieleño/Tongva as the First People of this ancestral and unceded territory of Kuruvungna, a village that we know as Santa Monica. We honor their elders, past and present, and the Gabrieleño descendants who are part of the Gabrieleño /Tongva tribes.
We recognize that these peoples are still here, and as settlers and kuyam (guests), we recognize our responsibility and obligation to care for their land in partnership with them.
The City of Santa Monica commits to work in partnership with the Gabrieleño/Tongva people to uplift their voices and visibility on their ancestral land.
LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS / PROCEDURAL
MOTIONS
1. GENERAL PUBLIC INPUT AND COMMENT ON SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS (For regular meetings, public comment is permitted on Special Agenda Items and items not on the agenda that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City. State law prohibits the City Council from taking any action on items not listed on the agenda, including issues City of Santa Monica Generated: 6/11/2026 4:53 PM Page 4 raised under this agenda item. For special meetings, public input is limited to scheduled Special Agenda Items only.)
1.A. Written Comments
2. SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS
2.A. 2026 Juneteenth Proclamation
3. PUBLIC INPUT (ITEMS UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR AND CLOSED SESSION ONLY)
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
(All items will be considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion. In accordance with Charter section 615, the adoption of all ordinances and resolutions shall be by reading of title only unless a Councilmember present dissents. No public discussion is permitted on ordinances for second reading and adoption.)
4.A. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of the Reconnecting Communities Pilot Grant with the California Department of Transportation for the Reconnecting Pico Project and Execution of Necessary Associated Documents
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;
2. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept a grant awarded to the City in the amount of $2,000,000 from the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program for the Santa Monica Reconnecting Pico Project in the Public Works Department, and to accept all grant renewals;
3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute all necessary documents to accept the grant and all grant renewals; and
4. Authorize a budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report (requires 5 votes).
4.B. Adoption of Resolutions Calling the General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026 and Requesting that the Municipal Election Be Consolidated with the Los Angeles County Statewide General Election
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt:
City of Santa Monica Generated: 6/11/2026 4:53 PM Page 5
1. A finding that the recommended actions herein do not constitute a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
2. A resolution calling for a General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026; and
3. A resolution requesting that the Municipal Election be consolidated with the Los Angeles (LA) County Statewide General Election and request services from the LA County Registrar-Recorder for the General Municipal Election.
4.C. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of the Regional Parks and Open Space District Planning and Design Grant for the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Planning and Design and Execution of Necessary Associated Documents
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemptions pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) and Section 15252 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;
2. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept a grant awarded to the City in the amount of $499,149, from the Regional Parks and Open Space District 2025 Planning and Design Grant for the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Planning Project in the Public Works Department, and to accept all grant renewals;
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to accept the grant and all grant renewals; and
4. Authorize a budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report (requires 5 votes).
4.D. Award Request for Bid #SP2779 and Authorization to enter into Agreement With Murray Plumbing & Heating for Process Mechanical Services Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemptions pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;
2. Award Bid #SP2779 to Murray Plumbing and Heating Corporation for process mechanical services for the Public Works Department; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Murray Plumbing and Heating Corporation in an amount not to exceed $5,000,000 over a fiveyear period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
4.E. Approval of Second Modification to Agreement #10806 With JustPark for Parking Data Analytics Management Services for the Department of Transportation
City of Santa Monica Generated: 6/11/2026 4:53 PM Page 6 Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15306 and a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a second modification to agreement #10806 (CCS) in the amount of $258,123 with JustPark, for parking data analytics management services for the Department of Transportation. This will result in a nine-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $1,964,071, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
4.F. Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.04.030 on Beach Parking Lot Parking Permits and Hours
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and
2. Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.04.030 on beach parking lot hours and parking permits.
4.G. Approval of First Modification to Agreement #11521 with RAMCO General Engineering Contractors, Inc. for Construction Services for the 7th Street Fencing Upgrade and Activation Project
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities), 15302 (Replacement/Reconstruction), 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land), and 15311 (Accessory Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a first modification to agreement #11521 (CCS) in the amount of $526,355 with RAMCO General Engineering Contractors, Inc. for construction services for the 7th Street Fencing Upgrade and Activation Project for the Public Works Department. This will result in an amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $2,511,355 with future funding contingent on Council budget approval.
4.H. Award Contract with Los Angeles County Homeless Services and Housing Department for Predictive Prevention Pilot Utilizing a County Homelessness Prevention Unit Services Model in the City of Santa Monica 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
City of Santa Monica Generated: 6/11/2026 4:53 PM Page 7
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with the Los Angeles County Homeless Services and Housing Department for implementation of a Predictive Prevention Pilot for the Housing and Human Services Department. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section 2.24.250(i) and is for a total amount not to exceed $800,000 for one year, with future funding contingent on Council budget approval.
4.I. Award Request for Proposal #2784 and Authorization to enter into Agreement With Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. for Preparation of a Nexus Study for the Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;
2. Award RFP SP2784 to Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. to prepare a nexus study for the Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee for the Public Works Department;
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $115,450 (including a $10,505 contingency) for one year, with two-one year renewal options with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval; and
4. Authorize budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts and Budget Actions section. (Requires five votes)
4.J. Ratify Emergency Purchase Order Modification for Commercial Scaffolding of California Incorporated for Emergency Shoring at PS5
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of statutory exemption pursuant to Section 15269 and a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and
2. Ratify the Procurement Manager’s issuance of a purchase order with Commercial Scaffolding of California Incorporated for the extended rental of emergency temporary shoring for Parking Structure 5 for the Department of Transportation. The emergency purchase order modification of $90,000 will be made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section 2.24.250(i) and is for a total amount not to exceed $265,260 with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
4.K. Approval of the First Modification to Agreement #11584 with ACCO Engineering Systems for Mechanical and Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Maintenance and Repair Services
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
City of Santa Monica Generated: 6/11/2026 4:53 PM Page 8
1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a first modification to agreement #11584 in the amount of $3,000,000 with ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc. (ACCO) for mechanical and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning maintenance and repair services for the Public Works Department. This will result in an amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $9,500,000, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
4.L. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of Office of Grants and Local Services Grant Authorized by Proposition 4 (Climate Bond) for the City of Santa Monica Capital Improvement of Airport Lands and Execution of All Necessary Associated Documents
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) and a finding of statutory exemption pursuant to Section 15262 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and
2. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept a grant awarded in the amount of $10,000,000, without a required local match, from the Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS) via California State Parks, Proposition 4 (Climate Bond) for the Airport Conversion Project.
3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute all necessary documents to accept the grant and all grant renewals.
4. Authorize budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report (requires 5 votes).
4.M. Approval of First Modification to Agreement #11730 with AAAdvantage Concrete Coatings for Resurfacing Services
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Structures) and Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a first modification to agreement #11730 (CCS) in the amount of $375,485 with AAAdvantage Concrete Coatings for Parking Structure 2 stair resurfacing services for the Department of Transportation. This will result in a three-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $1,126,456, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
4.N. Award Bid and enter into Agreements With Airwave Communications Enterprises, Inc. for Emergency Vehicle Upfitting for Police and Fire Departments
City of Santa Monica Generated: 6/11/2026 4:53 PM Page 9 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;
2. Award Bid #4500 to Airwave Communications Ent., Inc. to provide labor and parts required to upfit, repair and maintain specialty equipment for the City’s fleet of emergency vehicles for the Police and Fire departments;
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Airwave Communications Ent., Inc. for the Police Department in an amount not to exceed $7,041,250 for five years, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval; and
4. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Airwave Communications Ent., Inc. for the Fire Department in an amount not to exceed $719,125 for five years, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
5. CLOSED SESSIONS
5.A. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1):
John U.N.B. Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV12746; John Doe 1, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV15009; Hector Orozco v. John Doe: Does 1-2; LASC # 23SMCV03120; John JPC Doe v. Doe City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV22020; John AD Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV26548; John CW Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV29623; John Doe (A.G.) v.
Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al; LASC # 23SMCV06066; John GA DOE, et al. v.
City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV06484; John U.L.W. Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV06768; Joseph Garcia v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV01368; John Doe 15, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV07647; John Doe 18, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV0239; John RR Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV09398; John Doe 33, et al. v.
City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV15580; John Doe 48 v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV15420; John Doe 49 v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV19296; John DD Doe v. City, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV04421; Jane EB Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV24146; John Doe (V.D.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05049; John Doe (D.F.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05050; John Doe (D.G.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05051; Jane Doe 13, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV27233; John AM Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV28433; John Doe v. City, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05527; John Doe 53 v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV31763; John Doe (Y.M.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV06355; Jane Doe 16, et al. v. a Public Entity, et al.; LASC # 25STCV02235; John Doe 62, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV04414; John Doe 23 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV05850; John Doe (E.B.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 25STCV06354; Jane PB Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV06880; John Doe 67 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV10142; John Doe 68 v.
City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV12089; John Doe 69, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV14031; John OR Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV16251; John RD Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV24158
City of Santa Monica Generated: 6/11/2026 4:53 PM Page 10
5.B. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1):
City v. ICSOP, et al.; OCSC # 30-2022-01261243
5.C. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1):
City of Santa Monica, et al. v. Waymo LLC et al., LASC # 25SMCV06581
5.D. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1):
Santa Monica EV Holdings, LLC et al. v. City, LASC # 25SMCV06681
5.E. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1):
Waymo LLC v. City, LASC # 25SMCV06541
5.F. Public employee appointment - Gov. Code § 54957(b): consider public employee appointment; title: City Clerk; Gov. Code § 54957.6: conference with labor negotiator; City negotiator: Mayor/Personnel Director; unrepresented employee: City Clerk
5.G. Public Employee Performance Evaluation – Gov. Code § 54957(b): City Manager
5.H. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1):
Lori Gentles v. City; LASC # 24SMCV00824 (report out)
CITY MANAGER REPORT
TRAVEL ANNOUNCEMENT AND MAYOR'S HIGHLIGHT
6. PUBLIC INPUT ON REMAINING AGENDA ITEMS
. Public Input for 12-Items will be heard at the time when the Public Hearing is called.
7. STUDY SESSION
No items
8. CONTINUED ITEMS
No items
9. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
No items
10. ORDINANCES
(Public comment is permitted on ordinances for introduction and first reading. No public discussion is permitted on ordinances for second reading and adoption. In accordance with Charter section 615, the adoption of all ordinances and resolutions shall be by reading of title only unless a Councilmember present dissents.)
City of Santa Monica Generated: 6/11/2026 4:53 PM Page 11
10.A. Introduction and Adoption of an Emergency Ordinance Amending Chapter
4.63, Hotel Worker Living Wage Related to Regional Alignment for Wages and Health Benefits and Introduction for First Reading an Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.63, Hotel Worker Minimum Wage, Related to Regional Alignment for Wages and Health Benefits - Item Pulled at Request of Staff. 6/08/26 Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and
2. Introduce and Adopt an Emergency Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.63, Hotel Worker Living Wage Related to Regional Alignment for Wages and Health Benefits; and
3. Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.63, Hotel Worker Minimum Wage, Related to Regional Alignment for Wages and Health Benefits.
11. STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
11.A. Approval of the City of Santa Monica 2027 Tournament of Roses Parade Float Program; Authorization to enter into Agreement with Artistic Entertainment Services for Float Design, Construction and Parade Operations; and Launch of Sponsorship and Community Engagement Campaign
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;
2. Receive the status update regarding development of a City of Santa Monica float entry for the 2027 Tournament of Roses Parade;
3. Approve the official participation of the City of Santa Monica in the 2027 Tournament of Roses Parade;
4. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Artistic Entertainment Services for design, construction, animation, floral decoration, logistics, and parade operations for a total amount not to exceed $650,000;
5. Approve the launch of a robust community engagement and volunteer program;
6. Approve the launch of a fundraising and sponsorship campaign to offset program costs to the greatest extent feasible; and
7. Authorize staff to pursue philanthropic, tourism, hospitality, corporate, and regional partnership opportunities associated with the float program.
11.B. Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Council Rules of Order To Implement Senate Bill 707 (2025) Amending the Ralph M. Brown Act and Making Additional Procedural Changes
Recommended Action
City of Santa Monica Generated: 6/11/2026 4:53 PM Page 12 Staff recommends that the City Council adopt:
1. A finding that the resolution is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and
2. The attached resolution amending the Council Rules of Order based on direction from the January 27, 2026 Council meeting to explore options to: to hear Closed Session; requiring increased collaboration on Councilmember Discussion items; hear general Public Input towards the end of meetings; and revise the rule to reduce speaking time for more than 25 registered speakers to per item instead of per public input section; and;
3. Additional modifications to the attached resolution regarding: general Rules of Order; the Time and Place for Regular Meetings; the Agenda; Categories and Order of Business; Public Testimony; Conduct and Safety; Voting Procedure; and Use of Technology.
12. PUBLIC HEARINGS
12.A. 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
12.B. 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.
12.C. 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 City of Santa Monica Generated: 6/11/2026 4:53 PM Page 13 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.
13. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
No items
14. RESOLUTIONS
No items
15. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OTHER THAN REPORTS OF COMMISSION AND
OFFICERS
No items
16. COUNCILMEMBER DISCUSSION ITEMS
16.A. Request of Councilmembers Negrete, Hall, and Zernitskaya to approve an expenditure of up to $5,000 in Council discretionary funds to support Art on Ocean, a free public arts festival planned for August 8, 2026, on Ocean Avenue and Palisades Park in Santa Monica, with allocations from each Councilmember’s portion of discretionary funds as follows: $1,000 allocated from Councilmember Hall, $2,000 from Councilmember Negrete, and $2,000 from Councilmember Zernitskaya
16.B. Request of Councilmembers Hall, Zernitskaya, and Snell that Council direct the City Manager to sign “A Pledge for Shared Prosperity,” the anti-poverty pledge launched by the Los Angeles County Poverty Alleviation Initiative (PAI), and to integrate the pledge’s three countywide goals into Santa Monica’s existing outreach and benefits-access work
ADJOURNMENT
Agendas and reports are accessible on the City's webpage at www.smgov.net/council/agendas. They are also available at the City Clerk's Office and in alternate formats upon request. For a free email subscription to the City Council Agendas, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or [email protected].
Members of the public unable to attend a meeting but wishing to comment on an item(s) listed on the agenda may submit written comments prior to the meeting by meeting by mailing them to: City Clerk, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 or to City of Santa Monica Generated: 6/11/2026 4:53 PM Page 14 [email protected]. Written comments received from the public by 12 PM on the day of the City Council meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to the meeting and posted online. Members of the public who submit written public comment on an agenda item may be subject to the Levine Act which requires disclosure of campaign contributions of more than $500 to an officer of the City within the preceding 12 months.
City Hall and the Council Chambers are wheelchair accessible. If you require any special disability related accommodations to either attend or provide public testimony at a Council meeting (i.e. sign language interpreting, access to an amplified sound system, remote option, etc.), please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or TDD: (310) 917- 6626 or via email at [email protected] at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Best efforts shall be made to accommodate requests received after the 72-hour deadline. In the case of special meetings, requests should be submitted as early as possible, but no later than noon the day of the special Council meeting.
Si desea comunicarse con alguien en español, llame a nuestra oficina al (310) 458-8211 y pida hablar con Esterlina Lugo.
Santa Monica Blue Bus Lines #1, #2, #3, #5, #9 and the EXPO Line serve City Hall.
Parking is available on Main Street, on Olympic Drive, and in the Civic Center Parking Structure (validation free).
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 9, 2026
Agenda Item: 1.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Written Comments
Prepared By: David Yakobson, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
1.A
Packet Pg. 15
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Clarence McDowell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 7:10 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Cc: Romy Ganschow; Laura Campos; Maurice Cochee; Consumer Mailbox Subject: Urgent Constituent Appeal — 10 Months Displaced, $46,000+ in Unpaid Mandatory Relocation Benefits | 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 Attachments: McDowell_City_Council_Letter_060226.md - 6_2_26, 6_43 PM-Executed.pdf; 1011_Pico_7- relocation plan.pdf; 1011 Pico Unit #7 Habitabilty Determination -UNINHABITABLE.pdf; McDowell - Howard Management Checks - 0219-031626.pdf; Email - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 _ Case No. 25-COM-1882 _ HD 11536 _ CESWO-1153 — Demand for Enforcement of Unmodified Per Diem Obligation _ $36,421.00 Past Due.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Members of the City Council, My name is Clarence McDowell. My wife Victoria, son Atom and I have been displaced from our home at 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7, Santa Monica, CA 90405 since September 2025 — nearly ten months. We write to you directly because Code Enforcement has failed to enforce the City's own written order and signed relocation agreement requiring our landlord to pay mandatory Per Diem relocation benefits.
THE FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED:
On February 19, 2026, Officer C. Cope issued Habitability Determination HD 11536, finding our unit uninhabitable and ordering our landlord — Santa Monica Art Colony LLC / Howard Management — to provide relocation benefits at $473.00 per night. The order states benefits "shall continue until this Order is lifted" in writing. The "Tenant responsible" box is unchecked.
The landlord paid 25 nights (through March 16, 2026) via cancelled checks confirming the $473.00 rate — then stopped. As of today:
Unpaid per diem (78 nights × $473.00): $36,894.00
Self-funded Airbnb (documented receipts): $8,932.83
Self-funded storage (documented invoices): $633.04
TOTAL MINIMUM OUTSTANDING: $46,459.87
No written lifting order has ever been served on us — the only lawful way to end the obligation under HD 11536 and SMMC §§ 8.100.030(b), 8.100.040(a), and 4.36.100.
WHY CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS NOT ACTED:
The landlord stopped paying based solely on a verbal statement from a former Code Enforcement officer, memorialized in a May 15, 2026 email: "Based on Chris's statements, relocation did not have to Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 2 be provided anymore." A verbal statement is a legal nullity under the SMMC. We have submitted 14 written requests for clarification. Code Enforcement has declined to answer in writing, issue administrative citations, or record calls — in a matter where every prior determination was made verbally, without documentation or tenant notice.
WE ARE ASKING FOR THREE THINGS:
1. Direct Code Enforcement to enforce HD 11536 and issue administrative citations for each week of non-payment since March 16, 2026.
2. Direct the City Attorney's Consumer Protection Unit to investigate the use of verbal determinations to extinguish written relocation obligations without tenant notice.
3. Arrange a constituent services meeting so we may present our full documentation directly.
A formal letter with complete supporting documentation is attached. We have documented everything, filed 14 written requests, and cooperated fully. We ask only that the City enforce the law it enacted.
Respectfully,
Clarence & Victoria McDowell
1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 291-4468 | [email protected]
All rights reserved under SMMC Chapters 4.36, 4.56, 4.28, and 8.100, and all applicable state law. --
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Constituent Emergency Appeal — Displaced Tenant,
10 Months Without Mandatory Relocation Benefits
To the Santa Monica City Council Date: June 2, 2026
From: Clarence & Victoria McDowell 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 291-4468 | [email protected]
To: Mayor Lana Negrete | [email protected] Mayor Pro Tem Caroline Torosis | [email protected] Councilmember Jesse Zwick | [email protected] Councilmember Dan Hall | [email protected] Councilmember Ellis Raskin | [email protected] Councilmember Barry Snell | [email protected] (Full Council — [email protected]) Re: Urgent Constituent Appeal — Failure of Code Enforcement to Enforce Mandatory Tenant Relocation Obligations | $36,894.00+ in Unpaid Per Diem | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESWO-1153 | 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Members of the City Council:
We are lifelong Santa Monica residents writing to you as a last resort. We have been forcibly displaced from our home — a three-level, 1,800 sq. ft. unit at 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 — since approximately September 2025. That is nearly ten months. We have self-funded every night of housing, every week of storage, and every day of displacement entirely out of our own pocket — while the Santa Monica Municipal Code places that obligation squarely on our landlord, and while Code Enforcement has contradicted established relocation procedures by issuing a verbal edict that purports to give our landlord license to ignore a signed relocation agreement to provide Per Diem while we are displaced during construction. To date, we have spent over $41,000 in displaced housing costs while the Landlord continues not to pay the agreed Per Diem while also delaying the work needed to return to our home of over 20 years.
We respectfully ask that the City Council exercise its oversight authority and direct Code Enforcement to enforce the law that is already on the books.
Constituent Emergency Appeal — Displaced Tenant, 10 Months Without Mandatory Relocation Benefits
1 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) The Facts Are Straightforward and Undisputed
1. The City's own Habitability Determination orders the landlord to pay. On February 19, 2026, City Code Enforcement Officer C. Cope issued Residential Habitability Determination HD 11536 (Case No. 25-COM-1882), finding 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 uninhabitable and stating, in the City's own words:
"Landlord IS required to provide temporary relocation benefits as of 2/19/26." "Relocation benefits shall continue to be provided until this Order is lifted by the Code Enforcement Officer or Building Manager." "RELOCATION BENEFITS ARE
REQUIRED TO THE TENANTS DUE TO THE LANDLORD FAILING TO ACT DILIGENTLY TO RESTORE THE UNIT TO A HABITABLE CONDITION." The "Tenant responsible for condition" box on the form is unchecked. The City's own inspector attributed the ongoing obligation to the landlord's failure — not to any action by us.
2. The per diem rate was established in writing by the landlord's own checks. The landlord — Santa Monica Art Colony LLC, managed by Howard Management Group — established and confirmed the binding per diem rate of $473.00 per night through its own cancelled checks (#3777, #3778, #3779, and self-correcting true-up check #3781). These checks covered the period February 19 – March 16, 2026 (25 nights, $11,825.00 paid). Every night since March 16, 2026 — 78 consecutive nights as of today — has gone unpaid.
3. No written lifting order has ever been served on us. HD 11536 expressly states that relocation benefits continue "until this Order is lifted." No written lifting order has ever been hand-delivered, mailed, or otherwise served on Clarence and Victoria McDowell. Under SMMC §§ 8.100.030(b), 8.100.040(a), and 4.36.100(c)(7), any modification of a written relocation obligation requires a written submission, written City approval, and written notice to the tenant.
None of that has occurred.
4. The landlord's only defense is a verbal statement — which is legally void. In a May 15, 2026 email, Howard Management's office administrator wrote: "Based on Chris's statements, relocation did not have to be provided anymore." "Chris" refers to a former Code Enforcement officer. A verbal statement by a Code Enforcement officer does not and cannot — under any provision of the SMMC — extinguish, suspend, or retroactively pardon an accrued per diem obligation that was established in writing and confirmed by the landlord's own acts. Code Enforcement Supervisor Maurice Cochee has declined to provide a contrary written determination, declined to record telephone calls, and declined to answer our written yes/no questions in writing.
Constituent Emergency Appeal — Displaced Tenant, 10 Months Without Mandatory Relocation Benefits
2 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) The Running Balance
Item Amount
Per diem rate (established by landlord's own
checks)
$473.00 / night
Accrual start date (HD 11536 issued) February 19, 2026
Total paid by landlord (checks #3777–#3781,
through March 16, 2026)
$11,825.00
Unpaid nights (March 16 – June 2, 2026) 78 nights
Unpaid per diem balance as of June 2,
2026
$36,894.00
Unreimbursed Airbnb costs (3 documented
receipts)
$8,932.83
Unreimbursed storage — Excel Restoration
(3/21–4/21/26)
$633.04
Minimum total outstanding $46,459.87
The per diem continues to accrue at $473.00 per night every additional day until a valid written lifting order is served on us.
(Note: The self-executing obligation under SMMC § 4.36.100(a)(2) may have begun as early as September 3, 2025, when the unit was first rendered uninhabitable. We have accepted February 19, 2026 as the formal start date for purposes of this appeal, without waiving any rights to the earlier accrual period.)
What Code Enforcement Has — and Has Not — Done
We have submitted fourteen (14) written requests for clarification and reconsideration to Code Enforcement between May 2026 and June 2, 2026. We have answered every written question Code Enforcement posed to us, promptly and in full. The responses we have received in return include:
Constituent Emergency Appeal — Displaced Tenant, 10 Months Without Mandatory Relocation Benefits
3 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) - A verbal determination — never reduced to writing — that relocation "did not have to be provided anymore," made without notifying us
- A refusal by Supervisor Cochee to answer our written yes/no questions in writing - A refusal to proceed on a recorded telephone call in a matter where every prior determination was made verbally without documentation
- No written confirmation of whether the landlord's Relocation Plan under SMMC §
8.100.030 was ever submitted or approved before Permit No. 26BLD-0578 was issued - No written confirmation of whether any § 8.100.040(a)-compliant tenant notice was ever served on us before construction work commenced
- No administrative citations issued despite the landlord's failure to prepay per diem in weekly increments as SMMC § 4.36.100(c)(2) expressly requires for displacements of 30 days or greater
We are not asking Code Enforcement to do anything unusual. We are asking it to enforce the statute that already exists, using the written procedures the statute already provides.
What We Are Asking the City Council to Do
We respectfully request that the City Council exercise its oversight authority and direct the following:
1. Direct Code Enforcement to issue written answers to all outstanding questions submitted by the McDowells (on record in our 14 written requests) and to confirm in writing whether any written amended plan, written City approval, or written §
8.100.040(a) tenant notice modifying or terminating the relocation obligation was ever issued.
2. Direct Code Enforcement to immediately enforce the per diem obligation as written in HD 11536 and confirmed by the landlord's own checks — including issuing administrative citations to Howard Management / Santa Monica Art Colony LLC for each week of non-payment since March 16, 2026, as authorized by the SMMC.
3. Direct the Building Officer to review whether Permit No. 26BLD-0578 was issued in compliance with the pre-permit requirements of SMMC §§ 8.100.030 and 8.100.040(a), and to exercise the authority under SMMC § 8.100.010(f) to suspend construction activity until full Chapter 8.100 compliance is demonstrated.
4. Direct the City Attorney's Consumer Protection Unit to investigate the landlord's reliance on an alleged verbal Code Enforcement determination to unilaterally terminate mandatory statutory benefits — a pattern that, if tolerated, effectively enables any Constituent Emergency Appeal — Displaced Tenant, 10 Months Without Mandatory Relocation Benefits
4 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) landlord to circumvent the Tenant Relocation Assistance ordinance by seeking a private verbal "clearance" from a single City employee.
5. Arrange a Council constituent services meeting so that Clarence and Victoria McDowell can present their documentation directly to a Council representative who can facilitate a written, enforceable resolution.
Why This Matters Beyond Our Family
We are not the only tenants at 1011 Pico Blvd. who have been displaced. The City's own records reflect multiple affected units. The question of whether a landlord can extinguish a written, City-ordered relocation obligation through a private verbal statement to a Code Enforcement officer — with no notice to the tenant, no written order, no amended plan, and no City approval — is a question of citywide policy importance. If that practice is permitted, the tenant relocation protections that the Council enacted and that tenants rely upon are worth nothing.
We have done everything right. We have documented every communication. We have made fourteen written requests. We have reserved all our rights. We have cooperated with every lawful request for access. We have been patient. We are now asking the City Council — as our elected representatives — to ensure that the City's own laws are enforced on our behalf.
Documentation on File
The following documents are available for Council review and have been submitted to Code Enforcement:
- Residential Habitability Determination HD 11536 (February 19, 2026 — Officer C. Cope) - Landlord's cancelled checks #3777, #3778, #3779, #3781 establishing the $473.00/night rate
- Formal Demand Letter to Howard Management (May 15, 2026) — signed and served via certified mail
- 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration (June 2, 2026) — with SMMC §
8.100.040 Compliance Deficiency Log documenting 14 independent Code violations - Complete email correspondence chain (May–June 2026) between Clarence McDowell, Code Enforcement Supervisor Cochee, Officer Campos, and Assistant City Attorney Ganschow
- Documented Airbnb receipts, storage invoices, and payment history Constituent Emergency Appeal — Displaced Tenant, 10 Months Without Mandatory Relocation Benefits
5 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) All documents are available upon request. We welcome the opportunity to meet with any Council representative, constituent services staff, or City Attorney at the earliest possible time.
Respectfully and urgently submitted,
Clarence & Victoria McDowell 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 291-4468 [email protected]
All rights under SMMC Chapters 4.36, 4.56, 4.28, and 8.100; California Civil Code §§ 1941, 1942, 1942.4, and 1942.5; California Health & Safety Code § 17920.3; and all applicable state and local law are expressly reserved. Nothing in this letter constitutes a waiver of any right, claim, or remedy.
Constituent Emergency Appeal — Displaced Tenant, 10 Months Without Mandatory Relocation Benefits
6 2026-06-02
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Audit trail
Details
FILE NAME McDowell_City_Council_Letter_060226.md - 6/2/26, 6:43PM STATUS Signed
STATUS TIMESTAMP
2026/06/03
01:44:53 UTC
Activity
SENT
[email protected] sent a signature request to:
Clarence McDowell ([email protected])
2026/06/03
01:43:18 UTC
SIGNED
Signed by Clarence McDowell ([email protected]) 2026/06/03 01:44:53 UTC
COMPLETED
This document has been signed by all signers and is complete 2026/06/03 01:44:53 UTC
The email address indicated above for each signer may be associated with a Google account, and may either be the primary email address or secondary email address associated with that account.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) e
11816
11 P1 0 BLUA.
25 1 2
y
1816 620Pm
B
PE ے
4 py pу
843
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Clarence McDowell <[email protected]>
14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25- COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESWO-1153 — Demand for Enforcement of Unmodified Per Diem Obligation | $36,421.00 Past Due
1 message
Clarence McDowell <[email protected]> Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 3:08 PM To: Maurice Cochee <[email protected]>
Cc: Laura Campos <[email protected]>, Romy Ganschow <[email protected]>, Victoria McDowell <[email protected]>
Dear Mr. Cochee, Ms. Campos, and Ms. Ganschow:
Please find attached our 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration and the SMMC § 8.100.040 Compliance Deficiency Log, both dated June 2, 2026, submitted on behalf of Clarence and Victoria McDowell, tenants at 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7, Santa Monica, CA 90405.
The core issue is straightforward and legally dispositive: The Landlord — Santa Monica Art Colony LLC / Howard Management — established and agreed to a per diem relocation obligation of $473.00 per night in writing, through Habitability Determination HD 11536 (issued February 19, 2026) and through its own cancelled checks confirming that rate. That obligation has never been modified by any written submission, amended plan, or written notice as the Santa Monica Municipal Code expressly requires. A verbal statement — including the statement memorialized in the City's May 15, 2026 email that "Based on Chris's statements, relocation did not have to be provided anymore" — is a legal nullity under SMMC §§ 8.100.030(b), 8.100.010(e),
4.36.100(c)(7), and 8.100.040(a). It does not and cannot extinguish, suspend, or retroactively pardon this accrued obligation.
As of June 1, 2026, the outstanding balance is $36,421.00 (77 unpaid nights × $473.00, March 16 – June 1, 2026), continuing to accrue at $473.00 every additional day until a written lifting order, consistent with the express terms of HD 11536, is validly served on the McDowells.
The attached Compliance Deficiency Log further documents fourteen (14) independent violations of SMMC Chapter 8.100, including the foundational deficiencies that the Relocation Plan attached to Permit No. 26BLD0578 was incomplete and never modified or re-noticed prior to permit issuance as the Code mandates.
Specifically:
The Relocation Plan (Attachment A) was signed February 25, 2026 and lists only Per Diem as the relocation benefit — checked by the Landlord, agreed to in writing, and never changed by any lawful written process.
No amended plan was ever submitted, approved, or noticed to the tenants prior to or after permit issuance (~April 28, 2026).
The permit itself is procedurally defective — issued without the mandatory MMP pre-approval, without a City-approved Relocation Plan, and without the written § 8.100.040(a) tenant notice, all of which are nonwaivable preconditions to permit issuance.
We respectfully demand that the City:
1. Immediately enforce the per diem obligation as written and agreed to in HD 11536 and confirmed by the Landlord's own checks;
2. Issue written confirmation that no amended plan, no written modification, and no written § 8.100.040(a) notice modifying the relocation obligation was ever submitted, approved, or served; 6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r4778079023203… 1/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments)
3. Confirm in writing that any verbal determination suspending or terminating the per diem has no legal effect under the Code;
4. Direct immediate payment of the $36,421.00 past-due balance, with accrual continuing at $473.00/night;
5. Address the fourteen compliance deficiencies documented in the attached Log, including the Building Officer's continuing authority to halt construction under SMMC § 8.100.010(f) until full Chapter 8.100 compliance is achieved; and
6. Issue a written lifting order simultaneously to the McDowells and the Landlord if and when the unit is lawfully restored to habitability.
The McDowells expressly reserve all rights and remedies under SMMC Chapters 4.36, 8.100, 4.56, and 4.28, California Civil Code §§ 1941–1942.5, and all other applicable law. Nothing herein constitutes a waiver of any right or remedy, including accrued per diem, moving, storage, unpacking costs, and all consequential damages.
We look forward to the City's written response to each demand.
Respectfully,
Clarence & Victoria McDowell
1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 291-4468
[email protected]
On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 1:38 PM Clarence McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Cochee, Ms. Campos, and Ms. Ganschow,
I write to memorialize the substance of today's call and to renew several pending requests.
Summary of Today's Call — June 2, 2026, 12:28 PM
At approximately 12:28 PM today, Mr. Cochee called me with Ms. Campos on the line. I advised at the outset that I intended to record the call, consistent with my prior written notice of this practice provided in our correspondence of May 28, 2026, and consistent with California law which permits recording with notice to all parties. Mr. Cochee declined to proceed on a recorded call. Because this matter spans nearly ten months of displacement, involves multiple Code Enforcement determinations made verbally and without simultaneous written notice to us, and because this very call was arranged in lieu of written responses to our outstanding demands, I was not in a position to participate in a call that would produce no verifiable record. Accordingly, I advised that I could not continue the call without either recording it or having my wife, Victoria McDowell, on the line as a second witness, and the call ended.
I want to be direct: we are not seeking to be adversarial. We are seeking an accurate, verifiable record of any determination, commitment, or representation made by Code Enforcement — the same standard that Code Enforcement itself applies in requiring written demands from us. Since the landlord's suspension of our mandatory relocation benefits was predicated on an alleged verbal statement from a Code Enforcement officer with no written order to support it, the need for a documented record of any future communication could not be more apparent.
Relocation Plan Request — SMMC § 8.100.030
During the call, I asked Mr. Cochee to provide a copy of the Relocation Plan the landlord was required to submit prior to building permit issuance under SMMC § 8.100.030, along with the required pre-work tenant notices under SMMC §
8.100.040(a). Mr. Cochee indicated he would look into this and proposed rescheduling the meeting. This request has now been made in writing in our 12th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration dated June 1, 2026, and remains outstanding.
Note on Meeting Time Requests
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r4778079023203… 2/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Mr. Cochee indicated on today's call that he was unaware of my prior request that he propose two specific time options for our meeting. I note respectfully that this request has been made in writing on multiple occasions: in our correspondence of May 28, 2026, May 29, 2026, June 1, 2026 (11th Request), and again this morning at 7:02 AM and 8:41 AM.
Rescheduling Request
We remain willing and ready to speak with you and Ms. Campos. However, as I stated to Mr. Cochee on this morning's email exchange: given that (a) Mr. Cochee has declined to record the call, and (b) this entire matter involves determinations that were made verbally without written confirmation — a practice Mr. Cochee himself confirmed should not happen — we ask that as a condition of rescheduling and in lieu of recording the call at your request, Mr.
Cochee please see the attached questions and provide written answers to our yes/no questions before we speak again.
As Mr. Cochee noted in his June 2, 2026 email: "I answered in detail previous questions you have asked. I'm not going to go down another list of questions and answer them." We respectfully disagree that this is a reasonable position. The record reflects that we answered every written question Code Enforcement asked of us, promptly and in full — in many cases the same evening the question was posed. We are asking for the same standard of written accountability in return.
Please respond in writing with:
1. Two proposed meeting times (date and time) this week or next, so that we may confirm one — with my wife Victoria McDowell also present on the call.
2. Written answers to our yes/no questions submitted in our correspondence of June 1, 2026, prior to any call taking place.
3. Confirmation of whether a Relocation Plan under SMMC § 8.100.030 was submitted by the landlord before the permits associated with Stop Work Order CESWO-1153 were issued — and if so, a copy; if not, confirmation of that fact.
We continue to cooperate fully and in good faith. We are a family that has been displaced for nearly ten months from a three-level, 1,800 sq. ft. home, funding our own housing and storage out of pocket, while the law places that obligation squarely on the landlord. We are asking only that Code Enforcement document its positions in the same written form it requires of us.
All rights under SMMC Chapter 4.36, SMMC 4.56, SMMC 4.28, SMMC Chapter 8.100, California Civil Code §§ 1941, 1942, 1942.4, and 1942.5, California Health & Safety Code § 17920.3, and all applicable state and local law are expressly reserved. Nothing in this correspondence constitutes a waiver of any claim, right, or remedy available to Clarence and Victoria McDowell.
Respectfully,
Clarence & Victoria McDowell
1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-291-4468
[email protected]
On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 8:41 AM Clarence McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Cochee,
I understand your reply. However, given that a large part of this matter relies upon verbal interpretations and direction's given by code enforcement, would it not be prudent for us to have written answer’s to our questions so that there is no doubt about code enforcement’s position on a given question?
Respectfully,
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r4778079023203… 3/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Clarence McDowell
All Rights Reserved
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 2, 2026, at 8:02 AM, Maurice Cochee <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Mr. McDowell,
Please read my response. I said we could discuss your concerns during our phone conversation today. I never said I was refusing to answer your questions. I am not going to respond in writing — I responded to your original questions in detail and would expect you to answer a few follow-up questions in kind. Instead, you didn't answer some of my questions, and the one you did answer was not clear.
Let's discuss your concerns during our phone conversation today.
Thanks,
<image001.png>
Maurice Cochee
Code Enforcement Supervisor
Code Enforcement Division
(310) 458-4984 ext. 5788
santamonica.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates
From: Clarence McDowell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 7:02 AM
To: Maurice Cochee <[email protected]>
Cc: Laura Campos <[email protected]>; Romy Ganschow <[email protected]>; Victoria McDowell (Isis) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 12th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration – Answers to Mr. Cochee's Questions / Questions and Requests For Mr. Cochee and Ms. Campos
EXTERNAL
Mr. Cochee,
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r4778079023203… 4/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Please confirm: Are you refusing to answer our yes/no questions in writing? If so, please explain why refusing to respond to our questions is a productive step towards finding the "Right" resolution that serves the public, especially after you asked us to respond in writing to your questions? Is that fair and are you looking to be fair in your discussions and/or decisions?
Respectfully,
Respectfully,
Clarence & Vicki McDowell
1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 291-4468
[email protected]
On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 6:12 AM Maurice Cochee <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Mr. McDowell,
We can discuss your concerns over the phone. I answered in detail previous questions you have asked. I’m not going to go down another list of questions and answer them. We can discuss your concerns below during the phone call today and we can clarify any answers to the previous questions you asked.
Thanks,
<image001.png>
Maurice Cochee
Code Enforcement Supervisor
Code Enforcement Division
(310) 458-4984 ext. 5788
santamonica.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates
From: Clarence McDowell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 7:40 PM
To: Maurice Cochee <[email protected]>
Cc: Laura Campos <[email protected]>; Romy Ganschow <[email protected]>; Victoria McDowell (Isis) <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 12th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration – Answers to Mr. Cochee's Questions / Questions and Requests For Mr. Cochee and Ms. Campos
EXTERNAL
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r4778079023203… 5/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Mr. Cochee,
We look forward to speaking with you and Ms. Campos tomorrow. Thank you for submitting your three (3) questions in reply to our 11th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration email, which are:
How many bedrooms and bathrooms does your unit have?
Answer: 2 bedrooms / 2 full bathrooms
Did your renter’s insurance company pay for the removal and storage of your items last year? Answer: Yes, insurance paid to pack and store all of our belongings from the 3rd level, the area directly affected by the fire.
Why weren’t your items removed last year?
Answer: At the time, it wasn't known that our belongings on the 2nd and ground floors needed to be moved out entirely instead of just being moved from side to side or level until the full extent of the damage caused by the landlord's failure to remediate was determined. That determination revealed extensive mold and water damage in the walls down to the ground floor. That by the way, is exactly why Mr. Cope stated in his STOP WORK order the following after inspecting the unit:
""OBSERVED WATER EXPOSURE ON ALL 3 LEVELS – BATHROOM, KITCHEN/LIVING ROOM. RELOCATION BENEFITS ARE REQUIRED TO THE TENANTS DUE TO THE
LANDLORD FAILING TO ACT DILIGENTLY TO RESTORE THE UNIT TO A HABITABLE CONDITION AND RETURNING ALL AFFECTED TENANTS TO THEIR UNIT. SMMC 4.36.100 B. NO POWER."
Further, we want to note that Mr. Cope DID NOT attribute any fault to us as tenants for the damage he observed in the SWO/HD determination. The STOP WORK order form clearly provides a place to indicate any attribution that could be caused by tenants; if checked, this area would be the clearest indication of a possible reduction in relocation benefits. In this case, no boxes in this area were checked, therefore Mr. Cope's intention was as written: "RELOCATION
BENEFITS ARE REQUIRED TO THE TENANTS DUE TO THE LANDLORD FAILING TO ACT DILIGENTLY TO RESTORE THE UNIT ".
We also have two requests and a list of yes/no questions for you and Ms. Campos to answer:
Requests:
Relocation Plan - Please provide a copy of the required relocation plan the Landlord submitted prior to receiving the building permits or confirm no plan was submitted.
Tenant Notices - Please provide copies of the tenant notices the Landlord was required to send us before permit issuance and construction began, or confirm no notice(s) were submitted.
Questions:
On the Written Lifting Order
Yes or No: Has Code Enforcement ever issued a formal written order lifting the February 19, 2026 Relocation Order, with an effective date, legal basis, and per diem accounting, as required by the order's own terms?
Yes or No: Do you agree that without such a written lifting order, the original Relocation Order remains legally in effect?
On the Comparability Determination
Yes or No: Does Officer Cope's habitability determination in your file document the unit as having three levels?
Yes or No: Was the May 14, 2026 comparability determination for Sawtelle based on the assumption that Unit 7 was a two-bedroom, two-bathroom flat?
Yes or No: Was a physical inspection of 1011 Pico Unit 7 conducted before issuing the Sawtelle comparability determination?
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r4778079023203… 6/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Yes or No: Was school proximity considered in the Sawtelle comparability determination, as required under SMMC 4.36.010?
Yes or No: Was home-based business/work-from-home suitability evaluated as part of the Sawtelle comparability determination?
Yes or No: Do you agree a comparability determination based on incorrect unit facts is legally void? On Per Diem Payments
Yes or No: Do you agree the landlord's own checks confirm the established per diem rate is $473.00 per night?
Yes or No: Do you agree the landlord's last payment covered only through March 16, 2026? Yes or No: Do you agree that under SMMC 4.36.100(c)(2), once displacement exceeded 30 days, all per diem payments were required to be prepaid weekly?
Yes or No: Do you agree that not a single per diem payment was ever made in advance over the course of this displacement?
Yes or No: Does Code Enforcement agree there is a minimum $10,879.00 unpaid per diem gap between March 16 and April 8, 2026, even using the City's own termination date? On Notice & Procedure
Yes or No: Was written notice of the April 8, 2026 benefit termination served on the tenants simultaneously with Howard Management?
Yes or No: Do you agree Code Enforcement policy requires simultaneous notice to both tenant and landlord for any relocation determination?
On Moving/Storage/Packing Costs
Yes or No: Do the City's own July 2025 Temporary Tenant Relocation Assistance guidelines state the landlord "must" pay all actual reasonable moving costs including packing and unpacking? Yes or No: Is there any provision in SMMC Chapter 4.36 or the July 2025 guidelines that grants Code Enforcement discretion to exempt a landlord from the moving cost obligation? On Tenant Fault
Yes or No: Does Officer Cope's February 19, 2026 determination leave the "Tenant Responsible" box unchecked?
Yes or No: Does SERVPRO's February 9, 2026 written communication to Howard Management state the packout delay was caused by an insurance coordination issue — not tenant refusal? Yes or No: Do you agree Code Enforcement cannot simultaneously rely on Officer Cope's findings to trigger relocation obligations while contradicting those same findings to blame tenants for construction delays?
On the Relocation Plan (SMMC § 8.100.030)
Yes or No: Was the landlord required to submit a Relocation Plan to tenants prior to issuance of the building permit under SMMC § 8.100.030?
Yes or No: Did the landlord ever provide the tenants a written Relocation Plan before or after permit issuance?
Thank you again for your time. Please provide suggested times for us to speak tomorrow.
Respectfully,
Clarence & Victoria McDowell
1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 291-4468
[email protected]
All rights are expressly reserved, including but not limited to all claims for:
All unpaid relocation per diem accrued at $473.00/night through the date a valid written lifting order is served on us
All moving, packing, storage, and unpacking costs under SMMC § 4.36.100 and the City's July 2025 Temporary Tenant Relocation Assistance guidelines
All unreimbursed Airbnb charges ($8,932.83) and storage costs ($633.04) All rights under SMMC Chapter 4.36 (Tenant Temporary Relocation Assistance) All rights under SMMC Chapter 8.100 (Tenant Protection During Construction) All rights under SMMC § 4.56 (Administrative Hearings)
All rights under SMMC § 4.28 (Housing Anti-Discrimination Ordinance) 6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r4778079023203… 7/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) All rights under SMMC §§ 8.08.050, 8.08.070, 8.08.120 (Building Permits and Stop Work Orders) All rights under California Civil Code §§ 1941, 1942, 1942.4, and 1942.5 All rights under California Health & Safety Code § 17920.3 All applicable civil remedies available under state and local law Nothing in this or any prior correspondence constitutes a waiver of any claim, right, or remedy available to Clarence and Victoria McDowell.
On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 4:59 PM Clarence McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mr. Cochee, Ms. Campos, and Ms. Ganschow,
Thank you again for agreeing to speak with us tomorrow. Please provide your questions and available times for us to speak so that we may clear our schedule to speak with you.
We look forward to that call and welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters directly. Without question, this is now our twelfth formal request for clarification and reconsideration regarding the ongoing and unlawful suspension of mandatory relocation benefits at 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7, Santa Monica, CA 90405.
This letter raises a new and independently controlling ground that has not been addressed in any prior written response from Code Enforcement: the landlord's complete failure to submit and the City's complete failure to require a Relocation Plan under SMMC § 8.100.030 before any permit was issued. This is not a procedural technicality. It is a mandatory statutory prerequisite to permit issuance under the City's own code, and its absence means the landlord's permit issuance did not and cannot satisfy his relocation obligations. It also means there is no legal basis on which Code Enforcement could have properly terminated relocation benefits at any point in this matter.
We write because the same pattern that has defined this case from the beginning—adverse determinations made verbally, without notice to us, without citation to law, and in favor of the landlord—has continued. On May 15, 2026, Mr. Shaposhnik of Howard Management stated by email: "Based on Chris's statements, relocation did not have to be provided anymore." That statement confirms the landlord unilaterally suspended benefits based solely on an alleged verbal communication from a City employee with no written lifting order ever issued to us. The February 19, 2026 Habitability Determination (HD 11536, Case No. 25-COM-1882) could not be clearer: "Relocation benefits shall continue to be provided until this Order is lifted by the Code Enforcement Officer or Building Manager." No such lifting order has ever been served on us. The relocation order remains in effect.
I. THE RELOCATION PLAN — A MANDATORY PREREQUISITE THE
LANDLORD NEVER MET
Under SMMC § 8.100.030, before any permit for the alteration, repair, or rehabilitation of a tenant-occupied residential building may be issued where temporary relocation is required, the owner must submit a Relocation Plan to the Building Officer. That plan must contain:
1. The fair and reasonable relocation benefits to be provided to all displaced tenants under SMMC § 4.36.100;
2. The timing of displacement, provided to all displaced tenants;
3. All required tenant notices under SMMC § 8.100.040(a);
4. Verification that sufficient comparable temporary housing is available; and
5. Verification that the owner has adequate financial resources to provide relocation benefits throughout the displacement period.
No Relocation Plan was ever prepared, submitted, or approved in connection with the permits issued for 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7. We have asked Code Enforcement to confirm this in writing in every letter since our 9th Request. We have received no response. If such a plan exists, we respectfully demand a copy. If it does not exist—as we believe the record will confirm—we demand an explanation of how permits were lawfully issued without it and what enforcement action will follow.
Under SMMC § 8.100.010(b), the owner was also required to submit a Construction Means and Method Plan before any permit issued or work began. No such plan was ever submitted or approved. Under SMMC §
8.100.010(f), the Building Officer may stop construction at any time until all requirements of Chapter 8.100 are satisfied. Stop Work Order CESWO-1153, issued January 2, 2026, was legally required and appropriate. But the issuance of permits on or about April 28, 2026 without a Relocation Plan did not resolve the landlord's obligations under Chapter 8.100, because the foundational condition for permit issuance was never met. 6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r4778079023203… 8/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) II. NO PRE-WORK TENANT NOTICE WAS EVER PROVIDED
Under SMMC § 8.100.040(a), the landlord was required to provide written notice to us the displaced tenants before any work began under the permits. That notice must include:
The nature and scope of work to be performed;
The anticipated start and completion dates;
The estimated duration of displacement;
The relocation benefits to be provided; and
Our right to return to the unit upon completion.
We never received any such notice. Not one element of the required pre-work tenant notice was ever delivered to us not in writing, not verbally, not at all. This is an independent documented violation of SMMC § 8.100.040 that Code Enforcement has not cited, not investigated, and not addressed in any of its prior written responses. Under SMMC § 8.100.010(f), the absence of this notice is itself grounds to stop all construction.
III. THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCE: RELOCATION BENEFITS WERE NEVER
LAWFULLY SUSPENDED
Because no Relocation Plan was ever submitted under SMMC § 8.100.030, and because we never received the pre-work tenant notice required by SMMC § 8.100.040, the relocation obligation established by HD 11536 has never been lawfully suspended or terminated. The Determination itself states that benefits continue until the order is lifted in writing. The City's own July 2025 Temporary Tenant Relocation Assistance guidelines confirm that relocation benefits end only when (1) the tenant returns to the unit, or (2) the tenancy is legally terminated. Neither has occurred. We remain displaced. The unit remains without power, with a dismantled kitchen, and a torn-apart bathroom. The tenancy has not been terminated.
Had a Relocation Plan been properly required and enforced, it would have been required to verify comparable housing and adequate resources — the two issues that have been in dispute throughout this nine-month displacement. The failure to require this plan is not a clerical oversight. It is the foundational enforcement gap that has allowed the landlord to operate outside the law at our family's direct and ongoing financial expense.
IV. THE LANDLORD'S CONTINUING PATTERN OF NON-COMPLIANCE The Relocation Plan failure is the latest in a documented, ongoing pattern of landlord non-compliance that Code Enforcement has either failed to address or actively chosen not to enforce:
Violation Governing Code Status
Commenced remediation work without
permits (Sept.–Dec. 2025) SMMC § 8.08.050
Resulted in CESWO-1153 issued
Jan. 2, 2026
Stop Work Order unresolved for ~4
months SMMC § 8.08.120
Permits not picked up until ~April
28, 2026
No Relocation Plan submitted before
permit issuance SMMC § 8.100.030 Never submitted; never enforced No pre-work tenant notice provided SMMC § 8.100.040 Never provided; never enforced 6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r4778079023203… 9/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Violation Governing Code Status
Failed to pay per diem in weekly
advance increments (30+ day
displacement) SMMC § 4.36.100(c)(2)
Confirmed in writing by CES
Cochee; no enforcement action
Underpaid per diem — minimum
$10,879.00 gap (Mar. 16 – Apr. 8, 2026) SMMC § 4.36.100(c)(1) Documented; no enforcement
action
Failed to pay moving, packing, storage,
and unpacking costs
SMMC § 4.36.100 /
July 2025 Guidelines
Verbally excused by Code
Enforcement without legal basis
Comparability determination based on
incorrect unit description SMMC § 4.36.010
Unit 7 is ~1,800 sq. ft. / 3-level;
CE described it as "2 bed/2 bath"
Terminated Airbnb relocation
arrangement without written notice SMMC § 4.36.100(c)(2) Not addressed; not enforced Missed 7-day repair commitment after
permit pickup (~May 5, 2026)
HD 11536 Repair
Obligation
30+ days past due; no
enforcement action
Suspended per diem based solely on
alleged verbal statement from "Chris"
HD 11536 / SMMC §
4.36.100
No written lifting order ever served
on tenants
In every instance where a determination favored the landlord, Code Enforcement acted without prior written notice to us. In every instance where enforcement would have benefited us, Code Enforcement did not act. We raise this pattern not as an accusation but as documented fact because the record requires us to.
V. CODE ENFORCEMENT'S FAILURE TO ENFORCE
We want to be direct: we respect the work Code Enforcement does and we are not adversaries of this process. But we cannot ignore what the record shows.
The April 8, 2026 relocation benefit termination was communicated to Howard Management without simultaneous written notice to us. Your own written policy, confirmed by both Mr. Cochee and Ms. Campos on May 14 and May 15, 2026, states that determinations are issued to both the tenant and the landlord simultaneously. That did not happen here. We discovered the termination only after the landlord had already been told he no longer had to pay and only because we called Code Enforcement to request enforcement.
A relocation benefit determination disclosed to the benefiting party while being withheld from the protected party cannot lawfully cut off that party's accruing rights. That is not a rule we invented; it is the plain consequence of Code Enforcement's own stated policy and basic principles of procedural fairness.
The failure to require the Relocation Plan under SMMC § 8.100.030 compounds this. Had a Relocation Plan been required and submitted as the code mandates, it would have placed the landlord's specific commitment to comparable housing, the timeline of displacement, and verified proof of adequate resources on the public record before a single permit was issued. None of that happened. The permit issued without it. And our family has paid the price.
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 10/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) VI. FORMAL DEMANDS — 12th REQUEST
We respectfully demand written responses to each of the following within five (5) business days:
Demand No. 1 — Relocation Plan Confirmation
Confirm in writing whether a Relocation Plan under SMMC § 8.100.030 was submitted by Santa Monica Art Colony LLC or Howard Management before the permits associated with Stop Work Order CESWO-1153 were issued. If yes, provide a copy. If no, confirm what enforcement action Code Enforcement will take and on what timeline, given that permit issuance without a required Relocation Plan is itself a violation of the City's own code.
Demand No. 2 — Pre-Work Tenant Notice Confirmation
Confirm in writing whether we received the pre-work tenant notice required by SMMC § 8.100.040(a) before any construction began under the permits issued on or about April 28, 2026. If no such notice was provided, confirm what enforcement action will be taken.
Demand No. 3 — Written Lifting Order
Provide a copy of any written order lifting Habitability Determination HD 11536 and the associated Relocation Order — including the effective date, the name of the authorizing officer, and the full legal basis — or confirm in writing that no such lifting order has been issued, that the original Relocation Order therefore remains in full effect, and that relocation benefits continue to accrue at $473.00 per night until a valid written lifting order is simultaneously served on both us and the landlord.
Demand No. 4 — Full Per Diem Accounting and Enforcement Provide a written accounting confirming: (a) the total per diem accrued at $473.00/night from the date the relocation obligation was confirmed through the date any valid written lifting order is served on us; (b) the total amount paid by the landlord; (c) the outstanding balance, including at minimum the $10,879.00 gap for March 16 – April 8, 2026; and (d) the specific enforcement action and timeline to compel full payment.
Demand No. 5 — Moving, Packing, Storage, and Unpacking Costs Confirm in writing, with citation to specific code, Code Enforcement's current position on whether the landlord is required to pay all actual and reasonable moving, packing, storage, and unpacking costs under the City's July 2025 Temporary Tenant Relocation Assistance guidelines and SMMC § 4.36.100. If Code Enforcement maintains these costs are not owed, identify the specific statutory authority that overrides the "must" language in the City's own published guidelines.
Demand No. 6 — Binding Construction Deadline with Penalties Provide a written enforcement order establishing a specific, binding deadline for the completion of all remediation work at Unit 7, with daily penalties for non-compliance under SMMC § 8.04.010, and confirm what sanctions will be imposed for the landlord's failure to complete repairs within the 7-day window committed to in the City's own citation — now more than 30 days past due.
Demand No. 7 — Complete Comparability Re-Determination
Issue a complete written comparability determination for 2852 Sawtelle Blvd. that addresses all factors required by SMMC § 4.36.010, including: (a) size and three-level configuration (~1,800 sq. ft. three-level loft vs. ~925–950 sq. ft. single-floor unit); (b) school proximity for our son who attends Santa Monica High School; (c) home-business and work-from-home suitability; (d) private outdoor space and secured entrances; and (e) all other amenities and services our household depends upon. This determination must be consistent with Officer Cope's own February 19, 2026 finding that Unit 7 has "3 LEVELS" and must address each factor individually, in writing, with citation to SMMC § 4.36.010.
We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking only that the City apply its own laws — including SMMC §§ 8.100.030, 8.100.040, 4.36.010, and 4.36.100 as written, to a family that has now been displaced from our three-level, approximately 1,800 square foot home for over nine months, while funding our own housing and storage without reimbursement, while our son attends school in a neighborhood we can no longer walk to, and while Mr. McDowell attempts to operate his business from temporary housing we continue to pay for out of pocket.
We remain ready to cooperate fully on any coordinated packout and return-to-unit plan, provided the landlord meets his statutory obligations. We look forward to speaking this week.
All rights are expressly reserved, including but not limited to all claims for:
All unpaid relocation per diem accrued at $473.00/night through the date a valid written lifting order is served on us
All moving, packing, storage, and unpacking costs under SMMC § 4.36.100 and the City's July 2025 Temporary Tenant Relocation Assistance guidelines
All unreimbursed Airbnb charges ($8,932.83) and storage costs ($633.04) All rights under SMMC Chapter 4.36 (Tenant Temporary Relocation Assistance) All rights under SMMC Chapter 8.100 (Tenant Protection During Construction) All rights under SMMC § 4.56 (Administrative Hearings)
All rights under SMMC § 4.28 (Housing Anti-Discrimination Ordinance) All rights under SMMC §§ 8.08.050, 8.08.070, 8.08.120 (Building Permits and Stop Work Orders) 6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 11/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) All rights under California Civil Code §§ 1941, 1942, 1942.4, and 1942.5 All rights under California Health & Safety Code § 17920.3 All applicable civil remedies available under state and local law Nothing in this or any prior correspondence constitutes a waiver of any claim, right, or remedy available to Clarence and Victoria McDowell.
We respectfully request written responses to all seven demands within five (5) business days of the date of this letter.
Respectfully submitted,
Clarence & Victoria McDowell
1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 291-4468
[email protected]
June 1, 2026
This is the McDowell family's twelfth written request for clarification and reconsideration in Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESWO-1153. It is submitted for the record and preserved for any subsequent administrative or judicial proceeding .
On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 10:45 AM Clarence McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mr. Cochee, Ms. Campos, and Ms. Ganschow,
First, Mr. Cochee, thank you for your earlier email today. We understand you want Ms. Campos included on the call, and since she is not in today, you want to reschedule for tomorrow, Tuesday. 6/2. With that in mind, please send us your questions and please provide two time options for the call and we will confirm one. Thank you again for looking into this matter.
As you know, this is our eleventh formal request for clarification and reconsideration regarding the ongoing and unlawful suspension of mandatory relocation benefits at 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7, Santa Monica, CA 90405.
To add further clarity to this matter, we write to bring to the City's attention yet another critical and harmful development in this matter: the landlord's property management company, Howard Management (Fillip Shaposhnik), unilaterally suspended relocation benefits based solely on what it characterizes as a verbal statement from a City employee named "Chris" (presumably code enforcement officer Chris Cope) with no written lifting order ever issued by the Code Enforcement Officer or Building Manager.
On May 15, 2026, Mr. Shaposhnik stated by email: "Based on Chris's statements, relocation did not have to be provided anymore." We attach that email as evidence. This position is directly contrary to the City's February 19, 2026 Habitability Determination (HD 11536, Case No. 25-COM-1882), which states in explicit terms: "Relocation benefits shall continue to be provided until this Order is lifted by the Code Enforcement Officer or Building Manager." No such written lifting order has ever been served upon us.
The City's own July 2025 Temporary Tenant Relocation Assistance guidance confirms that relocation benefits end in only two ways: (1) the tenant returns to the unit, or (2) the tenancy is legally terminated. Neither condition has occurred. The unit remains uninhabitable. We remain displaced. The tenancy has not been terminated.
The landlord's reliance on an alleged verbal statement rather than a formal written City order to justify the suspension of mandatory per diem payments and moving cost obligations has caused us direct and ongoing financial harm, including:
Unpaid per diem from 3/16/26 through the present, at the established rate of $473.00/night, totaling thousands of dollars;
Unreimbursed Airbnb charges of $8,932.83;
Storage costs of $633.04;
Refusal to commit in writing to cover mandatory packing, transport, and unpacking costs under SMMC §4.36.100.
We respectfully demand that the City:
1. Confirm in writing whether the February 19, 2026 Relocation Order (HD 11536) has been formally lifted — and if so, provide the date, the name of the authorizing officer, and a copy of the written lifting order;
2. Direct Howard Management to immediately resume all relocation benefit payments and fulfill all outstanding financial obligations under SMMC §4.36.100;
3. Issue appropriate enforcement action, including administrative citations, for the landlord's unauthorized suspension of relocation benefits.
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 12/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) We have cooperated throughout this process in good faith. We remain displaced, the unit remains uninhabitable, and the landlord continues to act outside the bounds of the law based on an unverified verbal communication.
This is unacceptable and demands immediate City intervention.
All rights are expressly reserved, including but not limited to claims for all unpaid relocation benefits, consequential damages, and any other remedies available under the Santa Monica Municipal Code, California Civil Code, and applicable law.
Respectfully submitted,
Clarence & Victoria McDowell
1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 291-4468 | [email protected]
Attachment: May 15, 2026 Email Chain — Howard Management (Fillip Shaposhnik) re: Verbal Termination of Relocation Benefits
On Sun, May 31, 2026 at 2:33 PM Clarence McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mr. Cochee, Ms. Campos, and Ms. Ganschow,
Mr. Cochee, since we have not yet received your questions in advance of our meeting on Monday, 6/1, in the interest of time, we have researched and are now providing additional information that confirms our claim of non-comparability.
Based the newly validated info, we again request written clarification and reconsideration of Code Enforcement’s determinations regarding our temporary relocation benefits based on the comparability of the proposed replacement housing at 2852 Sawtelle Blvd, and the status of the February 19, 2026 relocation/habitability order for our unit at 1011 Pico Blvd, Unit 7. Despite multiple prior letters and emails, key issues remain unresolved in writing. Meanwhile, our family continues to fund housing and storage costs that the Santa Monica Municipal Code and the City’s own Temporary Tenant Relocation Assistance guidelines assign to the landlord.
We respectfully submit the attached Exhibit A – Unit Comparability Matrix (1011 Pico Unit 7 vs. 1011 Pico vs. 2852 Sawtelle Blvd) and incorporate it by reference. This exhibit summarizes the objective, publicly documented differences between our existing unit (1011 Pico Unit 7) and the proposed Sawtelle unit.
Unit Comparability - Pictures/Video:
1011 Pico 7 - As of 5/30/26, the 1,800 sq. ft. unit's kitchen and one bathroom remain dismantled with exposed walls and no power. - Youtube link - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFVi1dhQ0_ mBvsmIUx11xZZqY9cjeT14t
2852 Sawtelle - Apartments.com lists a 2 bedroom / 2 bath unit with an avg. of 925 sq. ft., not 950 sqft as reported to Code Enforcement. The unit has wall mounted a/c instead of central a/c, no laundry room and no dedicated workspace. To view pictures of a 2bd/2ba Sawtelle unit go to: https://www.apartments.com/2852-sawtelle-blvd-los-angeles-ca-unit-apt-33/46rfe4j? utm_source=shared_listing&utm_medium=direct
Argument: 2852 Sawtelle Does Not Meet SMMC 4.36.010’s
Multi‑Factor Comparability Standard
Under SMMC 4.36.010 and the City’s July 2025 Temporary Tenant Relocation Assistance guidelines, “comparable housing” must be reasonably comparable not just in bedroom and bathroom count, but in size, configuration, location, proximity to services and institutions upon which the displaced person depends, accessibility, and other amenities. The City’s own relocation explainer further confirms that relocation benefits continue “as long as the tenant is required to stay out of the unit,” and that landlords must either pay a per diem or provide alternate comparable housing when a tenant is forced to vacate his/her rental housing temporarily. Therefore, focusing only on the “2 bed / 2 bath” count contradicts the plain language and purpose of the ordinance and guidelines.
First, as documented in the February 19, 2026 habitability determination, 1011 Pico Blvd, Unit 7 is a three‑level loft/townhouse‑style unit of approximately 1,800 sq. ft., with three distinct levels of living space, two full bathrooms, a private patio, and three separate locked entrances. Public listings for the same building (including Units 16 and 13) confirm that 1011 Pico’s two‑bedroom units are marketed with central heat and A/C, balconies or decks, secured intercom entry, shared on‑site laundry, and parking included, all in a modern industrial‑style building with a central grassy courtyard in Santa Monica’s Pico neighborhood. By contrast, the proposed replacement at 2852 Sawtelle Blvd is a single‑floor, approximately 950–987 sq. ft. 2‑bed/2‑bath condo in West Los Angeles/Mar Vista, with wall‑mounted A/C, in‑unit laundry hookups (machines not provided), one tandem parking space, and no multi‑level configuration, private patio, or multiple entrances comparable to Unit 7. A sub‑1,000 sq. ft. single‑floor flat is not reasonably comparable in size, configuration, or amenities to a three‑level, ~1,800 sq. ft. loft with a private patio and three entrances. 6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 13/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Second, location, school proximity, program protections, and work‑from‑home needs independently demonstrate non‑comparability. 1011 Pico, Unit 7 is a City of Santa Monica deed‑restricted property in the Pico neighborhood, within walking distance of our son’s high school and covered by Santa Monica’s tenant relocation and anti‑discrimination provisions. Unit 13 in the same building is explicitly advertised as a City‑approved low‑income unit, underscoring that this property is part of a regulated affordable housing program. The Sawtelle unit, by contrast, is a standard market‑rate condo in West Los Angeles, outside the City of Santa Monica, not walkable to the same high school, and not subject to Santa Monica’s low‑income or deed‑restriction protections. Additionally, Mr. McDowell operates a professional home‑based business from Unit 7, relying on a dedicated, physically separated workspace made possible by the three‑level layout—an “other amenity” and “service upon which the displaced person depends” factor that SMMC 4.36.010 and the July 2025 guidelines require Code Enforcement to consider. A single‑floor 2‑bed unit of approximately 950– 987 sq. ft. does not replicate this configuration or functionality. For all of these reasons, 2852 Sawtelle Blvd cannot lawfully be deemed “comparable housing” to 1011 Pico Blvd, Unit 7 under SMMC 4.36.010.
Request for Relief
In light of the factual record and the multi‑factor comparability standard in SMMC 4.36.010 and the City’s July 2025 Temporary Tenant Relocation Assistance guidelines, we respectfully request that Code Enforcement and the City Attorney’s Office take the following actions:
1. Rescind the comparability determination for 2852 Sawtelle Blvd.
Formally withdraw any prior determination that 2852 Sawtelle Blvd is “comparable housing” to 1011 Pico Blvd, Unit 7, on the grounds that it is materially smaller (approximately 950–987 sq. ft. versus ~1,800 sq. ft.), single‑floor rather than three‑level, lacks a private patio and multiple entrances, is located outside the City of Santa Monica and walking distance of our son’s school, and does not replicate the work‑from‑home functionality, low‑income program protections, or other amenities upon which our household depends.
2. Restore and continue temporary relocation benefits until lawful comparable housing is provided or the unit is habitable.
Confirm in writing that, consistent with SMMC 4.36.100 and the City’s July 2025 Temporary Tenant Relocation Assistance guidelines, temporary relocation benefits must continue “as long as the tenant is required to stay out of the unit,” and that such benefits may be satisfied only by either:
Per diem payments paid in advance in weekly increments once displacement exceeds 30 days, or
Alternate housing that is reasonably comparable under all SMMC 4.36.010 factors, including size, configuration, school proximity, program protections, and work‑from‑home needs.
We request written confirmation that benefits will continue until (a) 1011 Pico Unit 7 is fully repaired, inspected, and restored to a habitable condition and we have returned, or (b) a replacement unit that truly meets the multi‑factor comparability standard is accepted in writing by both the tenants and Code Enforcement.
3. Issue a corrected, complete comparability determination for any future replacement housing.
Commit that any future comparability determination will:
Be issued in writing and served simultaneously on both landlord and tenant.
Address, with specific findings, each required SMMC 4.36.010 factor (size, configuration, location, proximity to schools and services, accessibility, work‑from‑home suitability, outdoor space, and other amenities), rather than relying solely on bedroom and bathroom counts.
Explicitly consider the deed‑restricted low‑income status of 1011 Pico Unit 7 and the need to preserve equivalent program protections and tenancy rights.
Account for and enforce unpaid per diem and moving/storage benefits.
4. Provide a written accounting of:
All accrued per diem amounts at the landlord‑established rate of $473.00 per night, calculated from the start of our displacement through the date any valid and properly noticed determination is issued. All per diem amounts actually paid by the landlord and the resulting balance due, including, at minimum, the 23‑night gap between March 16 and April 8, 2026 (10,879.00) that Code Enforcement has already been made aware of in our prior letters.
All moving, packing, storage, and unpacking costs required under the July 2025 guidelines (“the landlord must pay for all actual reasonable moving costs”), and the enforcement action the City will take to compel full payment of these mandatory benefits.
5. Issue the required written lifting order or confirm that the relocation order remains in effect.
Provide either:
A copy of any written order lifting the February 19, 2026 relocation/habitability determination, including the effective date and legal basis; or
Written confirmation that no such lifting order exists, and that the original relocation order therefore remains in effect, with relocation benefits continuing until the unit is repaired and deemed habitable in accordance with SMMC 4.36.100 and the City’s published guidelines. 6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 14/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) We continue to state that "we are not seeking special treatment". We are asking only that the City apply its own laws and published guidelines as written to a displaced low‑income family, in a deed‑restricted unit, who has now been out of their three‑level, ~1,800 sq. ft. home for nearly nine months, while paying out‑of‑pocket for housing and storage that the ordinance makes the landlord’s responsibility.
We respectfully request written responses to each of the five items above within ten (10) days. All rights under SMMC Chapter 4.36, SMMC 4.56, SMMC 4.28, California Civil Code 1941, 1942, and 1942.5, California Health & Safety Code 17980.7, and all other applicable state and local laws are expressly reserved. Nothing in this correspondence constitutes a waiver of any claim, right, or remedy available to Clarence and Victoria McDowell.
Respectfully,
Clarence & Victoria McDowell
1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310‑291‑4468
[email protected]
On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 6:59 PM Clarence McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Cochee,
We did not receive your list of questions or a suggested time for the call. Please send us your questions and two time options to speak, and we will confirm one.
Thank you,
Clarence
On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 7:49 PM Clarence McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Cochee,
Thank you for confirming a call on Monday. We welcome the opportunity to speak directly and look forward to making productive use of your time. To ensure the call is as efficient as possible, we have two requests.
First, please provide your questions in writing before Monday's call. You noted in your reply that you have raised several questions and have yet to receive clear answers. We take that seriously and want to address each one completely and accurately. To do that, we ask that you send your questions to us in writing prior to the call. As you know from the record, we have consistently responded to every written inquiry from Code Enforcement promptly and in full — including providing the unit's square footage, configuration, and a Zillow listing the same evening you asked on May 18, 2026. Receiving your questions in advance will allow us to provide the same quality of response on Monday rather than speaking from memory on matters that span nine months of documentation.
Second, we want to be transparent about the following ground rules for the call:
We respectfully request that any determination, finding, or commitment made during the call be confirmed in writing to both the tenants and the landlord simultaneously, consistent with Code Enforcement's own stated policy.
We are not in a position to waive, modify, or withdraw any of the five written demands in our 9th Request by virtue of a phone call. Those demands remain pending and the ten (10) day written response window continues to run.
We will not be able to respond to new factual questions raised for the first time on the call without the opportunity to consult our documentation. Any new questions raised on Monday will be answered in writing following the call.
Finally, please be advised that I intend to record Monday's call for our records. California law permits recording with notice to all parties. This notice serves as your advance notification that the call will be recorded. Recording is consistent with our longstanding practice of preserving a complete and accurate written record in this matter, and is not intended as any adversarial act. If you have any objection, please notify us in writing before Monday so we can make alternative arrangements. 6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 15/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) We remain committed to resolving this matter cooperatively and in accordance with the law. Please confirm Monday's call time at your earliest convenience so we can clear our calendars accordingly.
Respectfully,
Clarence & Victoria McDowell
1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 291-4468 | [email protected]
All rights under SMMC Chapter 4.36, SMMC 4.56, SMMC 4.28, California Civil Code §§ 1941, 1942, and 1942.5, California Health & Safety Code § 17980.7, and all applicable state and local law are expressly reserved.
On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 6:03 PM Clarence McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Cochee,
Thank you for your reply. To make the best use of your time, could you please send a list of your questions so we can ensure we answer each one? Also, can we set a specific time for our call so I can clear my calendar?
Respectfully,
Clarence
On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 4:51 PM Maurice Cochee <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello McDowell,
I will give you a call on Monday to discuss our ongoing matters. In the meantime, I have carefully reviewed and responded to each of your questions. However, I have also raised several questions of my own and have yet to receive clear answers to any of them.
Please provide responses to my inquiries at your earliest convenience. This will enable me to address some of your additional concerns more effectively.
Thanks,
<image001.png>
Maurice Cochee
Code Enforcement Supervisor
Code Enforcement Division
(310) 458-4984 ext. 5788
santamonica.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 16/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) From: Clarence McDowell <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 4:36 PM
To: Maurice Cochee <[email protected]>
Cc: Laura Campos <[email protected]>; Romy Ganschow <[email protected]>; Victoria McDowell (Isis) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 9th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration – Ongoing Displacement, Missed Repair Deadline, Non‑Comparable Housing, and Unpaid Per Diem Property: 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7, Santa Monica, CA 90405
EXTERNAL
Mrs. Campos,
I want it noted that I called to speak with you. I stated I had a question, but you refused to hear or answer it. Then, you told me Mr. Cochee won't be in until Monday and hung up on me. Do I have that correct?
C
On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 10:28 AM Clarence McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Cochee, Ms. Ganschow, and Ms. Campos,
To ensure there is no doubt, we respectfully request a written response within the next ten (10) days. All rights under SMMC Chapter 4.36, SMMC 4.56, SMMC 4.28, California Civil Code 1941, 1942, and 1942.5, California Health & Safety Code 17980.7, and all other applicable state and local laws are expressly reserved.
Respectfully,
The McDowell's
On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 10:20 AM Clarence McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Cochee,
First, I hope you enjoyed your vacation. We all need a break at times and I trust yours was well deserved. I'm reaching out again with a sense of urgency. My family and I are waiting to hear your decision regarding the underpaid per diem, the erroneous comparable determination and the continued remediation delays that have cost my family well over $10,000 in Airbnb costs due to the delayed repairs.
As you know, the citation estimated repairs should be made within 7 days. Today marks 30 days since the landlord received the permits, we are still displaced and continue to pay nearly double our rent to stay in an Airbnb without relocation benefits that the citation states must continue until the order is lifted.
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 17/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Due to all of the above, we have been forced to drain our savings including part of my daughter's college fund. We are again asking the City: How can we be brought to ruin when the Santa Monica Code enforcement citation clearly states this in bold red ink? <image002.png>
It is our understanding that a unit with no power, kitchen and a torn apart bathroom is still uninhabitable. Is that true? If so, the Citation makes clear that relocation benefits must continue until the Citation is lifted by Code enforcement. Mr. Cochee have you lifted the Citation?
If so, can you please explain the conditions under which Code Enforcement would lift a Citation BEFORE a unit is repaired and deemed habitable? Finally, we just want to know: What have my family and I done to cause the City to NOT honor the terms of the citations it issues? We are hurting, displaced and just want the benefits afforded to a Santa Monica renter before returning to our home. So, please tell us, what can we do to at minimum have the City FULLY enforce its own citations? Respectfully,
Clarence & Vicki McDowerll
PS. Mr. Cochee, you asked about my insurance paying for a pack out. The fire occurred on the top floor and my insurance paid to clear that floor. However, the landlord failed to remediate for two months causing water leak down and mold to grow in the walls down to the ground floor. This required moving more of our belongings AFTER the landlord was cited, which is why we have insisted the landlord pay to pack and move the remaining two floors of belongings.
On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 3:09 PM Clarence McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Cochee, Ms. Ganschow, and Ms. Campos,
This is our eighth written request for clarification and reconsideration regarding our relocation rights and the City’s enforcement actions in connection with 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7. Despite seven prior written requests and a formal complaint, my family remains displaced from our home, key issues remain unaddressed in writing. We now can't help but think the City is somehow motivated to kill my business and run my family out of town without looking at three well-documented facts in this matter that would otherwise cause the City to reverse and correct previous determinations.
First, the landlord has now far exceeded the time given to complete repairs. As we have previously documented, the City advised that the necessary permits were ready for pick‑up in April, and a subsequent citation states that work would be completed within seven days of permit collection. Permits were picked up around April 28, 2026, which means the owner represented that repairs would be completed by approximately the first week of May 2026.
As of today, May 26, 2026, no such completion has occurred, and my family is still out of our home more than three weeks beyond the City‑acknowledged completion window.
Second, we have now repeatedly demonstrated that the Sawtelle unit is not comparable to 1011 Pico, Unit 7 under SMMC 4.36.010 and the City’s own July 2025 Temporary Tenant Relocation Assistance guidelines. Your own file confirms that Unit 7 is a three‑level loft/townhouse‑style unit of approximately 1,800 square feet, with three levels of living space, two full bathrooms, a private patio, and three separate locked entrances. By contrast, 2852 Sawtelle Blvd. is a single‑floor unit of approximately 950 square feet, with none of the multi‑level configuration, private outdoor space, or entrances that define the livability and functional utility of our home. As we have already explained in detail, this 6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 18/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) architectural and functional disparity, combined with school‑proximity and work‑from‑home needs, means Sawtelle cannot lawfully be treated as “comparable housing” within the meaning of SMMC 4.36.010.
Third, the per diem has not been paid in full, and it has never been paid in advance as required once displacement exceeded 30 days. The landlord’s own checks, which you have reviewed, establish a per diem rate of 473.00 per night. Those checks cover nights only through March 16, 2026, while Code Enforcement has asserted that relocation benefits were revoked as of April 8, 2026, leaving a gap of at least 23 nights (March 16– April 8) of unpaid per diem totaling a minimum of 10,879.00, even under the City’s own termination date. SMMC 4.36.100(c)(2) requires that, when displacement is anticipated to exceed 30 days, per diem payments must be prepaid in weekly increments; the record shows that not a single payment was ever made in advance over more than eight months of displacement. We have also documented 9,565.87 in self‑funded, documented relocation housing and storage costs that have not been fully reimbursed.
In prior correspondence you have already confirmed in writing that:
Unit 13 was not comparable housing, meaning the landlord’s first offer never satisfied the relocation obligation.
A landlord’s obligation to provide temporary relocation benefits is self‑executing under SMMC 4.36.100 and does not depend on the City issuing a habitability determination.
Officer Cope’s February 19, 2026 habitability determination states that “tenant relocation benefits are required due to the landlord failing to act diligently,” and leaves the “tenant responsible” box unchecked.
Those findings, combined with the landlord’s missed seven‑day completion window after permit pick‑up and the non‑comparability of the Sawtelle unit, leave us in the same position: displaced for nearly nine months, out of our 1,800 sq. ft. three‑level home, with unpaid per diem and unreimbursed relocation expenses that the City’s own code and guidelines make mandatory.
Accordingly, we respectfully renew and update our requests for written clarification and enforcement as follows:
1. Repair/Completion Deadline Enforcement
Please confirm in writing:
a. The exact date on which the owner picked up the permits associated with Stop Work Order CESWO‑1153, then see the attached City citation stating that work would be completed within seven days.
b. Whether Code Enforcement has determined that the owner failed to meet that seven‑day completion commitment, and if so, what enforcement actions (additional citations, daily penalties, or other remedies) will be taken and on what timeline.
2. Comparability Determination – Sawtelle vs. 1011 Pico Unit 7 Please issue a complete, written comparability determination for 2852 Sawtelle Blvd. that addresses every SMMC 4.36.010 factor, including:
Size and configuration (three‑level, approximately 1,800 sq. ft. loft/townhouse with private patio and three entrances vs. a single‑floor, 950 sq. ft. flat).
Location and proximity to our son’s high school, which is within walking distance of 1011 Pico.
Work‑from‑home and home‑business suitability for a household that depends on a dedicated workspace.
Accessibility and other amenities.
If the City continues to maintain that Sawtelle is comparable, please provide the specific legal and factual basis, with citations to SMMC 4.36.010 and the July 2025 Temporary Tenant Relocation Assistance guidelines.
3. Per Diem Accounting and Enforcement
Please provide a written accounting of:
The total number of nights for which per diem accrued at 473.00/night since our displacement began in September 2025, through the date the City contends benefits were “revoked.”
All per diem amounts actually paid by the landlord (by date and amount), and the resulting balance due, including at minimum the 10,879.00 gap between March 16 and April 8, 2026.
The enforcement action Code Enforcement will take to compel payment of all past‑due per diem in advance, as required by SMMC 4.36.100(c)(2), going forward until our unit is habitable and we have returned. 6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 19/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments)
4. Written Lifting Order for Relocation Benefits
Officer Cope’s February 19, 2026 Relocation/Habitability Determination states that relocation benefits continue until the order is lifted by Code Enforcement or the Building Manager; to date, no written lifting order has ever been served on us.
Please provide:
A copy of any written order lifting relocation benefits, including the effective date and the legal basis; or
Written confirmation that no such lifting order exists and that the original relocation order therefore remains in effect.
5. Confirmation that Our Ongoing Displacement Is Not Attributable to Tenant Misconduct
In light of SERVPRO’s February 9, 2026 written statement that pack‑out delays were caused by an insurance coordination issue, not tenant refusal, and Officer Cope’s finding that relocation is required due to the landlord failing to act diligently, we request written confirmation that Code Enforcement does not attribute our continued displacement or delay in construction to any interference or obstruction by us.
We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking that the laws Santa Monica has enacted—including SMMC 4.36.010 and 4.36.100 and the City’s own July 2025 Temporary Tenant Relocation Assistance guidelines—be applied as written to a family that has now been displaced from an approximately 1,800 sq. ft., three‑level townhouse‑style home for nearly nine months, beyond the owner’s own seven‑day completion commitment, without full payment of the per diem or moving and storage benefits the law makes mandatory.
We respectfully request written responses to all five items above within ten (10) business days. All rights under SMMC Chapter 4.36, SMMC 4.56, SMMC 4.28, California Civil Code 1941, 1942, and 1942.5, California Health & Safety Code 17980.7, and all other applicable state and local law are expressly reserved.
Respectfully,
Clarence & Victoria McDowell
1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310‑291‑4468
[email protected]
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 8:00 AM Clarence McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Cochee, Ms. Ganschow, and Ms. Campos,
This is our seventh written request for clarification and reconsideration. Despite six prior letters and emails, Code Enforcement has still not responded in writing to the specific legal questions raised in our 6th request dated May 18, 2026, has not issued a full comparability determination addressing all SMMC 4.36.010 factors, and has not provided the written lifting order for the relocation benefits that the City's own Relocation Order states is required to terminate those benefits. We write again, as we must, to formally preserve our rights and place a point-by-point refutation of Mr. Cochee's May 14, 2026 statements directly on the record.
REFUTATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT'S MAY 14,
2026 CLAIMS — POINT BY POINT
COCHEE CLAIM NO. 1:
"Our understanding is that your unit has two bedrooms and two bathrooms." REFUTATION:
This foundational premise is factually wrong — and the error originates within Code Enforcement's own file. Officer Cope's February 19, 2026 Habitability Determination, Case No. 25COM-1882, expressly states: "OBSERVED WATER EXPOSURE ON ALL 3 LEVELS." The unit at 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 is a three-level loft, not a two-bedroom flat. It contains:
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 20/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Three levels of living space
Two full bathrooms
A private patio
Three separate locked entrances — two on the ground floor and one on the third floor
Code Enforcement's own inspector documented three levels on February 19, 2026.
Every comparability determination that flowed from the incorrect assumption of a "two bedroom, two bathroom" unit is legally and factually void on its face. You cannot simultaneously rely on Officer Cope's inspection to trigger relocation obligations and then ignore Officer Cope's own description of the unit when evaluating what is "comparable" to it.
COCHEE CLAIM NO. 2:
"The second unit at 2852 Sawtelle Blvd. is comparable in size and number of rooms.
This unit has two bedrooms and two bathrooms, with approximately 950 sq. ft. of living space."
REFUTATION — SIZE:
A single-floor apartment of approximately 950 sq. ft. is not comparable in size to a threelevel loft. The SMMC 4.36.010 comparability standard requires evaluation of size — not merely a bedroom and bathroom count. Size encompasses total living space, configuration, functional separation of areas, and livability. Our unit provides three physically distinct floors of living space. The Sawtelle unit provides a single floor. These are not equivalent in size under any reasonable interpretation of the code.
REFUTATION — NUMBER OF ROOMS:
Code Enforcement's determination reduces "comparable rooms" to a bedroom-andbathroom headcount. But SMMC 4.36.010 requires comparability in configuration and functional utility — not just room tallies. Our three-level loft provides structurally separated living areas, sleeping areas, and critically — a dedicated work area, which is an indispensable necessity for our household, as we have stated in writing in prior correspondence. A single-floor, open-plan two-bedroom apartment does not replicate a three-level loft regardless of how many bedrooms each contains.
COCHEE CLAIM NO. 3 (implied):
That the comparability of 2852 Sawtelle Blvd. is satisfied by matching bedroom count and bathroom count alone.
REFUTATION — WORK-FROM-HOME AND HOME BUSINESS USE (IGNORED FACTOR):
Mr. McDowell operates a professional business from his home. This is not a casual preference — it is the household's primary source of income and requires a dedicated, private, and functionally separate workspace with reliable connectivity. This need was raised explicitly in prior written correspondence to Code Enforcement and was never addressed in Mr. Cochee's May 14, 2026 determination.
The City's own July 2025 Temporary Tenant Relocation Assistance guidelines, which Mr.
Cochee himself provided to us, define comparable housing to include "other amenities" — a category that plainly encompasses work-from-home suitability for a household that depends on that functionality. The SMMC 4.36.010 definition of comparable housing further requires comparability in "proximity to services and institutions upon which the displaced person depends." A household business is a service upon which this displaced family's financial livelihood depends.
The Sawtelle Airbnb — a 950 sq. ft. single-floor two-bedroom unit — does not provide a dedicated, private business workspace. A three-level loft with physically separated floors does. Code Enforcement made no inquiry into this factor before issuing its comparability determination. That omission renders the determination incomplete and legally insufficient under SMMC 4.36.010.
We specifically ask: Did Code Enforcement inquire at any point whether 2852 Sawtelle Blvd. provides a dedicated workspace suitable for home-based business operations? If not, on what legal basis was that defined comparability factor ignored? COCHEE CLAIM NO. 4 (implied):
That Code Enforcement's comparability determination was procedurally adequate.
REFUTATION — NO INSPECTION, NO TENANT INQUIRY, NO MULTI-FACTOR ANALYSIS:
Code Enforcement's determination was made without:
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 21/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments)
1. A physical inspection of 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 since the habitability event to confirm its actual configuration
2. Any inquiry to the tenants about their household needs, business operations, school proximity requirements, or the physical layout of their unit
3. Any evaluation of the remaining SMMC 4.36.010 comparability factors: location, proximity to schools and services, accessibility, and other amenities
4. Any written analysis beyond two sentences in an email A comparability determination that ignores Victoria McDowell's documented, written March 12, 2026 concern that the Sawtelle unit would make it "stressful not being able to walk to and from the high school" — a textbook SMMC 4.36.010 proximity-to-services factor — is not a lawful comparability determination. It is an unsupported conclusion.
COCHEE CLAIM NO. 5:
"We will investigate the concern regarding relocation payments." REFUTATION — NO FOLLOW-UP HAS BEEN PROVIDED:
This statement was made on May 14, 2026. As of the date of this letter, we have received no update, no timeline, and no written findings from that investigation. The documented, uncontested facts are:
Per Diem Rate: $473.00/night, established by Howard Management's own cancelled checks
Last date covered by landlord payment: March 16, 2026
Code Enforcement's own claimed termination date: April 8, 2026 Unpaid per diem gap: 23 nights × $473.00 = $10,879.00
Number of advance payments made by landlord over 8+ months of displacement:
Zero
SMMC 4.36.100(c)(2) requires per diem payments to be prepaid in weekly increments for any displacement exceeding 30 days. Our displacement has now exceeded nine months. The landlord's payment record confirms not one payment was made in advance. Code Enforcement has been aware of this since our first request in May 2026.
We ask again: When will enforcement action be taken, and what is the written timeline? COCHEE CLAIM NO. 6:
"We did not make a verbal determination."
REFUTATION:
The record shows that Code Enforcement communicated the April 8, 2026 relocation benefit termination to Howard Management — the benefiting party — without simultaneously serving written notice on the tenants. We did not learn of the termination determination until after the landlord had already been told he no longer had to pay.
Whether the communication was "verbal" or informal, the sequencing — landlord notified, tenant not notified — resulted in a de facto determination that cut off our accruing rights without procedural notice. Code Enforcement's own policy states that determinations are issued to both tenant and landlord simultaneously. That did not happen here.
COCHEE CLAIM NO. 7:
"Our understanding of the reason why work has not started yet is that all your belongings are still in the unit. All belongings should have been removed last year shortly after the incident."
REFUTATION:
This characterization is directly contradicted by the written documentary record:
1. January 26, 2026 — SERVPRO contacted Howard Management (not the tenants) about items blocking work. The tenant responded the same day coordinating rotational clearance of work areas.
2. February 9, 2026 — SERVPRO informed Howard Management in writing: "We have not heard back from the tenants insurance regarding the packout to remove the remaining contents out so we can finish our structure cleaning." The cause of the packout delay is expressly stated as an insurance coordination failure — not tenant refusal or obstruction.
3. The unit had no electrical power for an extended period. Tenants cannot be held responsible for failing to remove belongings from a unit without electricity that they were simultaneously being required to vacate.
Officer Cope's own habitability determination notes relocation benefits are required "due to the landlord failing to act" — and the Tenant Responsible box on the determination 6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 22/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) form is unchecked. Code Enforcement cannot accept Officer Cope's findings when triggering relocation obligations and then contradict those same findings by blaming the tenants for a construction delay that SERVPRO's own written communications attribute to an insurance coordination failure.
FORMAL DEMANDS — 7th REQUEST
We respectfully demand written responses to each of the following within five (5) business days:
1. Comparability Re-determination: Issue a complete written comparability determination for 2852 Sawtelle Blvd. that addresses ALL factors under SMMC
4.36.010 — including unit size and configuration (three-level loft vs. single-floor flat), school proximity, home business and work-from-home suitability, private outdoor space, and secured entrances — and confirm whether Code Enforcement made any inquiry into these factors before issuing its May 14 determination.
2. Work-From-Home / Home Business Factor: Confirm in writing whether Code Enforcement considered Mr. McDowell's documented home-based business operations and the need for a dedicated, private workspace as a comparability factor under the "other amenities" and "services the displaced person depends upon" provisions of SMMC 4.36.010. If not, explain the legal basis for omitting this factor.
3. Relocation Payment Investigation Update: Provide a written update on the investigation into Howard Management's failure to pay per diem in advance, including the enforcement action to be taken and the timeline for recovery of the minimum $10,879.00 in unpaid per diem.
4. Written Lifting Order: Provide the written lifting order for the City's February 19, 2026 Relocation Order, including the effective date, the full legal basis, and an accounting of all per diem owed through that date at the established rate of $473.00/night. Per the Relocation Order itself, benefits continue "until the order is lifted by Code Enforcement or the Building Manager" — no such written lifting order has ever been served on us.
5. Prohibited Revocation: Confirm in writing Code Enforcement's position on whether Howard Management's booking and subsequent abandonment of 2852 Sawtelle constitutes a prohibited revocation under SMMC 4.36.100(c)(2), which states the landlord's election of temporary rental housing is irrevocable once made.
6. Simultaneous Notice Commitment: Confirm in writing that no further adverse determination of any kind will be communicated to Howard Management without simultaneous written notice to the tenants.
We are not adversaries of this process. We are a family that has been displaced for over nine months, operating a business from temporary housing we are funding ourselves, while our son attends school in a neighborhood we can no longer walk to. We are asking only that the law be applied as written — without exception for the party that benefits from its non-enforcement.
We respectfully request written replies to all six demands within five (5) business days.
All rights under SMMC Chapter 4.36, SMMC 4.56, SMMC 4.28, Cal. Civil Code §§ 1941, 1942, and 1942.5, Cal. H&S Code § 17980.7, and all applicable civil remedies are expressly reserved. Nothing in this correspondence constitutes a waiver of any claim, right, or remedy available to Clarence and Victoria McDowell.
Respectfully,
Clarence & Victoria McDowell
1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-291-4468
[email protected]
On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 8:14 PM Clarence McDowell
<[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Cochee,
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 23/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Our unit is one of the largest, totaling about 1,800 square feet, and it has three levels.
The top floor has a bathroom and could be considered the first bedroom. The ground floor has a room that I have used as an office, which could be considered the 2nd bedroom.
See this zilliow listing https://www.zillow.com/apartments/santa-monicaca/01011pi/5XjCFT/ Best,
Clarence
On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 6:26 PM Maurice Cochee <Maurice.Cochee@santamonica. gov> wrote:
Hello Clarence,
What is the square footage of your apartment? How many bedrooms and bathrooms do you have?
<image001.png>
Maurice Cochee
Code Enforcement Supervisor
Code Enforcement Division
(310) 458-4984 ext. 5788
santamonica.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates
From: Clarence McDowell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 6:09 PM
To: Laura Campos <[email protected]>
Cc: Maurice Cochee <[email protected]>; Romy Ganschow <[email protected]>; Victoria McDowell (Isis) <[email protected]>
Subject: 6th Request For Clarification and Reconsideration: Formal Demand for Written Comparability Determination — 2852 Sawtelle Blvd. vs. 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 — Threatened Revocation of Relocation Benefits Without Legal Basis
EXTERNAL
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 24/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Mr. Cochee,
We write in direct response to your written determination of May 14, 2026, in which Code Enforcement concluded that 2852 Sawtelle Blvd. (the "Sawtelle Airbnb") is "comparable in size and number of rooms" to our unit at 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 (See attached pictures of our unit). We formally and respectfully reject that determination as legally insufficient, factually incorrect, and inconsistent with the full comparability standard required under SMMC 4.36.010.
Your determination was based on a materially incorrect description of our unit.
Your May 14, 2026 response states: "Our understanding is that your unit has two bedrooms and two bathrooms." That understanding is wrong. Unit 7 at 1011 Pico Blvd. is a three-level loft, with:
Three levels of living space
Two full bathrooms
A private patio
Three separate locked entrances — two on the ground floor and one on the third floor
We note that Code Enforcement's own habitability determination, completed by Officer Cope on February 19, 2026, expressly describes the unit as having three (3) levels. Your own file confirms the unit is a multi-level loft — not a standard flat or single-floor two-bedroom apartment. Code Enforcement cannot simultaneously rely on Officer Cope's habitability findings to trigger relocation obligations while ignoring those same findings when evaluating the comparability of replacement housing.
The Sawtelle Airbnb does not meet the SMMC 4.36.010 comparability standard.
Under SMMC 4.36.010 and the City's own July 2025 Temporary Tenant Relocation Assistance guidelines, "comparable housing" requires reasonable comparability in all of the following dimensions — not merely bedroom and bathroom count:
1. Size — The Sawtelle Airbnb is a single-floor unit of approximately 950 sq. ft.
Our unit is a three-level loft. A single-floor, 950 sq. ft. apartment is not comparable in size to a three-level residence with a patio and multiple entrances. The two units are architecturally, functionally, and spatially dissimilar.
2. Number of bedrooms and configuration — A three-level loft provides distinct, physically separated living, working, and sleeping areas across multiple floors. A flat two-bedroom unit on a single floor does not replicate that configuration. Characterizing these as equivalent on the basis of bedroom count alone is insufficient under the code.
3. Location and proximity to services the tenant depends upon — As documented in writing in the email record of March 12, 2026, tenant Victoria McDowell expressly raised the concern that 2852 Sawtelle would make it "stressful not being able to walk to and from the high school." Our son attends school within walking distance of 1011 Pico Blvd. School proximity is a defined comparability factor under SMMC 4.36.010. Code Enforcement's comparability determination makes no reference to this factor, which is a legal omission — not a discretionary one.
4. Work-from-home suitability — Mr. McDowell works from home and requires a suitable workspace with reliable connectivity. No determination was made regarding this factor. The City Attorney's own May 1, 2026 correspondence acknowledged that comparability must be evaluated across "a number of dimensions."
5. Accessibility and amenities — Our unit includes a private patio and three secured independent entrances, providing meaningful security, privacy, and outdoor space. The Sawtelle unit provides none of these. These are not trivial differences — they are structural features that define the livability of the unit.
We specifically demand the following in writing:
1. A complete, written comparability determination for 2852 Sawtelle Blvd. that addresses each and every dimension of SMMC 4.36.010 — not only bedroom and bathroom count — including location, school proximity, accessibility, work-from-home suitability, outdoor space, and multi-level configuration.
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 25/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments)
2. A written explanation of how Code Enforcement reconciles its "comparable" finding with the fact that Officer Cope's own habitability determination describes Unit 7 as a three-level unit, while the proposed replacement is a single-floor 950 sq. ft. apartment.
3. A written determination on whether Howard Management's booking and subsequent abandonment of the Sawtelle Airbnb — without notice to us and without a written determination — constitutes a prohibited revocation under SMMC 4.36.100(c)(2), which states that "a landlord's election of temporary rental housing shall not be revocable by the landlord, once the tenant moves into the temporary housing."
4. Written confirmation that no finding that the tenant declined comparable housing will be used to justify revocation or reduction of relocation benefits unless and until Code Enforcement has issued a complete written comparability determination addressing all SMMC 4.36.010 factors, served simultaneously on both the tenant and the landlord.
5. If Code Enforcement maintains its position that 2852 Sawtelle is comparable, we demand the legal and factual basis for that determination — citing specific code provisions — and we request the opportunity to conduct a formal inspection of the unit before any comparability determination is treated as final.
We further note the following for the record:
Your May 14, 2026 determination was reached without any inspection of 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 by Code Enforcement since the habitability event, without any inquiry to the tenants about the unit's physical configuration, and without reference to a single one of the multi-factor criteria in SMMC 4.36.010 beyond bedroom and bathroom count. A determination of this consequence — one that was used, directly or indirectly, to justify ending per diem benefits to a family displaced for over eight months — cannot rest on an incomplete factual foundation.
We are not refusing relocation. We are demanding that the relocation offered actually comply with the law that requires it.
We respectfully request a written response within five (5) business days. All rights under SMMC Chapter 4.36, SMMC 4.56, SMMC 4.28, Cal. Civil Code §§ 1941, 1942, and 1942.5, Cal. H&S Code § 17980.7, and all applicable civil remedies are expressly reserved. Nothing in this correspondence constitutes a waiver of any claim, right, or remedy available to Clarence and Victoria McDowell.
Respectfully,
Clarence & Victoria McDowell
1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-291-4468
[email protected]
This email is grounded in Mr. Cochee's own May 14, 2026 written determination, Officer Cope's habitability finding describing the unit as three levels, the City's July 2025 Temporary Tenant Relocation Assistance guidelines, the SMMC 4.36.010 multi-factor comparability standard, Victoria McDowell's documented March 12, 2026 concern about school proximity, and the tenants' formal Response to Code Enforcement dated May 15, 2026. Would you like any section strengthened, softened, or expanded?Email-5th-Request-For-Clarification-and-Reconsideration_- tenant-relocation-assistance-questions-.pdf+3
On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Clarence McDowell
<[email protected]> wrote:
Mrs. Campos, Mr. Cochee, and Ms. Ganschow,
Thank you for providing the February 19, 2026 Habitability Determination (Case # 25COM-1882). We have reviewed it and must formally place three findings on the record. Our complete analysis is in the attached letter.
First, Officer Cope documented a three-level unit, writing: “OBSERVED WATER EXPOSURE ON ALL 3 LEVELS.” A single-floor, approximately 950 sq. ft. unit at 2852 Sawtelle cannot be “reasonably comparable” to a three-level unit under SMMC § 4.36.010, so we request reversal of that comparability finding and a full evaluation addressing layout, school proximity, and work-from-home requirements.
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 26/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Second, Officer Cope attributed relocation liability to the landlord, not the tenant. His notes state relocation benefits are required due to “the landlord failing to act diligently,” and the “Tenant responsible” box is unchecked. That directly contradicts any later suggestion that the tenant's conduct relieved the landlord of relocation obligations.
Third, the Relocation Order states benefits continue until the order is lifted by Code Enforcement or the Building Manager, and no written lifting order has ever been served on us. A verbal communication to the landlord does not lawfully terminate a written City relocation order. Therefore, we request a written lifting order that includes the effective date, the legal basis, and a full accounting of per diem owed at $473.00/night through that date.
Please see the attached supplemental letter and respond in writing within five (5) business days. All rights are expressly reserved.
Respectfully,
Clarence & Victoria McDowell
1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 291-4468 | [email protected]
On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 12:58 PM Clarence McDowell
<[email protected]> wrote:
Mrs. Campos,
Thank you for sending the form, it further confirms what we have been saying the whole time:
Mr. Cope describes the unit as having three (3) levels so exactly how did Code Enforcement find that single, 950 sqft, two-bedroom apartment was "comparable" to a 3 level loft style unit? Mr. Cope clearly describes ..tenant relocation benefits are required due to "the landlords failure to act" NOT the tenants.
The Per diem was due from February 19th through at least April 8th based on code enforcements own verbal determination, and the landlords own checks detail what the landlord paid for in arrear right on the check creating a $10,000+ gap between what the landlord paid in arrears and what the City requires by law for the landlord to pay at least between 2/19 and 4/8.
NOTE: This is equivalent to parking enforcement issuing a ticket then waiving the fine after the violator paid a 1/4 of the fine, if that doesn't sound appropriate, we agree, and ask that you simply apply the same mindset to this matter accordingly.
Furthermore, it is clear that the City's own Temporary Relocation Policies, as provided by Mr. Cochee, place no restrictions on the landlord's default responsibility for paying packing, storing, and unpacking costs.
Bottom-line: Code enforcement has a duty to enforce ALL of the relocation provisions without deferring to any single party. If not accidental, code enforcement's determinations to date have demonstrably favored the landlord without proper cause or legal support.
Therefore, we respectfully request that the code be enforced when it mandates that a requirement "must" be followed and that you confirm all past-due per diem fines are paid IN FULL as the law requires.
Respectfully,
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 27/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Clarence McDowell
On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 11:49 AM Laura Campos
<[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning,
Please see attached document for the habitability determination completed by CEO Cope.
Please also see the following answers to your questions below specified by CES Cochee:
1. Relocation Per Diem - Are we correct that relocation per diems over 6 days must be paid one week in advance according
to (SMMC § 4.36.100(a)(7))?
You are incorrect. Weekly increment payments apply when a temporary relocation extends past 30 days; otherwise, payments are made daily. SMMC 4.36.100(c)(2) states:
Relocation Thirty Days or Greater. If it is anticipated that the displacement will be for a period of thirty days or greater, the landlord shall provide either temporary rental housing or per diem payments in accordance with subsection (c)(1) of this Section, prepaid by the landlord in weekly increments. If the landlord elects temporary rental housing, such housing shall be comparable to the tenant’s existing housing, as determined by the Director. However, a landlord’s election of temporary rental housing shall not be revocable by the landlord, once the tenant moves into the temporary housing. In cases where the landlord elects temporary rental housing, the landlord must provide per diem payments in accordance with subsection (c)(1) of this Section until such time the displaced tenant is housed in temporary rental housing. The landlord shall pay all costs associated with the temporary housing, including rent, even if the temporary housing is more expensive than the tenant’s existing unit. The tenant shall remain responsible to pay rent to the landlord for the tenant’s existing unit during the period of displacement.
2. Relocation Determination - How does a tenant receive an official relocation determination from code enforcement? Further, a. What happens is the tenant does not receive notice?
Please contact Code Enforcement if you did not receive a copy of a habitability determination. A copy is provided to both the tenant and the landlord. Please confirm whether you received a habitability determination form from Code
Enforcement; if you did not, we can investigate this.
b. Is it City policy to inform the property owner about a relocation determination without also notifying the tenant of the determination?
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 28/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) If Code Enforcement completes a habitability determination, the form is issued to both the tenant and the landlord.
3. Relocation Payments - Are we correct to say that any relocation per diems owed prior to a relocation determination is required to be paid regardless of the determination?
A landlord’s obligation to provide temporary relocation benefits is self-executing. The city does not need to complete a habitability determination to temporarily relocate tenants. The owner is obligated by the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Please refer to SMMC 4.36.100(a), which covers when a landlord is required to provide relocation benefits.
Additionally, SMMC 4.36.120 covers when a landlord is not responsible for providing relocation benefits. Specifically, SMMC
4.36.120(d) states: “No landlord shall be required to provide temporary relocation benefits pursuant to Section 4.36.100 to a tenant if that tenant or his or her guest or invitee was entirely or primarily responsible for causing the condition that necessitated the temporary relocation. In such cases, the landlord’s responsibility to provide temporary relocation benefits to other non-responsible tenants remains.”
4. Failure To Comply - What rights do tenants have if a Landlord fails to pay a relocation per diem in advance?
Tenants may contact Code Enforcement if a landlord fails to pay temporary relocation benefits. We will investigate the concern and enforce the provisions of the municipal code.
5. Return To Unit Agreement: Must property owners provide a written return-to-unit agreement to the tenant?
No, that is not required. SMMC 4.36.100(f) states: “The displacement and relocation of a tenant pursuant to this Section or Section 8.100.030 shall not terminate the tenancy of the displaced tenant. The displaced tenant shall have the right to reoccupy his or her unit upon the completion of the work necessary for the unit to comply with housing, health, building or safety laws, any governmental order, or the unit is otherwise restored to a habitable condition; the tenant shall retain all rights of tenancy that existed prior to the displacement.”
6. Work after permit issue - Nearly three weeks have passed since the permits were issued to remediate the unit and no work has started. Exactly how long should a tenant wait before contacting code enforcement again?
As noted above, the current issue is that your belongings remain in the unit and must be removed before work can begin. You were responsible for removing your items from the unit last year, shortly after the incident. Did your renter’s insurance cover the cost of moving your belongings?
7. CA Health & Safety Code - Is it true that under Cal. H&S Code § 17980.7(d)(3)(A)) the state requires a minimum six-month relocation benefit floor?
This section applies to court orders. The preceding section, H&S § 17980.6, pertains to buildings maintained in violation of the State Building Standards Code. Neither provision applies to your situation or case.
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 29/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Regards,
<image003.png>
Laura Campos
Code Enforcement Officer
City of Santa Monica
310-458-2201 x 5579
[email protected]
santamonica.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates
From: Clarence McDowell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2026 11:16 AM
To: Maurice Cochee <[email protected]>
Cc: Romy Ganschow <[email protected]>; Laura Campos <[email protected]>; Victoria McDowell (Isis) <[email protected]>
Subject: 5th Request For Clarification and Reconsideration: tenant relocation assistance questions | moving and relocation costs
EXTERNAL
Mr. Cochee and Ms. Ganschow,
Earlier today, May 15, 2026, a Code Enforcement representative (Mrs.
Campos) verbally told my wife, Victoria McDowell, that the landlord is not required to pay for packing, storage, and unpacking of our personal belongings. We write to formally reject that determination. It is directly contradicted by the City's own published law.
The City of Santa Monica's Temporary Tenant Relocation Assistance guidelines, revised July 2025, a copy of which Mr. Cochee provided less than 24 hours ago clearly states under "What moving costs are covered?":
"The landlord must pay for all actual reasonable moving costs, including expenses for: transporting personal property; packing and unpacking; insurance of personal property
while in transit; necessary storage of personal property..." The word is "must." There is no qualifier. There is no language granting Code Enforcement discretion to exempt a landlord from this obligation. The 6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 30/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) verbal determination communicated today has no basis in the City's own written guidelines, in SMMC Chapter 4.36, or in California law.
We also note that this is the second time Code Enforcement has made an adverse verbal determination — without any written legal citation — that directly benefits the landlord and adds an uncodified cost burden to our family. The first was the verbal revocation of per diem benefits communicated to Howard Management without simultaneous written notice to us. Today's verbal determination about moving costs is the second.
In both instances: the determination was made verbally, not in writing; it was adverse to the tenant; it cited no law; and it shifted costs onto a family that has been displaced for over eight months.
We have attached a formal written response addressing the legal authority — and lack thereof — for today's determination, and making five specific demands including:
1. A written determination, citing specific code, for the position that moving and storage costs are not owed in this matter
2. Identification of the specific authority granting Code Enforcement the power to override the mandatory "must" language in the City's own July 2025 guidelines
3. Confirmation of whether the "tenant interference" exception has been formally invoked — and if so, how SERVPRO's own February 9, 2026 written statement identifying an insurance coordination failure (not tenant refusal) as the cause of the packout delay was considered
4. Confirmation that no adverse determination will be communicated to Howard Management without simultaneous written notice to the tenants
5. A written explanation of the factual and legal basis for both verbal determinations to date
We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking that the law be applied as written. All rights under SMMC Chapter 4.36, SMMC § 4.56, Cal. Civil Code §§ 1941, 1942, and 1942.5, Cal. H&S Code § 17980.7, and all applicable civil remedies are expressly reserved.
Please respond in writing within five (5) business days.
Respectfully,
Clarence & Victoria McDowell
1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 291-4468 | [email protected]
Attachment: Formal Response — Rejection of Verbal Determination re:
Moving & Storage Costs, May 15, 2026
This cover email runs approximately 2,900 characters — well within the 4,000 character limit — and is structured to land the three most important points immediately: the specific guideline language that contradicts the verbal determination, the documented pattern of unsupported verbal determinations, and the SERVPRO insurance coordination evidence that refutes any factual basis for the interference exception.Temporary-TenantRelocation-Assistance-7.2025.pdf+2 On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 9:54 AM Clarence McDowell
<[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Cochee and Ms. Ganschow,
Thank you for your written response of May 14, 2026 — the first substantive written response we have received from Code Enforcement in this matter. We are grateful for several of the confirmations it contains, and we respond formally via the attached letter.
In brief, we write to accomplish four things:
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 31/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) First, we acknowledge and accept Code Enforcement's written confirmation that Unit 13 at 1011 Pico Blvd. was not comparable housing under SMMC § 4.36.010. This vindicates our position from the beginning and confirms the landlord's relocation obligation was never satisfied by that offer.
Second, we accept your correction regarding SMMC § 4.36.100(c)(2) and the 30-day threshold for weekly advance payments — and note that this correction only strengthens our position. Our displacement has exceeded eight months. The landlord's own checks prove not a single advance payment was ever made. We respectfully request a written timeline for Code Enforcement's investigation into those payment violations and the enforcement action that will follow.
Third, we must formally contest the suggestion that our belongings in the unit are the cause of the construction delay. The January and February 2026 email record — including SERVPRO's own written communication to Howard Management — establishes that the packout delay was caused by an insurance coordination failure, not tenant refusal. We respectfully ask Code Enforcement to review that record before drawing any conclusions about tenant responsibility.
Fourth, we are requesting five specific written determinations from Code Enforcement, detailed in the attached letter, including: a copy of the February 19, 2026 habitability determination we never received; the scope and timeline of the payment investigation; Code Enforcement's position on whether Howard Management's abandonment of the Sawtelle Airbnb constituted a prohibited revocation; a full comparability determination for 2852 Sawtelle Blvd. that addresses school proximity and work-from-home suitability; and confirmation of whether Code Enforcement will enforce the $10,879.00 in unpaid per diem for March 16 – April 8, 2026.
We are not adversaries of this process — we are a family that has been displaced for over eight months and is asking only that the laws Santa Monica has enacted be applied as written. We remain ready to cooperate fully on any coordinated packout and return-to-unit plan, provided the landlord meets his statutory obligations.
Please find our complete formal response attached. We respectfully request written replies to all five outstanding questions within ten (10) business days.
All rights are expressly reserved.
Respectfully,
Clarence & Victoria McDowell
1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 291-4468 | [email protected]
Attachment: Formal Response to Code Enforcement — May 14, 2026 On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 8:22 PM Maurice Cochee
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Mr. McDowell,
Code Enforcement reviewed the comparable housing offered by the landlord. Our understanding is that your unit has two bedrooms and two bathrooms.
1. We do not believe the first unit (1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 13) is comparable, as it has only one bathroom.
2. The second unit (at 2852 Sawtelle Blvd.) is comparable in size and number of rooms. This unit has two bedrooms and two bathrooms, with approximately 950 sq. ft. of living space. 6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 32/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) We will investigate the concern regarding relocation payments.
We did not make a verbal determination. A written habitability determination was completed on February 19, 2026. Please confirm whether you received a copy of the habitability determination.
Our understanding of the reason why work has not started yet is that all your belongings are still in the unit. All belongings should have been removed last year shortly after the incident that rendered your unit uninhabitable. Did your renter’s insurance company pay to relocate your belongings from the unit? If your belongings are still in the unit, you will need to remove them so work can begin.
Please see the following answers to your questions below:
1. Relocation Per Diem - Are we correct that relocation per diems over 6 days must be paid one week in advance
according to (SMMC § 4.36.100(a)(7))?
You are incorrect. Weekly increment payments apply when a temporary relocation extends past 30 days; otherwise,
payments are made daily. SMMC 4.36.100(c)(2) states:
Relocation Thirty Days or Greater. If it is anticipated that the displacement will be for a period of thirty days or greater, the landlord shall provide either temporary rental housing or per diem payments in accordance with subsection (c)(1) of this Section, prepaid by the landlord in weekly increments. If the landlord elects temporary rental housing, such housing shall be comparable to the tenant’s existing housing, as determined by the Director. However, a landlord’s election of temporary rental housing shall not be revocable by the
landlord, once the tenant moves into the temporary housing.
In cases where the landlord elects temporary rental housing, the landlord must provide per diem payments in accordance with subsection (c)(1) of this Section until such time the displaced tenant is housed in temporary rental housing. The landlord shall pay all costs associated with the temporary housing, including rent, even if the temporary housing is more expensive than the tenant’s existing unit. The tenant shall remain responsible to pay rent to the landlord for the tenant’s existing unit during the period of displacement.
2. Relocation Determination - How does a tenant receive an official relocation determination from code enforcement? Further,
a. What happens is the tenant does not receive notice?
Please contact Code Enforcement if you did not receive
a copy of a habitability determination. A copy is provided to both the tenant and the landlord. Please confirm
whether you received a habitability determination form
from Code Enforcement; if you did not, we can
investigate this.
b. Is it City policy to inform the property owner about a relocation determination without also notifying the tenant of the determination?
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 33/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) If Code Enforcement completes a habitability
determination, the form is issued to both the tenant and the landlord.
3. Relocation Payments - Are we correct to say that any relocation per diems owed prior to a relocation determination is required to be paid regardless of the determination? A landlord’s obligation to provide temporary relocation benefits is self-executing. The city does not need to complete a habitability determination to temporarily relocate tenants.
The owner is obligated by the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
Please refer to SMMC 4.36.100(a), which covers when a
landlord is required to provide relocation benefits.
Additionally, SMMC 4.36.120 covers when a landlord is not responsible for providing relocation benefits. Specifically, SMMC 4.36.120(d) states: “No landlord shall be required to provide temporary relocation benefits pursuant to Section
4.36.100 to a tenant if that tenant or his or her guest or invitee was entirely or primarily responsible for causing the condition that necessitated the temporary relocation. In such cases, the landlord’s responsibility to provide temporary relocation benefits to other non-responsible tenants
remains.”
4. Failure To Comply - What rights do tenants have if a Landlord fails to pay a relocation per diem in advance?
Tenants may contact Code Enforcement if a landlord fails to pay temporary relocation benefits. We will investigate the concern and enforce the provisions of the municipal code.
5. Return To Unit Agreement: Must property owners provide a written return-to-unit agreement to the tenant?
No, that is not required. SMMC 4.36.100(f) states: “The displacement and relocation of a tenant pursuant to this Section or Section 8.100.030 shall not terminate the tenancy of the displaced tenant. The displaced tenant shall have the right to reoccupy his or her unit upon the completion of the work necessary for the unit to comply with housing, health, building or safety laws, any governmental order, or the unit is otherwise restored to a habitable condition; the tenant shall retain all rights of tenancy that existed prior to the
displacement.”
6. Work after permit issue - Nearly three weeks have passed since the permits were issued to remediate the unit and no work has started. Exactly how long should a tenant
wait before contacting code enforcement again?
As noted above, the current issue is that your belongings remain in the unit and must be removed before work can
begin. You were responsible for removing your items from the unit last year, shortly after the incident. Did your renter’s insurance cover the cost of moving your belongings?
7. CA Health & Safety Code - Is it true that under Cal. H&S Code § 17980.7(d)(3)(A)) the state requires a minimum six-month relocation benefit floor?
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 34/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) This section applies to court orders. The preceding section, H&S § 17980.6, pertains to buildings maintained in violation of the State Building Standards Code. Neither provision applies to your situation or case.
If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me.
Thanks,
<image001.png>
Maurice Cochee
Code Enforcement Supervisor
Code Enforcement Division
(310) 458-4984 ext. 5788
santamonica.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates
From: Clarence McDowell <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2026 11:14 AM
To: Romy Ganschow <[email protected]>
Cc: Maurice Cochee <[email protected]>; Laura Campos <[email protected]>; Victoria McDowell (Isis) <[email protected]>
Subject: 4th Request For Clarification and Reconsideration: tenant relocation assistance questions
EXTERNAL
Mrs. Ganschow,
My family and I are still displaced and waiting for your reply. I am reaching out again because we have yet to receive any written determination from code enforcement that caused our relocation benefits to end. We presented copies of the checks from the landlord confirming that the landlord did not make relocation payments in advance as SMMC requires and did not pay the full per diem due based on the date of Code Enforcments verbal determination. Nearly three weeks have passed since the landlord received permits, and no work has started. So on behalf of my displaced family, what steps can we take to earn the City's assistance, and how can we get direct answers to our questions?
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 35/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Relocation Per Diem - Are we correct that relocation per diems over 6 days must be paid one week in advance
according to (SMMC § 4.36.100(a)(7))?
Relocation Determination - How does a tenant receive an official relocation determination from code enforcement? Further,
What happens is the tenant does not receive notice?
Is it City policy to inform the property owner about a
relocation determination without also notifying the
tenant of the determination?
Relocation Payments - Are we correct to say that any
relocation per diems owed prior to a relocation determination is required to be paid regardless of the determination? Failure To Comply - What rights do tenants have if a Landlord fails to pay a relocation per diem in advance?
Return To Unit Agreement: Must property owners provide a written return-to-unit agreement to the tenant?
Work after permit issue - Nearly three weeks have passed since the permits were issued to remediate the unit and no work has started. Exactly how long should a tenant
wait before contacting code enforcement again?
CA Health & Safety Code - Is it true that under Cal. H&S Code § 17980.7(d)(3)(A)) the state requires a minimum six-month relocation benefit floor?
Again, we respectfully ask the City to help us return to our home by simply enforcing the related laws it has passed. If there's anything we can do as Santa Monica citizens and business owners to be worthy of the City's help in this matter please let us know.
Respectfully,
Clarence
On Fri, May 8, 2026 at 4:04 PM Clarence McDowell
<[email protected]> wrote:
Ms. Ganschow,
To clarify our perspective, please see the calculations below, which detail exactly what my family received in relocation benefits. These calculations support our contention that the Landlord not only failed to pay in advance but also failed to pay at a minimum, the per diem up to 4/8/26, the day Code Enforcement claims it determined that relocation benefits would be revoked.
Again, we ask you and Code Enforcement to reconsider your stated position's in light of the law and the facts in this matter.
Respectfully,
Clarence & Vicki
Executive Summary: Per Diem
Owed — 1011 Pico Blvd, Unit 7
Prepared: May 8, 2026
Tenant: Clarence & Victoria McDowell
Property: 1011 Pico Blvd, Unit 7, Santa Monica, CA 90405 Submitted To: Romy Ganschow, Chief Deputy City Attorney; Maurice Cochee, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Laura Campos, Code Enforcement Officer
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 36/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Governing Legal Framework
Under SMMC § 4.36.100(a)(7), relocation per diem payments are required to be paid one week in advance for each successive period of displacement. The landlord's obligation to pay runs continuously until a valid relocation determination is made and formally communicated to the tenant. Under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 17980.7(d)(3)(A), state law establishes a minimum sixmonth relocation benefit floor — a threshold the McDowells exceeded months ago, having been displaced since approximately September 2025 (over 8 months as of this writing).
Per Diem Rate — Established by the
Landlord's Own Checks
The cancelled check stubs from Howard Management (HMG for 1011 Pico, Banc of California) establish a consistent per diem rate of $473.00 per night, confirmed across four separate payments:McDowell-Howard-Management-Checks-0219-031626. pdf+1
Check # Issued Period
Covered Nights Amount Rate/Night
3777 02/24/2026 02/19 –
03/05/26 14 $6,622.00 $473.00
3778 03/06/2026 03/05 –
03/10/26 5 $2,365.00 $473.00
3779 03/11/2026 03/10 –
03/16/26 6 $2,438.00 $406.33*
3781 03/17/2026
Difference
– 03/10 –
03/16/26
6 $400.00 True-up
3779+3781
Combined
03/10 –
03/16/26 6 $2,838.00 $473.00
*Check 3781 was self-issued as a corrective "difference" payment, confirming the landlord acknowledged the $473.00/night rate was the correct and binding rate. The last covered date is March 16, 2026.
Minimum Per Diem Owed: 3/16/26 –
4/8/26
Accepting, for purposes of this summary only, the City's own position that the relocation determination was made on April 8, 2026, the landlord's per diem obligation continued without interruption through that date. No payment was made after 3/16/26. The minimum amount owed is calculated as follows:
23 nights (3/16/26 – 4/8/26)×$473.00/night=$10,879.00
This is the minimum floor owed, accepting the City's own termination date at face value.
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 37/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) The City Cannot Waive Pre-Determination
Per Diems
This is a critical legal point: Code Enforcement has no authority to extinguish, waive, or forgive per diem payments that accrued prior to its relocation determination. The City Attorney's own correspondence dated May 1, 2026 acknowledged that the office "cannot enforce any violation of the Tenant Temporary Relocation Ordinance during that time" — but nonenforcement by the City is not the same as extinguishment of the debt. The landlord's obligation to pay per diem under SMMC §
4.36.100(a)(7) is a private statutory duty owed directly to the tenant. Code Enforcement's decision not to pursue enforcement does not eliminate the landlord's civil liability for unpaid amounts.
Notice Failure — An Independent
Violation
The record confirms that the relocation determination of April 8, 2026 was communicated to the landlord without simultaneous written notice to the tenant. The McDowells did not learn of the determination until after the landlord had already been told he no longer had to pay — at which point they called Code Enforcement to request enforcement. This sequence is not incidental; it is a procedural due process failure. A relocation benefit determination that is disclosed to the benefiting party (the landlord) while being withheld from the protected party (the tenant) cannot be used to cut off that tenant's accruing rights.
Tenant's Reserved Rights — Full
Reservation of Claims
The tenant does not concede that any valid denial of
relocation benefits ever occurred. The tenant's position remains:
1. No formal denial was ever issued or served on the
tenant. A verbal determination communicated only to the landlord does not constitute legally effective notice under the ordinance.
2. Howard Management actively negotiated relocation,
booked the Airbnb, and made partial payments —
conduct that is entirely inconsistent with the characterization that the tenant "declined" a comparable unit. The email record directly refutes that characterization.
3. The advance-payment requirement was violated from
the outset. Not a single check was paid in advance as
required by SMMC § 4.36.100(a)(7). The $10,879.00
calculated above represents only the gap period under the City's own framing — the full claim for unreimbursed
relocation costs of $9,565.87 in documented Airbnb and
storage expenses remains outstanding and separately
preserved.
4. All rights under SMMC Chapter 4.36, Cal. H&S Code §
17980.7, SMMC 4.28 (Fair Housing Anti-Discrimination),
and any applicable civil remedies are expressly
reserved. Nothing in this correspondence or in the City's determination constitutes a waiver of any claim, right, or remedy available to Clarence and Victoria McDowell.
This summary is intended to accompany the cancelled check stubs (Checks #3777, #3778, #3779, #3781 — HMG for 1011 Pico) as documentary evidence of the established per diem rate and payment history.
On Fri, May 8, 2026 at 2:53 PM Clarence McDowell
<[email protected]> wrote:
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 38/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Mrs. Ganschow,
I'm reaching out again for clarification and confirmation of the SMMC code as it relates to relocation benefits. Can you please confirm our understanding of SMMC code and City policy:
Relocation Per Diem - Are we correct that relocation per diems must be paid one week in advance according
to (SMMC § 4.36.100(a)(7))?
Relocation Determination - How does a tenant receive
an official relocation determination from code
enforcement? Further,
What happens is the tenant does not receive
notice?
Is it City policy to inform the property owner about
a relocation determination without also notifying
the tenant of the determination?
Relocation Payments - Are we correct to say that any
relocation per diems owed prior to a relocation
determination is required to be paid regardless of the
determination?
Failure To Comply - What rights do tenants have if a
Landlord fails to pay a relocation per diem in advance? Return To Unit Agreement: Must property owners
provide a written return-to-unit agreement to the tenant? Work after permit issue - Nearly three weeks have
passed since the permits were issued to remediate
the unit and no work has started. Exactly how long
should a tenant wait before contacting code
enforcement again?
CA Health & Safety Code - Is it true that under Cal. H&S Code § 17980.7(d)(3)(A)) the state requires a minimum
six-month relocation benefit floor?
Your assistance in understanding City and State laws on this matter is now imperative. Again, we are asking for your assistance in providing clarity, attached is our request again in detail.
Thank you,
C
On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 11:11 PM Clarence McDowell
<[email protected]> wrote:
Ms. Ganschow,
I'm following up on my response and request for your written reply. Can you please confirm in writing your reposne to our letter and whether I am correct about the following:
1. State Law Floor (Cal. H&S Code §
17980.7(d)(3)(A)) — We have now been displaced
for eight (8) months. State law mandates a
minimum six-month relocation benefit floor, which
we have exceeded.
2. Advance Payment Violation (SMMC §
4.36.100(a)(7)) — Howard Management failed to
pay relocation costs in advance as required,
forcing us to self-fund $9,565.87 in documented
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 39/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) housing and storage expenses, none of which has
been fully reimbursed.
3. Negotiation, Not Rejection — The email
record we possess directly contradicts Howard
Management's characterization that we "declined"
a comparable unit. The record shows Howard
Management actively negotiated, acknowledged
our concerns, and booked and partially paid for
our Airbnb before abandoning that obligation. This
does not constitute a waiver of our relocation
rights.
I have no doubt we all agree: Code Enforcement exists to enforce the code, and the code calls for a daily per diem to be paid one week in advance, right?
Again, can we all agree: the Landlord did not pay any per diem in advance, we did not receive a single per diem
payment in advance and code enforcement failed to ensure that happened after calling for help to do so.
So, I think we can at least agree that the code enforcement's verbal relocation determination should not affect past due per diems owed, particularly when the verbal determination came without formal notice to us the tenants (keep in mind, we did not discover the relocation determination until after the Landlord was told he didn't have to pay the per diem and we called to asking for help from code enforcement to enforce the per diem).
Instead of fining the landlord for violating SMMC code by failing to pay the relocation per diem in advance, we were blamed for declining a relocation offer, even though we had actually negotiated payment for our Airbnb, which was later withdrawn with the blessing of code enforcement.
As of today, we have not received a written explanation detailing why code enforcement failed to enforce the SWO citation fully. Specifically, why did code enforcement fail to ensure all per diems were paid in advance before revoking relocation benefits?
That unilateral decision, made without prior written notice has cost my family over $9,000. We are still waiting for
construction to begin a week after the landlord picked up permits. We now know the owner has little or no motivation to do the remediation work without the threat of paying our relocation costs.
So, considering all of the above and my family, I respectfully ask you to imagine this happening to you and your family.
Then, consider: what are these codes for if they are not meant to protect tenants displaced for over 8 months with little or no recourse against a landlord who has been given a free pass to continue doing nothing?
Respectfully asking for fair code enforcement,
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 40/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Clarence & Victoria
On Fri, May 1, 2026 at 10:15 AM Clarence McDowell
<[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Ms. Ganschow,
Thank you for your email of May 1, 2026. Please find
attached our formal written response regarding our rights under the Tenant Temporary Relocation Assistance
Ordinance for our unit at 1011 Pico Blvd, Unit 7, Santa Monica, CA 90405.
In brief, our response raises four issues we respectfully ask you and Code Enforcement to confirm in writing:
1. State Law Floor (Cal. H&S Code § 17980.7(d)(3)
(A)) — We have now been displaced for eight (8)
months. State law mandates a minimum six-month
relocation benefit floor, which has been exceeded.
2. Advance Payment Violation (SMMC § 4.36.100(a)
(7)) — Howard Management failed to pay relocation
costs in advance as required, forcing us to selffund $9,565.87 in documented housing and storage expenses, none of which has been fully reimbursed.
3. Negotiation, Not Rejection — The email record
we possess directly contradicts Howard
Management's characterization that we "declined" a
comparable unit. The record shows Howard
Management actively negotiated, acknowledged
our concerns, and themselves booked and partially
paid for our Airbnb — before abandoning that
obligation. This does not constitute a waiver of our
relocation rights.
We respectfully request written confirmation of these
statutory findings from your office and Code Enforcement.
Our full response letter is attached.
Respectfully,
Clarence & Victoria McDowell
1011 Pico Blvd, Unit 7 | Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 291-4468 | [email protected]
On Fri, May 1, 2026 at 9:32 AM Romy Ganschow
<[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mr. McDowell,
I am responding to your emails and letters related to
your rights under the Tenant Temporary Relocation
Assistance Ordinance. I am cc’ing Code Enforcement
Supervisor Maurice Cochee and Code Enforcement
Officer Laura Campos, who is handling Officer Chris
Cope’s cases.
To clarify some points and try to answer your questions, a landlord does satisfy his obligations under the Tenant Temporary Relocation Assistance Ordinance by offering
a tenant whose unit is uninhabitable by providing a
comparable relocation unit. Whether a unit offered by a landlord is “comparable” as defined by the Code is
ultimately a determination for Code Enforcement. If you 6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 41/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) believe the units you were offered are not “comparable
housing” as defined by SMMC 4.36.010, please follow
up with Code Enforcement so they can make that
determination.
Please note that SMMC 4.36.010 defines “comparable
housing” as a unit that is “reasonable comparable” in a number of dimensions including “location (which may be
in either Santa Monica or Los Angeles), proximity to
services and institutions upon which the displaced
person depends”.
If Code Enforcement determines that the replacement
unit a landlord has provided is “reasonably comparable” to any of the dimensions in the definition of “comparable housing” but the unit still does not meet the needs of the household because of any disability related reason,
then the tenant household may be able to request as a
reasonable accommodation that the landlord provide a
different unit or relocation benefit. In that case, the landlord could have satisfied his obligations under the Tenant Temporary Relocation Assistance Code, but still
have obligations under fair housing laws to make
reasonable accommodations for tenants with disabilities to provide equal access to housing.
A landlord’s duty to reasonably accommodate a tenant
with disabilities is triggered by the tenant with the
disabilities or their representative making the request; the request must describe the nature of the disability, the accommodation, and the relationship between the
disability and the requested accommodation. If the
landlord cannot immediately provide the requested
accommodation, the landlord is required to engage in
the “interactive process” to request additional
information or if appropriate to try to find an alternative accommodation to meet the tenant’s needs. If a landlord does not respond to a reasonable accommodation
request or fails to engage in the interactive process, that may be disability discrimination under federal, state, and local fair housing laws. Tenants may make complaints
for violation of Santa Monica’s Housing AntiDiscrimination Ordinance, SMMC 4.28, online at www.smconsumer.org
Whether or not a tenant has a basis to request a
different relocation option as a reasonable
accommodation for a disability, tenants and landlords
also always have the option of agreeing to a relocation benefit other than what is required under SMMC
4.36.100(a)(7). In some cases, this may be the best
option where the tenant has secured a temporary
relocation unit they prefer, the rate is lower than the per diem and is similar to the amount the landlord would
pay for a “comparable” unit. The tenant and landlord
could agree, for instance, that the landlord would pay
the tenant the amount that the landlord would have paid for the “comparable” unit, and the tenant would pay any difference for the unit the tenant prefers.
As to any claims you may have regarding rent paid
during the period of uninhabitability, you will need to pursue those directly with the landlord as a private civil matter. Similarly, as Code Enforcement did not find that 6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 42/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) the landlord was responsible for temporary relocation
benefits for the first several months of the
uninhabitability, our office cannot enforce any violation of the Tenant Temporary Relocation Ordinance during
that time.
Please let me know if you have further questions I have not addressed. Otherwise, I encourage you to be in
touch with Code Enforcement staff (cc’d) directly to
determine whether the landlord has satisfied his
relocation obligations by offering temporary units.
Thank you,
<image004.png>
Romy Ganschow
Chief Deputy City Attorney
Consumer Protection Division
City Attorney’s Office
1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Tel: (310) 458-8348
[email protected]
santamonica.gov
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is a
confidential attorney client communication and attorney work product. This message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) it is addressed to above. Please do not forward or produce pursuant to a Public Records Act request. The information in this message may be protected by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections
2510-2521. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (310-458-8336) and delete the original message. Thank you. --
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 43/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) --
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 44/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) --
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 45/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) --
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 46/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) --
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
--
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
4 attachments
McDowell-14th_Request_Clarification_Reconsideration-060226.pdf 164K
McDowell_8100040_compliance_deficiency_log-060226.pdf
170K
1011_Pico_7-relocation plan.pdf
443K
1011_Pico_7-means and methods.pdf
2271K
6/2/26, 5:22 PM Gmail - 14th Request for Clarification and Reconsideration — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 | Case No. 25-COM-1882 / HD 11536 / CESW… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be1838aeb7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8086729810133148854&simpl=msg-a:r477807902320… 47/47 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 3 David Yakobson
From: Matthew Hausle <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 4:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Clerk Mailbox; Heidi von Tongeln; Oliver Chi; [email protected]; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; City of Santa Monica; Wilmont Board; Daniel Mick; Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman; Maurice Cochee; Planning; Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Submitted for City Council Public Comments meeting on June 9th 2026
EXTERNAL
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Matthew Hausle <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 4:12 PM
Subject: Regards to Commercial Operation of 1001 3rd St, Santa Monica, CA 90403 To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Wilmont Board <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> To Whom it Should Concern,
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected] ov,[email protected], [email protected], Lana.Negrete@santa monica.gov, [email protected], [email protected], Barry.Snell@sa ntamonica.gov, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], Daniel.
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Maurice.Co [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], planning@santam onica.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], josh.hamil [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], ,jacob.wasserman@sant amonica.gov,
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 4 Also submitted for Public Comments City Council Meeting June 9th 2026 and Public Comments Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2026.
This email is to memorialize my conversations with code enforcement officers in regards to the commercial operations at 1001 3rd Street Santa Monica Ca 90403 APN/Parcel ID 4292-019-015. Formerly known as the rent-controlled Embassy Apartments, then the Palihouse and now known as Maison Twenty Seven.
On May 27th. I called the 311 line and was transferred to code enforcement. I spoke with code enforcement who transferred me to the assigned code enforcement officer, Everth Gonzales. Left him a message. 310-458-4984 x 2340.
The earlier Code Enforcement call Case Number: CS0225773 was closed as a duplicate of the 26COM-0751 report. officer, Everth Gonzales. (Request Type: Code Enforcement - Regulatory Enforcement Service Description: Re:
Change in commercial use at Maison Twenty Seven 1001 3rd Street Santa Monica Ca 90403 in a residential neighborhood.)
Mr. Gonzales called me the following day to advise me he and his supervisor (possibly Maurice Cochee) went to 1001 3rd Street, the location of the hotel. He told me they observed a crowd of people being served in the front patio and lawn area and his understanding was that they were permitted to serve in this area, and had a permit to serve alcohol.
This was contrary to what we were informed by email from Jing Yeo, the Community Development Director of Santa Monica, who informed us the following in response to an email inquiry from Laura Wilson.
(See the email exchange later in this writing) Per Jing Yeo..... "a Conditional Use Permit for alcohol service was denied in 2014. At that time, it was confirmed that while the building has had a food service area of approximately 470 square feet in the basement, it only contains appliances to aid in the preparation of food for hotel patrons only, via in-room service and in the hotel lobby lounge. The public is not permitted to visit the hotel unless they are guests of a hotel patron. A public restaurant associated with the hotel is not permitted. However, food service for guests is an ancillary function common to any hotel and is therefore permitted. " Mr. Gonzalez responded he was unaware of this, and would seek clarification and get back to me. No response for him as of today.
Since that time, the hotel has continued to violate the restrictions and hosted a very Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 5 large and loud party, held in the non-permitted area, and reportedly alcohol was served.
Today we had a phone conversation with Code Enforcement Manager Daniel Mick who informed us the Planning Department is “taking the lead” on this issue. He further stated he is waiting on clarity from the Planning Department for his department to understand how to “move forward” and enforce the commercial Hotel use conditions.
Daniel Mick referred us to Ross Fehrman at the Planning Department who we attempted to contact by phone and was reportedly in a meeting. We were told he asked for my number and said he would call us back. I left a contact phone number and await his call.
We seek to age in place in our residential home of 30 years. And enjoy the peace, quiet and enjoyment of our home and appreciate the City Staffs' attention to this matter.
Best,
Matthew Hausle
Resident of 1015 3rd Street Santa Monica Ca. 90403
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 6 David Yakobson
From: Matthew Hausle <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 4:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Clerk Mailbox; Heidi von Tongeln; Oliver Chi; [email protected]; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; City of Santa Monica; Wilmont Board; Daniel Mick; Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman; Maurice Cochee; Planning; Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Submitted for Planning Commission Public Comments meeting on June 17th 2026
EXTERNAL
Email written public comments on specific agenda items for the City of Santa Monica to [email protected],
AND CC
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],council @santamonica.gov, [email protected], [email protected], Dan.Hall @santamonica.gov, [email protected], [email protected], Natalya.Zernitsk [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], Daniel.Mick@sant amonica.gov, [email protected], [email protected], Maurice.Cochee@santamonica .gov, [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], shawn.landres@santa monica.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], leslie.lam [email protected], [email protected], ,[email protected], Please send to separate emails subject lines should say
1. Submitted for City Council Public Comments meeting on June 9th 2026
2. Submitted for Planning Commission Public Comments meeting on June 17th 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 7 David Yakobson
From: Matthew Hausle <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 4:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Clerk Mailbox; Heidi von Tongeln; Oliver Chi; [email protected]; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; City of Santa Monica; Wilmont Board; Daniel Mick; Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman; Maurice Cochee; Planning; Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Submitted for Public Comments Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2026
EXTERNAL
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected] ov,[email protected], [email protected], Lana.Negrete@santa monica.gov, [email protected], [email protected], Barry.Snell@sa ntamonica.gov, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], Daniel.
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Maurice.Co [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], planning@santam onica.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], josh.hamil [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], ,jacob.wasserman@sant amonica.gov,
Also submitted for Public Comments City Council Meeting June 9th 2026 and Public Comments Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2026.
This email is to memorialize my conversations with code enforcement officers in regards to the commercial operations at 1001 3rd Street Santa Monica Ca 90403 APN/Parcel ID 4292-019-015. Formerly known as the rent-controlled Embassy Apartments, then the Palihouse and now known as Maison Twenty Seven.
On May 27th. I called the 311 line and was transferred to code enforcement. I spoke with code enforcement who transferred me to the assigned code enforcement officer, Everth Gonzales. Left him a message. 310-458-4984 x 2340.
The earlier Code Enforcement call Case Number: CS0225773 was closed as a duplicate of the 26COM-0751 report. officer, Everth Gonzales. (Request Type: Code Enforcement - Regulatory Enforcement Service Description: Re:
Change in commercial use at Maison Twenty Seven 1001 3rd Street Santa Monica Ca 90403 in a residential neighborhood.)
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 8 Mr. Gonzales called me the following day to advise me he and his supervisor (possibly Maurice Cochee) went to 1001 3rd Street, the location of the hotel. He told me they observed a crowd of people being served in the front patio and lawn area and his understanding was that they were permitted to serve in this area, and had a permit to serve alcohol.
This was contrary to what we were informed by email from Jing Yeo, the Community Development Director of Santa Monica, who informed us the following in response to an email inquiry from Laura Wilson.
(See the email exchange later in this writing) Per Jing Yeo..... "a Conditional Use Permit for alcohol service was denied in 2014. At that time, it was confirmed that while the building has had a food service area of approximately 470 square feet in the basement, it only contains appliances to aid in the preparation of food for hotel patrons only, via in-room service and in the hotel lobby lounge. The public is not permitted to visit the hotel unless they are guests of a hotel patron. A public restaurant associated with the hotel is not permitted. However, food service for guests is an ancillary function common to any hotel and is therefore permitted. " Mr. Gonzalez responded he was unaware of this, and would seek clarification and get back to me. No response for him as of today.
Since that time, the hotel has continued to violate the restrictions and hosted a very large and loud party, held in the non-permitted area, and reportedly alcohol was served.
Today we had a phone conversation with Code Enforcement Manager Daniel Mick who informed us the Planning Department is “taking the lead” on this issue. He further stated he is waiting on clarity from the Planning Department for his department to understand how to “move forward” and enforce the commercial Hotel use conditions.
Daniel Mick referred us to Ross Fehrman at the Planning Department who we attempted to contact by phone and was reportedly in a meeting. We were told he asked for my number and said he would call us back. I left a contact phone number and await his call.
We seek to age in place in our residential home of 30 years. And enjoy the peace, quiet and enjoyment of our home and appreciate the City Staff attention to this matter.
Best,
Matthew Hausle
Resident of 1015 3rd Street Santa Monica Ca. 90403
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 9 David Yakobson
From: Laura Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 6:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Clerk Mailbox; Heidi von Tongeln; Oliver Chi; [email protected]; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; City of Santa Monica; [email protected]; Daniel Mick; Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman; Maurice Cochee; Planning; Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman; Steve Mizokami; Steve Mizokami
Subject: Submitted for Planning Commission Public Comments meeting on June 17th
EXTERNAL
Submitted for June 17th 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Public Comments June 3rd, 2026
Public Records Request.
RE: 1001 3rd Street Santa Monica Ca 90403 APN/Parcel ID 4292-019-015 Formerly known as the rent-controlled Embassy Apartments, then the Palihouse and now known as Maison Twenty Seven.
I am are requesting a written response and explanation if any of the requested 12 items below do not exists.
I would like to view these items in person and have them sent to me by email.
1. Any and all CUP or MUP requests/applications between the City of Santa Monica and 1001 3rd Street Santa Monica Ca 90403 APN/Parcel ID 4292-019-015
2. Any and all CUP and or MUP agreements between the City of Santa Monica and 1001 3rdStreet Santa Monica Ca 90403 APN/Parcel ID 4292-019-015
3. Any and all CUP and or MUP approvals and denials between the City of Santa Monica and 1001 3rd Street Santa Monica Ca 90403 APN/Parcel ID 4292-019-015
4. Steve Mizokami Principal Planner’s Finding of Facts issued for Conditional Use Permit 13-006 for alcohol service that was denied in 2014. I am seeking both his original findings of fact AND his final finding of fact issued after the Planning Commission Meeting 7-0 vote to deny Conditional Use Permit 13-006.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 10 5. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) & Zoning Approvals to convert, change the use and/or expand the Rent controlled Embassy Apartments into a Hotel at 1001 3rd Street Santa Monica Ca 90403 APN/Parcel ID 4292-019-015
6. Building permit for the addition of a 470 square foot food service area. There was no kitchen or food service when Palihouse began operating 2012/ 2013.
7. Permits for food service. When food service began and by what means permission was granted for food service.
8. Public Health Permit issued by the LA County Health Dept. Required prior to The City of Santa Monica’s approval for any business storing, preparing, or serving food.
9. Any and all Business Licenses or Operating Permits and when they were issued to 1001 3rd Street Santa Monica Ca 90403 APN/Parcel ID 4292-019-015
10. The CUP or contractual agreement to operate Valet car service on the street between the City of Santa Monica and 1001 3rd Street Santa Monica Ca 90403 APN/Parcel ID 4292-019-015 and or the vendors who provide such service.
11. Any and all contracts and or settlement agreements that allowed the conversion from an Apartment building into and Hotel.
12. Any and all documentation that defines the uses and limitation of use the City has in place for 1001 3rd Street Santa Monica Ca 90403 APN/Parcel ID 4292-019-015 It has been very difficult to get clarity from City staff on the operation of the property in question.
In an email from Jing Yeo she notes:
“As you note in your e-mail, a Conditional Use Permit for alcohol service was denied in 2014. At that time, it was confirmed that while the building has had a food service area of approximately 470 square feet in the basement, it only contains appliances to aid in the preparation of food for hotel patrons only, via in-room service and in the hotel lobby lounge. The public is not permitted to visit the hotel unless they are guests of a hotel patron. A public restaurant associated with the hotel is not permitted. However, food service for guests is an ancillary function common to any hotel and is therefore permitted”.
Code enforcement officer Everth Gonzalez came out during an event with food service in the garden and he said they are “allowed food service in the garden AND allowed alcohol service on the property. Understandably we are confused.
I seek to understand the uses and operating agreements the City has set in place for 1001 3 rd Street Santa Monica Ca 90403 APN/Parcel ID 4292-019-015 This request is also being submitted for City Council Public Comments meeting on June 9 th 2026 and the Planning Commission Public Comments meeting on June 17th 2026.
CC'd
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 11 [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],council @santamonica.gov, [email protected], [email protected], Dan.Hall @santamonica.gov, [email protected], [email protected], Natalya.Zernitsk [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], Daniel.Mick@sant amonica.gov, [email protected], [email protected], Maurice.Cochee@santamonica .gov, [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], shawn.landres@santa monica.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], leslie.lam [email protected], [email protected], ,[email protected], steve.mizokami @smgov.net,[email protected],
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 12 David Yakobson
From: erin Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2026 5:53 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Susan Cline; Peter James; [email protected]; Oliver Chi Subject: RE: Agenda Item 1 - Please Listen to Residents on the Future of the Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmember,
I am writing because I strongly support keeping the Santa Monica Airport open while exploring ways to expand park space and community benefits.
The Santa Monica Airport is a historic and valuable resource, and decisions about its future have implications beyond city boundaries. We do not want an irreversible decision that can impact jobs, businesses, and regional connectivity. A park-only option creates enormous costs for the City at a time when Santa Monica is already facing serious budget challenges, and would likely take many years and hundreds of millions of dollars before residents see any benefit.
Most importantly, a strong majority of Santa Monica voters support keeping the airport while still having park space and businesses. We are beginning to see that sentiment translate into action, with 834 letters submitted and 200 individuals showing up to speak in support at the most recent City Council meeting. Those speakers made clear that Santa Monica can pursue both open space and aviation, while also positioning itself as a hub for clean air mobility and emerging aviation technologies, creating benefits that extend across the city and the broader region.
I hope the City will take the time to pursue balanced solutions that preserve this important community resource while adding new public space and amenities.
Please listen to residents and avoid rushing toward closing the airport.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Erin Martin
Ocean Park
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 13 David Yakobson
From: Kimberly Soroka <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2026 11:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 14 David Yakobson
From: Kim Soroka <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2026 11:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 15 David Yakobson
From: Kiana Williams <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2026 11:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs:
completing your LCP.
Thank you,
Kiana Williams
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 16 David Yakobson
From: Nicholas Jones <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2026 4:26 PM
To: City of Santa Monica; Council Mailbox; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Police Cc: Clerk Mailbox; Public Works; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; councilmtgitems; Community Affairs
Subject: Immediate Installation of a Traffic Signal at 4th Street and San Vicente Boulevard
EXTERNAL
To the City of Santa Monica Traffic Engineering Division, I am writing to request that the City of Santa Monica evaluate and install a full traffic signal with pedestrian crossing controls at the intersection of 4th Street and San Vicente Boulevard.
The existing pedestrian crossing relies on flashing warning lights rather than a traffic signal.
Unfortunately, many drivers fail to stop when pedestrians activate the crossing. Vehicles frequently travel at high speeds along San Vicente Boulevard, and drivers often appear focused on traffic conditions ahead rather than on the flashing pedestrian beacon. As a result, pedestrians are regularly placed in a dangerous position when attempting to cross.
This issue is particularly concerning because the crossing is located near Carlthorp School. Students, parents, faculty, staff, and visitors travel through this area throughout the school day. Young children should not have to rely on drivers noticing a flashing light before they can safely cross a major roadway.
Drivers are conditioned to respond to traffic signals. A red light commands attention and requires vehicles to stop. Flashing pedestrian beacons, however, are frequently ignored, overlooked, or noticed too late. The current design places too much responsibility on pedestrians and does not provide the level of protection that should be expected at a crossing near a school and residential neighborhood.
The purpose of traffic infrastructure is to prevent accidents before they occur. The current crossing creates an unnecessary risk of serious injury or death. Waiting until a pedestrian is struck before Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 17 implementing additional safety measures would be irresponsible when a safer solution is readily available.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the City conduct a traffic engineering review of this intersection and consider installing a full traffic signal with pedestrian crossing controls. Such an improvement would significantly increase driver awareness, improve compliance, and provide a safer environment for residents, students, and visitors.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing what actions the City may take to address this important public safety concern.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Jones
Resident, 451 San Vicente Boulevard, Apt. 15
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 18 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2026 9:55 AM
To: The Santa Monica Coalition
Subject: Santa Monica is NOT Safe
EXTERNAL
Drug addicts in Santa Monica don't want housing. This guy's DEMANDING a HOTEL. A survey conducted by volunteers for The Santa Monica Coalition/Safe Cities showed a 34% increase in residents, business owners and employees who carry weapons for self-defense. Since City Manager Oliver Chi arrived, when was the last time you saw a pair of sworn SMPD officers walking through any SM park?
Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZNdhtLCx_f/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link YouTube
https://youtu.be/vnurPJ3_JiU
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 19 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2026 9:59 AM
To: The Santa Monica Coalition
Subject: Karen Bass MIA
EXTERNAL
Current LA Mayor Karen Bass did NOT join U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, LA District Attorney Nathan Hochman, the DEA and LAPD in supporting their successful arrests yesterday in MacArthur Park/Westlake. Her limo was safely tucked behind the gates of her Mayor's Mansion.
YouTube
https://youtu.be/vnurPJ3_JiU
Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZNiNrriiEG/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 20 David Yakobson
From: Ken Rosen <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2026 11:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 21 David Yakobson
From: Karen Emanuel <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2026 11:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 22 David Yakobson
From: Danielle Cebra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2026 11:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Danielle Cebra
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 23 David Yakobson
From: Diana Gmail <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2026 3:50 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Susan Cline; Peter James; [email protected]; Oliver Chi Subject: RE: Agenda Item 1 - Please Listen to Residents on the Future of the Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmember,
I am writing because I strongly support keeping the Santa Monica Airport open while exploring ways to expand park space and community benefits. It’s such a great GA airport! The Santa Monica Airport is a historic and valuable resource, and decisions about its future have implications beyond city boundaries. We do not want an irreversible decision that can impact jobs, businesses, and regional connectivity. A park-only option creates enormous costs for the City at a time when Santa Monica is already facing serious budget challenges, and would likely take many years and hundreds of millions of dollars before residents see any benefit.
Most importantly, a strong majority of Santa Monica voters support keeping the airport while still having park space and businesses. We are beginning to see that sentiment translate into action, with 834 letters submitted and 200 individuals showing up to speak in support at the most recent City Council meeting. Those speakers made clear that Santa Monica can pursue both open space and aviation, while also positioning itself as a hub for clean air mobility and emerging aviation technologies, creating benefits that extend across the city and the broader region.
I hope the City will take the time to pursue balanced solutions that preserve this important community resource while adding new public space and amenities.
Please listen to residents and avoid rushing toward closing the airport.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Ross Morgan
Sunset park
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 24 David Yakobson
From: Soledad Ramos <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2026 4:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Soledad Ramos
c 310 927 1811
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 25 David Yakobson
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2026 2:49 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's Local Coastal Program (LCP) and for your initiative in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As a community first advocate who loves Santa Monica and its irreplaceable coast, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving towards a successful conclusion, I ask you to please withdraw in its entirety the City's support for the terminally flawed AB 1740.
AB1740’s latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill’s lack of specificity also implies that its establishment of dedicated transit lanes will trigger added SB79 densification in our most sensitive areas which will further impact resident and visitor beach access as well as City finances from added services and infrastructure.
The bill’s completely nonsensical rationale that visitors access the coast by bicycle is not only complete fiction, it would facilitate a very destructive financial impact to the City. By erecting permanent barriers to visitor access to the city through the creation of new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking, this bill will directly and permanently disrupt and constrain Santa Monica’s desperately needed economic and visitor recovery. The financial impact to the City on stifling the City’s economic recovery would reverberate over time throughout the city by financially constraining all City programs and initiatives, all in service of narrowly benefitting the real estate lobby.
In 2024, well before this bill was ever contemplated, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) bestowed the "Prohousing" designation on Santa Monica. As Gov. Gavin Newsom noted, Santa Monica was selected among a cohort of seven cities for actively cutting red tape and accelerating approvals for housing at all income levels. Clearly, Santa Monica does not need this bill.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 26 The LCP is the right path - it can deliver all this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. The LCP route completely avoids unleashing Coastal abuse in Santa Monica by avoiding the dangerous and completely unjustified blanket Coastal Act exemptions.
Please place the community and the City’s wellbeing first and withdraw your support for the destructive AB 1740, and keep the focus where it belongs: completing Santa Monica’s LCP.
Thank you.
Marc Verville
Sunset Park
Former Chair, Santa Monica Audit Subcommittee
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 27 David Yakobson
From: Wendy Dembo <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2026 11:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP !! and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access and environmental protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP and working to make Santa Monica the City the best City that it can be.
Thank you,
Wendy Dembo
Santa Monica Resident
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 28 David Yakobson
From: Jack Sheehan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2026 12:49 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Susan Cline; Peter James; [email protected]; Oliver Chi Subject: RE: Agenda Item 1 - Please Listen to Residents on the Future of the Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmember,
I am a Santa Monica resident who lives near the airport, and I am writing because I strongly support keeping the Santa Monica Airport open while exploring ways to expand park space and community benefits.
As someone whose daily life is directly shaped by the airport and the surrounding area, I value the activity, jobs, and services it brings to our neighborhood. We do not want an irreversible decision that can impact the local businesses and livelihoods right outside our doors. A park-only option creates enormous costs for the City at a time when Santa Monica is already facing serious budget challenges, and would likely take many years and hundreds of millions of dollars before residents like me, the ones closest to the site, see any benefit.
Most importantly, a strong majority of Santa Monica voters support keeping the airport while still having park space and businesses. We are also seeing that support turn into action. At the most recent City Council meeting, 834 letters were submitted and 200 individuals showed up to speak in support of the airport, including residents who emphasized that Santa Monica does not have to choose between park space and aviation. There is a clear path to do both, while positioning the city as a hub for the clean air mobility movement already underway, bringing innovation, investment, and long-term benefits to the entire community.
I hope the City will take the time to pursue balanced solutions that preserve this important community resource while adding new public space and amenities for those of us who live nearby.
Please listen to residents and avoid rushing toward closing the airport.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Jack Sheehan
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 29 David Yakobson
From: Michael Esser <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2026 2:37 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Susan Cline; Peter James; [email protected]; Oliver Chi Subject: RE: Agenda Item 1 - Please Listen to Residents on the Future of the Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmember,
I am a Mar Vista resident who lives near the airport, and I am writing because I strongly support keeping the Santa Monica Airport open while exploring ways to expand park space and community benefits.
As someone whose daily life is directly shaped by the airport and the surrounding area, I value the activity, jobs, and services it brings to our neighborhood. We do not want an irreversible decision that can impact the local businesses and livelihoods right outside our doors. A park-only option creates enormous costs for the City at a time when Santa Monica is already facing serious budget challenges, and would likely take many years and hundreds of millions of dollars before residents like me, the ones closest to the site, see any benefit.
Most importantly, a strong majority of Santa Monica voters support keeping the airport while still having park space and businesses. We are also seeing that support turn into action. At the most recent City Council meeting, 834 letters were submitted and 200 individuals showed up to speak in support of the airport, including residents who emphasized that Santa Monica does not have to choose between park space and aviation. There is a clear path to do both, while positioning the city as a hub for the clean air mobility movement already underway, bringing innovation, investment, and long-term benefits to the entire community.
I hope the City will take the time to pursue balanced solutions that preserve this important community resource while adding new public space and amenities for those of us who live nearby.
Please listen to residents and avoid rushing toward closing the airport.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Michael Esser
Mar Vista
Dr. Michael Esser
[email protected]
C.: (310) 625-8698
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 30 David Yakobson
From: Mario Fonda-Bonardi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 9:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 31 David Yakobson
From: Laurent Meler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 2:59 AM
To: Caroline Torosis
Cc: City of Santa Monica; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete Subject: LAFW SS27 Lumiere Runway in Santa Monica CA
EXTERNAL
Dear Caroline Torosis,
My name is Laurent Meler, and I am the Co-Founder of Lumiere Runway. Established in 2019, our production company operates globally out of both Los Angeles and Hong Kong, positioning us uniquely to bridge "East meets West" culture through fashion and art.
We are currently planning our Los Angeles Fashion Week event for October 2026, which will showcase the upcoming Spring/Summer collections. A core pillar of Lumiere Runway is our commitment to uplifting the community; we dedicate our platform to launching young creators and emerging artists while deeply embracing local art and culture.
While we have successfully produced past LAFW events with the official support of Culver City, we are eager to bring this season's vibrant, culturally rich showcase to Santa Monica.
Could you please direct me to the right contact or department (such as Special Events or Cultural Affairs) to discuss potential venues, permits, and community partnerships? Youtube channel : LUMIERE RUNWAY
Instagram : @lumiere_runway
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
created with MySignature.io Laurent Meler Co-Founder / Executive Producer Meler Productions Limited Hong Kong & Los Angeles
Website: www.lumiererunway.com & Meler Productions
WhatsApp : +1 323 557 8759
HK : +852 6848 4585
Headquarters : 803 N Detroit St , Los Angeles CA 90046
T
o
h
e
l
p
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
T
o
h
e
l
p
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
created with
MySignature.i
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Laura Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 9:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Enter into public comments City Council meeting June 9th 2026
EXTERNAL
To:
Santa Monica City Manager Oliver Chi
Santa Monica Planning Manager Ross Fehrman
Santa Monica Code Enforcement Manager Daniel Mick
Santa Monica Director of Community Development Jing Yeo Re: Land use at 1001 3rd street Santa Monica Ca. 90403
We want to thank each of you for your time and attention to what has been an ongoing nuisance and escalation of change in use at 1001 3rd street Santa Monica Ca. 90403 We know there is a long history of City Staff, City Council Members and City Attorneys that precedes your involvement. And, it’s understandable that none of you are not fully aware of the history, that allowed the change in use, from a quiet residential rentcontrolled apartment building into a 24/7 commercial hotel operation.
We want to clarify to this date we have not seen or been provided with any written documents that “fully clarifies” the uses allowed and not allowed at the property. We find this confusing.
Again, we would appreciate prompt attention and specific clarity as to what uses the city asserts are and are not allowed at 1001 3rd street Santa Monica Ca. 90403. The ambiguity on this subject is concerning.
The purpose of this email is to seek clarity and a memorialization of the 3 conversations both myself and my husband Matthew Hausle had with Oliver Chi, Ross Fehrman, and Daniel Mick on June 4th 2026. If any of you care to add to the memorialization, please do respond.
In addition, see the email correspondence to and with City officials, Jing Yeo and Laura Wilson as #4 in this document. I want to note that my last email to Jing Yeo asking for clarity on the information she provided has not yet been responded to.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 2 1. Santa Monica Code Enforcement Manager Daniel Mick
We spoke with Daniel Mick (June 4) at 1:32 pm for about 17 minutes.
Daniel said it is his understanding that the Property at 1001 3rd street was not authorized to hold events, serve alcohol or use the outdoor spaces for food service. He also stated he did not have knowledge of a CUP that governed the use of the Property.
He further stated he lacked full clarity on what was and was not allowed on the property, and that the Planning Department was “taking the lead” on communicating with the operators and getting clarity for Code Enforcement on the uses allowed and not allowed. He also told us he was waiting on direction and clarity of the “allowed and not allowed” uses from the Planning Dept before enforcement would move forward. He said that once his dept. had clarity, Code Enforcement would get involved and he would update us He recommended we call Planning Manager Ross Fehrman as he would be the city contact to best answer our questions on use.
2. Santa Monica Planning Manager Ross Fehrman
We spoke with Ross Fehrman at 4:22pm the same day, for about 25 minutes.
Mr. Fehrman confirmed there is no CUP that outlines the use for the conversion of the property from an apartment to a hotel.
He said the land use is governed by two settlement agreements from 2000 and 2011 detailing what they can and cannot do.
He further said the operators are limited in use by anything more than what is available to hotel patrons/guests. They cannot use the hotel as a venue for events for non-hotel guests, full-blown restaurant and they cannot have alcohol. He said he was uncertain if they could throw parties at all. (confusing?)
When we referenced the website advertising the space as an event venue, he was unable to respond directly to our concerns. He did say the city is aware of the many complaints about the new operator and are taking steps to “hopefully” cease these types of operations. (not very reassuring to us)
Referencing the full-blown event on Tuesday June 2nd He said they held it without permission. He said they are not seeking approvals because they know they will not get them, and that the operators seemed to be doing the whole “ask for forgiveness and not permission thing”.
Mr. Fehrman mentioned they had had a conversation with Code Enforcement this week to educate them on the uses allowed. Yet, in our conversation with Code Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 3 Enforcement Manager Daniel Mick, he stated he was still awaiting clarification from planning. We find this confusing.
Mr. Fehrman claimed that to his knowledge, there has always been a kitchen for room service for the Patrons and their Guests and not the public. He said his understanding is the settlement agreement acknowledges the existence of a kitchen. However, he could not attest to the fact that due diligence was done at the time the settlement agreements were completed because he was not there when they were entered into. (I know for a fact there was no kitchen, only a vending machine in that space with snacks. Nothing more!)
He stated they have gone out multiple times to inform the current and former operators of the restrictions on use. (It still has not been made clear to us what those are).
He said the City will hold them accountable for what they can and cannot do (again to us this has not been clarified) and they are doing all they can to hold them accountable to abide by the settlement agreements.
We also asked Ross about the tree hedge on the South side of the property that is well over 30 feet blocking our view, air and light. He said they do enforce the height of tree hedges and was not certain if they were code compliant. He suggested our first step should be to submit our complaint to code enforcement. If there is a violation they may need to reduce the height, or they may seek a height modification with the Planning Dept.
We also asked about lights from the garden shining up and directly into our bedroom windows all night long. He did not know much about ambient light requirements and suggested filing a complaint with Code Enforcement as our first step.
He cautioned us, that while the City is taking the issue seriously, these issues will not resolve themselves overnight.
3. We spoke with Santa Monica City Manager Oliver Chi at 7:33pm for about 12 minutes
Mr. Chi told us he met with his “Team” about this property this week, (though who the “Team” was comprised of was not clear. )
He said “The Team” determined the property cannot be used as a venue space for weddings and/or events.
He told us the new operators have been spoken to and were told they cannot have events, a public restaurant, or serve alcohol. This despite the fact they have been Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 4 advertising (and holding) for weeks on their website for hosting events of up to 30 people to be held in the front lawn of the property.
He said the Planning Department and Code Enforcement will continue to monitor the use and violations will be taken seriously.
He mentioned that there is a process in place, and the city must give notice to the operator. Once noticed the operator is given an opportunity to “cure” violations.
If the operator continues to violate the allowed uses (again to us what they are has not been made clear) the city could start to fine them and if necessary, they could move to remove the hotel operation license . Though he expressed doubts it will come to that.
4. Laura Wilson email correspondence with Jing Yeo city staff/officials and others. 3 emails in total.
Prompted by a sign on the sidewalk advertising “The Embassy Bistro” open 8am to 3pm 7 days a week I sent and enquire to many City Officials. A week later Jing Yeo sent a response that lacked clarity of use. I responded with a request for answers to additional questions for clarity. Jing has not responded to my questions.
MY FIRST E-MAIL APRIL 27, 2026
o: [email protected], and 13 others, Cc: [email protected], and 2 others, Bcc: me, and 7 others · Mon, Apr 27 at 2:49 AM
Message Body
To whom it should concern:
Santa Monica City Attorney Heidi von Tongeln
Santa Monica City Manager Oliver Chi
Santa Monica City Council Members: Lana Negrete (Mayor), Caroline Torosis (Mayor Pro Tem), Jesse Zwick, Dan Hall, Ellis Raskin, Barry Snell, Natalya Zernitskaya Santa Monica 311
Somnium Hospitality Group
Christopher Nassetta Hilton CEO
Wilmont
Re: Change in commercial use at Maison Twenty Seven 1001 3rd Street Santa Monica Ca 90403 in a residential neighborhood.
There has been a recent change in use to the illegal hotel operating outside my bedroom window.
Formerly the residential rent-controlled Embassy Apartments, illegally converted into Palihouse hotel, now operating as Maison Twenty Seven a Hilton Small Luxury Hotel managed Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 5 by Somnium Hospitality Group.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/10152491656347262
On Monday April 20th for the first time, I saw sign on the sidewalk advertising Maison Twenty Seven has a restaurant open to the public 8am to 3pm 7 days a week and I called to ask some curious questions.
I asked when they started being open to the public. The Front desk clerk said, “It’s always been open to the public”. And I said, no it hasn’t always been open to the public. It was not allowed to be open to the public when it was Palihouse. And he said “Yes, it’s always been open to the public. They just didn’t advertise it”. I then asked if I would be able to get a drink if I came for brunch maybe mimosa or wine. And he said “No, we don’t have a liquor license. But we are working on getting it and should have one soon”.
After my initial call I reached out to Steven Ellingsen at Somnium Hospitality Group and left a voice mail message asking him for a return call and I never received a response. I’m guessing his britches are too big to address residents’ concerns! A common theme with the previous operators.
On Sunday April 26th, I called Maison Twenty Seven again and spoke to Diné who identified himself as the front desk manager. He said, the City of Santa Monica gave them permission to open a restaurant to the public.
When the residents fought the liquor license the planning commission voted 7-0 in our favor. And, we were assured there would not be a restaurant open to the public for food service. What has changed?
During the public process the operators could not overcome 1 of the 12 required “findings of fact” to move forward with a liquor license for a restaurant/bar. What has changed? https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2014/March2014/03_21_2014_Planning_Commission_Blocks_Liquor_License_for_Palihouse_Santa_Monica. html#:~:text=After%20about%20three%20hours%20of,to%20serve%20alcohol%20to%20guests. https://www.smdp.com/palihouse-hotel-to-stay-sober/
https://www.smdp.com/my-write-palihouse-at-the-wrong-place-wrong-time/ When and how did Maison Twenty Seven request a change in use? Who at the City gave them permission to increase the commercial use of the property? When was the change approved? Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 6 How many public guests are they approved to serve? Was there notice to the residents? Was there a public process? How can there be a public restaurant when they have ONE parking space? I am now dealing with the prospect of 100’s of additional outside customers, coming and going for food service 8am - 3pm 7 days a week, directly below my bedroom window, 15 feet from where I sleep. My PTSD has been trigged by the knowledge of this abusive change in use and is causing me great distress.
As they advertise and knowledge of the “open to the public” restaurant reaches customers the already disruptive illegal use will increase to a point of making it impossible to live (as is my legal right) in the peace, quiet and enjoyment of my home.
Any idea what it’s like to have a 24/7 commercial business 15 feet from your bedroom where you sleep? Or a restaurant 8am-3pm 7 days a week 15 feet from your bedroom where you sleep?
This is what 8 people sound like below my bedroom.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/10153112466072262
Your predecessors intentionally participated in the illegal conversion of the Embassy Apartments, a rent-controlled build into a hotel. No notice to the public. No public process.
No variance was applied for as required by our zoning laws. No change of use to the zoning at the time the illegal conversion took place. And, without the appropriate legal process, I believe it is still an illegally operating hotel.
The use of an illegal settlement agreement that violated our zoning laws to avoid paying legal fees does not make the commercial hotel use legal.
I do not dispute the owners right to Ellis the building and that is the only thing the judge decided in the case. I dispute the illegal conversion and change in use from Apartments to a 24/7 commercial hotel.
Both the City of Santa Monica and previous owners intentionally mislead the courts when they intentionally withheld all evidence of the factual legal use of the building as a residential home to permanent residents of the Embassy Apartments for over 80 years.
The change in use from a quiet residential building into a 24/7 commercial hotel has been devastating to my health. The noise can start at 4am when guests leave dragging their suitcases, bagging them down the stairs, across the cobble stone walkway, yelling back and forth to one another as they go. And, the noise can go until well after 2am when guests return from evenings out.
The valet service parks cars for hours at a time in the 15-minute zone intended for use to load and unload thus, causing them to double park, block the road and park in the red Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 7 zone. And, they are using our public street to park cars for private profit. The noise from valet dragging their key cart out around 6:30 am is loud and disruptive. The constant slamming of doors and trunks, car alarms and the revolving coming and going of strangers yelling as they leave outside my home is beyond intrusive.
Although you may not care how this illegal conduct impacts the residents of the Embassy Apartments and my home… I do!
Low-income families and senior citizens who lived in their rent- controlled homes for 20 to 40 years LOST THEIR HOMES! Their homes are now high-priced hotel rooms. And I now live next to a 24/7 disruptive home destroying illegal hotel. Strangers below my window 24/7 coming and going with little regard for the residents who live here.
The fictitious story that the Embassy Apartment Building was always a hotel is a lie! A fabricated delusional lie! And, the City of Santa Monica is profiting off their lies and illegal conduct to collect TOT tax!
The Embassy Apartments was a residential building and home to permanent residents for more than 80 years.
In 1979 when rent control was set in place the then owners of the Embassy attempted to avoid registering the build with the rent control board. They claimed it was a hotel.
However, they were unable to produce any evidence to support that claim. They had no business license and never paid any TOT tax. They never legally operated as a hotel.
In an attempt to silence the then residents the Embassy Apartment manager sent a letter to the residents of the building denying they were not trying to be a hotel.
See the letter in the link below.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/10153859719822262
When I moved here 27 years ago, I did not move into and commercial district or next to a hotel. I had neighbors who cared about each other and the peace, quiet and enjoyment of our residential neighborhood. Now I have 100’s of strangers coming and going 24/7 who care little about the residents who live here.
When asked to be quiet, I am often not heard because they are so loud or simply ignored and must raise my voice to be heard over the noise at all hour’s day and night.
The response from some rude, loud and disruptive tourist who can afford the high-priced rooms has been “We are paying to stay here” as if that gives them the right to violate our zoning laws. And why don’t you move if you don’t like it? Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 8 This is our forever home. My husband is 73 years old I am 62 this August. We moved here to be in a walkable City and live peacefully and securely “age in place” in our affordable rent-controlled home. We live on a fixed income and are not able move! It is financially impossible for us replace our existing home and continued to live in Santa Monica.
What I really find appalling is the out-of-town guests and hotel operators expect silence on our side of the fence while they make as much noise as they want and operate a noisy illegal commercial hotel 24/7 directly below my bedroom window in our residential neighborhood.
I am not paid to be nice to rude hotel guests or employees being loud, yelling at their phones, holding meetings or gathering, smoking causing toxic fumes to enter my home and being disruptive to the peace, quiet and enjoyment of my home 15 feet from my bedroom 24/7.
I refuse to be kind or quiet while Maison Twenty Seven a Hilton Small Luxury Hotel profits off of the further destruction of my home!
I respectfully request a reply to my questions above.
Laura Wilson
(949) 689-5432
A little FACTUAL history for you.
Embassy Apartments to Palihouse Hotel Illegal Conversion Fact Sheet *The Embassy Apartment conversion to full-scale Palihouse Hotel in an R3 residential neighborhood of Santa Monica is illegal. This illegal Residential Apartment to HOTEL conversion sets a serious and dangerous precedence for residential land use and renters rights in Santa Monica.
*1927 The Embassy Apartments were built. The 1927 building permit is for a Multifamily Residential Apartment Building. The permit included the question: What type of business will operate in the building? The answer was: NONE. And at the time The Embassy was built in 1927 Property was zone residential, not commercial. Thus, the assertion it was built or operated, as a hotel is factually incorrect.
*1979 rent control is established.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 9 *April 1980 the RCB denied the owner of The Embassy Apartments a Hotel Exemption based on the fact: The owner failed to provide evidence any units qualified as hotel units. I am in contact with three tenants who spoke/testified at the hearing. *All 38 units were registered with rent control and paid fees as residential Apartments for 20 years. This requires forms submitted under penalty of perjury that the units are used as residential occupancy.
*All recorded sales with the county records office of the property are for a Residential Multifamily Apartment House. The new owner just recently had the parcel type changed to commercial but they purchased The Embassy as a Multifamily Residential building and parcel.
*There is evidence the Embassy was “illegally” renting a few units as hotel rooms. Done so without City authorization, a hotel business license or paying any Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) on and off for several years. This is in direct violation of the rent control laws after the Hotel Exemption was denied in 1980 and the Owner failed to appeal. *The Embassy had NO business license to operate as a hotel until 2008 and in fact its business license was for residential use prior to that time. *A 1992 independent review for California Park and Recreation identifies The Embassy as an Elegant Apartment Building used as Residential. There is NO mention of hotel use.
In 1995 an overlay was created that grandfathered “Legally Existing Hotels” in the R3 zone in which The Embassy sits. There is no mention or inclusion of the Embassy in the staff report in support of the overlay. In fact, the report identifies the hotels in the overlay zone and the Embassy is not one of them. No notice was given to any property owners or tenants located near the Embassy. The overlay does not apply The Embassy because it never “legally existed or operated” as a hotel. And, to this day in my opinion is illegal! *In 1998 the City Planning Dept. sent the Embassy a letter to stop the use of residential units as hotel rooms.
*In 1998 The Embassy Owners Attorney provide a statement that only 6 units were used for short-term Hotel rentals in December 1994.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 10 *In 2000 without public notice or a hearing the Embassy Owners and the City entered a settlement agreement. The 2000 agreement was the first step that slowly and illegally eroded away the residential status of the Embassy Apartments. The settlement included a provision to allow the illegal conversion of residential units. The compromise was 19 hotel units and 19 rent-controlled units. NOTE: I believe this agreement violated the Brown Act.
Because, there was no notice or due process as required by law. *In 2003 the Embassy’s application to become a Historical Landmark it acknowledges its “Mixed Use” Character and argued the Embassy was primarily residential. And they supplied The State of California “HISTORIC RESOURCE INVETORY “of the Embassy property. It was prepared in 1992 and identified the significance and evaluation of the Embassy property as an Elegant Apartment Building…..
The Attorney representing the Embassy included the following….
More particularly the interior of the Embassy generally consists of residential and guest unit corridors support spaces for the Embassy personnel and a lobby area that (unlike some hotel lobby areas) is not regularly open to the general public The Embassy lacks the type of public spaces commonly associated with hotels (as opposed to apartment hotels) such as restaurants banquet facilities, meeting rooms or a lobby that serves as a public gathering place. For the privacy of the Embassy’s Residents and guests, and in recognition of its mixed-use character as both a resident-serving and a visitor-serving facility the Embassy does not allow the general public access to any of its interior spaces.” Thus, The Embassy abandoned all rights to run a full-scale hotel with a lobby lounge, restaurant, bar, and valet service. It NEVER legally operated as hotel! *In 2008, the Embassy owners sued the City of Santa Monica to invalidate its 2000 settlement with the City of Santa Monica so they could evict the tenants under the Ellis Act.
*In 2010 the court on appeal invalidated the 2000 agreement. However, this finding by the court does not give the City or RCB the right to disregard the SMCC laws in order to settle a lawsuit. And that is exactly what the City of Santa Monica and RCB did. *In 2011 in total disregard of SMCC zoning laws they entered into another settlement agreement that I believe is illegal. The 2011 agreement violates basic zoning laws to protect neighborhoods from illegal commercial hotel business expansion in residential zones. It’s my opinion…. The 2011 SA violates our zoning laws and residents right to speak; there was no public notice or hearing on the matter. Thus, no notice or due process as required by law.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 11 The RCB failed to follow basic requirements for hotel exemptions under Chapter 12 of the RCB laws. And, no effective notice of this drastic change in use and mode of use of the property were given to the surrounding residents or property owners. RCB denied the Hotel Exemption in 1980, the Owners failed to appeal the decision. Thus, any use as a hotel after 1980 is illegal and the RCB’s later exemption violates its own charter.
RESPONSE FROM JING APRIL 30TH 2026
[email protected]
To: me, and 1 other, Cc: Ross · Thu, Apr 30 at 7:07 PM
Message Body
Dear Ms. Wilson,
Thank you for your e-mail. I would like to confirm that the City has not received a request for any change in use of the hotel nor have we approved any change in use. As you note in your e-mail, a Conditional Use Permit for alcohol service was denied in 2014. At that time, it was confirmed that while the building has had a food service area of approximately 470 square feet in the basement, it only contains appliances to aid in the preparation of food for hotel patrons only, via in-room service and in the hotel lobby lounge. The public is not permitted to visit the hotel unless they are guests of a hotel patron. A public restaurant associated with the hotel is not permitted. However, food service for guests is an ancillary function common to any hotel and is therefore permitted.
We understand that the hotel is under new ownership and management and have reached out to set up a meeting to ensure that they understand the operating conditions for the hotel.
Thank you,
Jing
MY RESPONSE TO JING’S APRIL 30TH 2026
Laura Wilson
To: Jing, Cc: [email protected], and 20 others, Bcc: jonh, and 3 others · Thu, Apr 30 at 11:15 PM Message Body
Thank you for your reply Jing.
Ok, so when their employees said the City gave them permission to open a restaurant to the public that was a lie!
Not a good way for a new owner to treat the residents. Lying and dishonest from the start is a bad sign. Leaves me not feeling very hopeful they will be good neighbors.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 12 As of today the hotel had a sign on the side walk advertising Embassy Bistro with food service starting at 8am inviting the public. I watched many people walk by, see the sign and go in. Will they be required to remove the sign?
And you wrote "food for hotel patrons only, via in-room service and in the hotel lobby lounge."
They are serving food in the front garden daily 15 ft. from my bedroom and on the back patio.
Can you assure me that they will be informed that the permitted use is only allowed "food for hotel patrons only, via in-room service and in the hotel lobby lounge? Groups of people ordering food and clanging of dishes at 8am is disruptive to our ability to sleep. My husband is 73, both he and i are suffering greatly by this use waking us up. It's causing us significant health issues due to lack of sleep. Lack of sleep causes disorientation, confusion, irritability, depression and triggers my PTSD from the hotel even without food service.
The public is not permitted to visit the hotel unless they are guests of a hotel patron. Can you clarify what this means?
Their webpage is advertising the hotel as an event venue in the front garden up to 30 guests and evenings in the Lobby. Can they do this? And how many additional "guests" can they accommodate? They are in the middle of a residential neighborhood and have one parking spot!
Lobby
Available for select evening events, the lobby serves as a sophisticated indoor extension of the property. It is designed to be incorporated into larger, multi-space experiences, allowing for a seamless transition between the interior and the surrounding gardens.
La Venue Garden
A flexible outdoor setting designed for the natural flow of conversation. This open-air space is ideal for afternoon networking, sunset receptions, and casual gatherings for up to 30 guests, or seated events for up to 24.
https://www.maisontwentyseven.com/santa-monica-venue
Also, before 8am they are (i believe intentionally) using a leaf blower below our bedroom window. Again, this conduct is causing us significant health issues due to lack of sleep. Can this also be addressed with them?
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 13 Where are they parking the valet cars?
I think they need to be informed about the use of the two valet spots they have taken over for private profit. Cars are left in the valet spots for hours at a time, sometime all day. It is my understanding the 15 min ONLY sign applies to them as the spaces are intended for use to load and unload guests. Because they leave cars in the valet, when additional drives arrive, they are double parked in the road and in the red zone in front of the valet. I have seen cars with valet tickets parked on our street. And have personally witnessed valet parking cars on the public street.
And, if they did seek a change in use how would they do that? Who would make that decision? How would we be notified?
Again, thank you,
Laura
(949) 689-5432
Again, we would appreciate prompt attention and very specific clarity as to what uses are and are not allowed. The ambiguity on this subject is concerning.
In conclusion, we believe lack of a CUP and any mention of allowed uses in the two settlement agreements should limited the uses to those uses that legally existed on this property and were in place prior to the 2000 settlement agreement.
Respectfully,
Laura Wilson and Matthew Hausle
CC Santa Monica City Council Members, Heidi von Tongeln, Wilmont Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 1 David Yakobson
From: ann williams <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 12:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: council items 13a, 13b & 13c June 9 council meeting
EXTERNAL
Here are my comments on the above items:
My name is Ann Williams and I have lived in Sunset Park for more than 30 years. A number of years ago I observed the Santa Monica City Council debate the defunding of a youth sports program at Memorial Park. Councilmember Bobby Shriver suggested that if the City let go of one police officer, that officer’s pay, overtime and pension money would amply fund multiple youth sports programs. His comments were greeted with derision and anger by the rest of the council. How dare he threaten our brave boys in blue! Now the council is defunding many, many social programs. Defunding is presented as the reasonable thing to do. So what about the police? Why are they immune from deep budget cuts? Why not defund the police? Perhaps it has to do with the political support of council members by the police union, as Shriver suggested years ago.
I can’t tell you how many times I have witnessed 3 or 4 cop cars surrounding a single person sitting on a curb in this town. And that person is almost always black or brown. I am sure you have seen the same thing many times if you have lived here as long as I have. We don’t need this many police. We don’t need them to have such militarized armaments. Defunding the police is not some radical notion, it’s common sense.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Craig Storper <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 12:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused.
The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 2 David Yakobson
From: Pigeon Turtle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 12:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 3 David Yakobson
From: Kim Halizak <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 4 David Yakobson
From: W. O.T. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank You
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 5 David Yakobson
From: Victoria Bostock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
V Bostock
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 6 David Yakobson
From: Roth Herrlinger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Roth Herrlinger, Principal, HLE Group
Learn about ROI+QOL and Courageous Capitalism
Connect on LinkedIn
Listen to my solo piano music on Pandora and on Spotify Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 7 David Yakobson
From: Mariah Dyson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing the completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission to target certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions that allow the removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of the impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set a dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 8 David Yakobson
From: Sofia Ratcovich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Sofia Ratcovich
Zero Waste Company | Founder
310.801.9218 | [email protected]
@ZeroWasteCo
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 9 David Yakobson
From: Amy Jo Deguzis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 10 David Yakobson
From: Susan Dumond <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast, swims in our beautiful Santa Monica Bay and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Susan Dumond, Ph.D.
President & Founder
[email protected] | m: (310) 704-1044
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 11 David Yakobson
From: Steven Reich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
As a long time resident of Santa Monica, thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP, and you will have my support in the next election.
Thank you.
Steven Reich
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 12 David Yakobson
From: Audrey Gelb <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 13 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you,
Robert Lyon
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 14 David Yakobson
From: barbara poland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 15 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 16 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you,
Robert Lyon
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 17 David Yakobson
From: Laurie Jiobu <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Laurie Jiobu
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 18 David Yakobson
From: Reagan Porter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs:
completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 19 David Yakobson
From: John ET Williams <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Hi all, obviously, this is a form letter, but it truly does speak for me.
JW
424 10th Street
Santa Monica, CA
90402
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you,
John Williams
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 20 David Yakobson
From: Ali Meisel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you,
Alison Meisel
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 21 David Yakobson
From: Hoshi Hana <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Hoshi Hana
Art & Design to Activate Peace, Love & Friendship
3371 Glendale Blvd. #481
Los Angeles, CA 90039
USA
323-457-4262
www.hoshihana.com
New project: https://artlovefriend.com
——-——-——-
Information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the individual to whom it is addressed and is private and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please kindly destroy it and notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 22 David Yakobson
From: Michael Hendershot <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Mike Hendershot
Homeowner
129 Alta Avenue
Santa Monica
Sent from my iPhone
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 23 David Yakobson
From: no no <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 24 David Yakobson
From: Saran Kirschbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 25 David Yakobson
From: Lauren Sander <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Warm regards,
Lauren Sander
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 26 David Yakobson
From: Alex Candia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:06 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you,
Alex Candia
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 27 David Yakobson
From: dorrit vered <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 28 David Yakobson
From: Matthew St.Ives <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 29 David Yakobson
From: Laura Schuman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
LAURA SCHUMAN
Cell 310-498-5853
[email protected]
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 30 David Yakobson
From: Lucy Hart <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Lucy Hart
Entrepreneur
Direct: 818-624-4617
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 31 David Yakobson
From: Jo Baxter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Sent from my iPad
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 32 David Yakobson
From: Laura Pendorf <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 33 David Yakobson
From: Jessica Du Mont <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 34 David Yakobson
From: Olivia Janisch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Olivia Janisch
650 575 7909
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 35 David Yakobson
From: Tabitha <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Thank you,
Tabitha Grasing
Santa Monica resident
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 36 David Yakobson
From: Pamela Neff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Pamela Neff
Sent from my iPhone
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 37 David Yakobson
From: Emma Castillo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Emma Castillo
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 38 David Yakobson
From: guy okazaki <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 39 David Yakobson
From: Robert Sila <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 40 David Yakobson
From: michelle geil <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Michelle Geil
MDR CA
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 41 David Yakobson
From: Olivia Buckwheat Kelly <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Olivia Kelly
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 42 David Yakobson
From: Dave Williams <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Dave Williams
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 43 David Yakobson
From: Isabelle Millar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 44 David Yakobson
From: Jen Broughel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Jen Broughel
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 45 David Yakobson
From: Doug Saribay <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 46 David Yakobson
From: Romain Coetmellec <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 47 David Yakobson
From: Angel Orona <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 48 David Yakobson
From: Tia Triplett <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 49 David Yakobson
From: Chris Brennan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 50 David Yakobson
From: Scott Morano <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Scott Morano
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 51 David Yakobson
From: doubleapark <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Sent from my Galaxy
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 52 David Yakobson
From: Patti Rowey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who grew up in WLA, loves the entire California coast, lives a block from the beach and sails on the SM Bay weekly, I applaud this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, I feel that it is imperative that the City withdraws its support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Patti
Patti Vogt Rowey
310-869-2628
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 53 David Yakobson
From: Seth Funk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 54 David Yakobson
From: Nicholas Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 55 David Yakobson
From: Sonya Redi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 56 David Yakobson
From: Peggy Sue Piedra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you. -ps
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 57 David Yakobson
From: CJ <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Chris
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 58 David Yakobson
From: Corey La Rue <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Corey La Rue
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message including attachments, if any, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and /or attorney-client privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium, please so advise the sender immediately.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 59 David Yakobson
From: James Longman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 60 David Yakobson
From: Greene, Robert <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Robert
_____________________________
Robert B. Greene, MSFS, CFP®
Wealth Manager
LPL Financial
2001 S. Barrington Ave Suite 311
Los Angeles, CA 90025
P. 310 477.4877
F. 310 477-6377
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 61 [email protected]
www.lpl.com
“ People don’t plan to fail, they fail to plan….”
California Insurance License 0A67455
LPL Financial Insurance Lic# 0518721
LPLIA Lic# 0B91442
LPL Financial Member FINRA/SIPC
Securities offered through LPL Financial Member FINRA/SIPC The information contained in this email message is being transmitted to and is intended for the use of only the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately delete.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 62 David Yakobson
From: Allison M. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 63 David Yakobson
From: Austin Magsig <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:06 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 64 David Yakobson
From: Claire Salinda <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 12:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As a Santa Monica resident and someone who loves this coast, I want what's best for our community and I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Claire Salinda
837 9th Street
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 65 David Yakobson
From: Doug Paterson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 12:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Doug Paterson
Sent from Doug’s iPhone
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 66 David Yakobson
From: Vanessa Escamilla <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 12:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 67 David Yakobson
From: Marc Silverman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 12:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves LA's coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please WITHDRAW the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit THEM directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 68 David Yakobson
From: Natale Ferreira <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 12:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 69 David Yakobson
From: Geoff Regalado <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 12:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Sent from Outlook for iOS
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Victoria Miller Gmail <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 12:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 2 David Yakobson
From: Carol <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 1:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 3 David Yakobson
From: michelle walsh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 1:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 4 David Yakobson
From: Donald Bull <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 1:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
NOW — MY PERSONAL NOTE — Fires, climate change, devastation — we need to keep our tax base. We need people to live in Los Angeles and thrive. But we must build in a way that prepares us for the next problem.
Mitigation, along with preventing climate change from advancing. Preparing for a new kind of future.
We must MAINTAIN the current rules to make that happen! Otherwise we are doubling down on what got us into trouble in the first place!
Thank you.
Donald Bull
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 5 David Yakobson
From: Alison Leigh Wallis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 1:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027.
As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you and sincerely,
Alison
(Santa Monica resident since 2014)
Alison Leigh Wallis
e: [email protected]
c: 949.310.9772
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 6 David Yakobson
From: Billie Fischer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 1:56 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Susan Cline; Peter James; [email protected]; Oliver Chi Subject: RE: Agenda Item 1 - Please Listen to Residents on the Future of the Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmember,
I am a Santa Monica resident and I am writing because I strongly support keeping the Santa Monica Airport open while exploring ways to expand park space and community benefits.
Even though I do not live right next to the airport, it matters to me as part of what makes Santa Monica the city it is.
We do not want an irreversible decision that can impact jobs, businesses, and city revenues that fund the services all of us rely on. A park-only option creates enormous costs for the City at a time when Santa Monica is already facing serious budget challenges, and would likely take many years and hundreds of millions of dollars before any resident sees a benefit.
Most importantly, a strong majority of Santa Monica voters support keeping the airport while still having park space and businesses. That support is becoming more visible. At the most recent City Council meeting, 834 letters were submitted and 200 residents came forward to speak, reinforcing that many in the community believe we can have both meaningful open space and continued aviation use. Speakers highlighted the opportunity for Santa Monica to serve as a leader in clean air mobility, supporting innovation that benefits the entire city.
I hope the City will take the time to pursue solutions that preserve this important community resource while adding new public space and amenities for all Santa Monica residents.
Please listen to residents and avoid rushing toward closing the airport.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Billie Fischer
NOMO
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 7 David Yakobson
From: Michael Baldo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 1:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 8 David Yakobson
From: Terry, Elisa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 2:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Elisa Terry (she/her)
Associate Director - Fitness & Wellbeing
UCLA Recreation
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 9 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 2:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 10 David Yakobson
From: Cilka Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 2:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 11 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 3:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 12 David Yakobson
From: George Capacete <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 3:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 13 David Yakobson
From: Steph Whyte <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 3:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 14 David Yakobson
From: Amy wolfberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 3:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Get Outlook for iOS
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 15 David Yakobson
From: Mara Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 3:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Keep our Coastal Act intact.
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Mara Thompson
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 16 David Yakobson
From: Jerome Palacios Myerson <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 3:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Jerome Palacios Myerson
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 17 David Yakobson
From: Marvin Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 3:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Marvin Lee
[email protected]
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Halei Parker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 4:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Halei Prichard
typed on a tiny mobile keyboard...
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 2 David Yakobson
From: Hamid Assian <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 4:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
With Gratitude,
Hamid Assian, local business owner
Kung Fu Moves
323.770.8020
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 3 David Yakobson
From: Teresa Servin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 4:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 4 David Yakobson
From: Renata Pompelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 4:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Renata Pompelli
Born in Santa Monica 1958
St John’s Hospital
Sent from my iPhone
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 5:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis
Cc: Oliver Chi
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
[email protected]
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 2 David Yakobson
From: Prranit Vaswani <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 5:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 3 David Yakobson
From: Nathan Wise <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 5:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Nathan Wise
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 4 David Yakobson
From: Julia Arvanites <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 5:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 5 David Yakobson
From: Leah Morrison <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 4:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you,
Leah
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 6 David Yakobson
From: Debra Treviño <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 4:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you,
Debra Trevino
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 7 David Yakobson
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 4:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you,
Phyllis Chavez
Sunset Park, Santa Monica
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 8 David Yakobson
From: Grant Parks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 4:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Grant Parks
(720)-530-4501
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 9 David Yakobson
From: White, Shane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 4:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
UCLA HEALTH SCIENCES IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and delete this message from your computer.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 10 David Yakobson
From: steve zelman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 4:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly.
The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you,
Stephen Zelman
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 11 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 5:53 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Oliver Chi
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/9/26 - General Comment - Local Coastal Plan established with MOU -- PLEASE Withdraw your support for AB 1740
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Council Members,
On behalf of the Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) Board, we would like to thank you for prioritizing the completion of Santa Monica’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) and for establishing the Memorandum of Understanding with the Coastal Commission to reach certification by December 2027.
With the LCP process now underway, we urge the City to withdraw its support for AB 1740. Recent amendments to the bill create a problematic incentive for developers to delay LCP completion, as an incomplete LCP would trigger Coastal Act exemptions that directly benefit them. Furthermore, the bill introduces statewide exemptions that allow for the removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without adequately considering the impact on beach access for families and inland visitors.
While Wilmont supports housing and transit, we believe blanket Coastal Act exemptions set a dangerous precedent. The LCP is the appropriate mechanism to achieve these goals while ensuring public access and environmental protections remain intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and remain focused on completing the LCP.
Thank you,
Board of Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 12 David Yakobson
From: Cameron Montesanto <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 6:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Cameron Montesanto
Sustainability Rep
C: (619) 922-9917
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 13 David Yakobson
From: Nguyen Tran <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 6:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 14 David Yakobson
From: Sew The Seeds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 6:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you,
Sherrell Cuneo
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 15 David Yakobson
From: Nicole R. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 4:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Nicole R.
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Nicole Rostoker
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 16 David Yakobson
From: Sarah Wineland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 6:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Sarah Wineland
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 17 David Yakobson
From: melanie zoey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 6:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 18 David Yakobson
From: Gilberto Mendez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 7:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 19 David Yakobson
From: Chris Withrow <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 7:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 20 David Yakobson
From: Mario Fonda-Bonardi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 8:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please withdraw our City's support for AB 1740
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members
Please withdraw our City's support for this Coastal busting bill and let our Sacramento representatives know of our City's opposition.
Thanks Mario Fonda-Bonardi
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 21 David Yakobson
From: Wei Chen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 8:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 22 David Yakobson
From: Terrie Lavery <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 8:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Terrie Lavery
Sent from my iPhone
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 23 David Yakobson
From: Rosemary Sostarich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Rosemary Sostarich
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 24 David Yakobson
From: Eduardo Fantastico <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 25 David Yakobson
From: Jenese Girgis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Resident, 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 26 David Yakobson
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 12:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 27 David Yakobson
From: Abbie Bernstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 2:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Please protect our coastline and waters.
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Abbie Berntein
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 28 David Yakobson
From: Dana Sparks <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 6:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Dana Sparks
Cell 805-402-7427
IMDb.me/DanaSparks
Beverly & Co.
Cal DRE#: 01859615
@DanaSparksReal
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 29 David Yakobson
From: tammie bardowell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 8:38 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Susan Cline; Peter James; [email protected]; Oliver Chi Subject: RE: Agenda Item 1 - Please Listen to Residents on the Future of the Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmember,
I am writing because I strongly support keeping the Santa Monica Airport open while exploring ways to expand park space and community benefits.
The Santa Monica Airport is a historic and valuable resource, and decisions about its future have implications beyond city boundaries. We do not want an irreversible decision that can impact jobs, businesses, and regional connectivity. A park-only option creates enormous costs for the City at a time when Santa Monica is already facing serious budget challenges, and would likely take many years and hundreds of millions of dollars before residents see any benefit.
Most importantly, a strong majority of Santa Monica voters support keeping the airport while still having park space and businesses. We are beginning to see that sentiment translate into action, with 834 letters submitted and 200 individuals showing up to speak in support at the most recent City Council meeting.
Those speakers made clear that Santa Monica can pursue both open space and aviation, while also positioning itself as a hub for clean air mobility and emerging aviation technologies, creating benefits that extend across the city and the broader region.
I hope the City will take the time to pursue balanced solutions that preserve this important community resource while adding new public space and amenities.
Please listen to residents and avoid rushing toward closing the airport.
Thank you for your service to our community.
i wish to keep it open. it would be a total shame to close it completely. i just happen to live in the lax line of traffic. they fly over my house every night every day. So if you wanna shut down anything shut down LAX they’re destroying my clean air, but I live near the ocean. Santa Monica is not a bad airport. It’s not unsafe and it’s not unhealthy. Keep it open, please
Sincerely,
tammie bardowell
mar vista
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 30 David Yakobson
From: Dennis Jimenez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 8:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you. Dennis Jimenez
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 31 David Yakobson
From: Lynette Kozdron <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 8:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 32 David Yakobson
From: Karen Melick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; Oscar Santiago Subject: Agenda Item #1, General Comments - Improving Financials and Use of the Joint Use Funding for Parks and Recreation
EXTERNAL
Hello,
Improving Financial Situation While Paying the $12M Joint Use Payment Congratulations on the encouraging financial report for the City. In 2024-25 there was a surplus of $2.5M. This current year 2025-26 there is a projected surplus of $9M instead of a projected $8M deficit. Next year’s 2026-27 budget is now projected to be “balanced”, when it was initially projected as a $30M deficit.
All of these years include the approximately $12M Joint Use payment to the school district.
Why Would Cost Savings or Service Level Reductions be Required if the Joint Use Payment Continues? The May 26th staff report for the Fiscal Year Proposed Budget says that if ballot measure for the parcel tax does not pass “should the City Council wish to extend the Agreement beyond the current 2027 expiration, that will require continued General Fund financial support to the District, and staff would anticipate needing to identify corresponding operational cost savings and, potentially, service level reductions, in order to sustain that level of funding for the Joint Use Agreement.” Why would there need to be operational cost savings and service level reductions when the City is already providing these services with the existing budget while making the Joint Use payment and having surpluses? I see this statement as a scare tactic to get support for passing the proposed parcel tax by saying if it doesn’t pass, services will need to be cut, which should not be true.
Expiration of the Joint Use Agreement Results in $12M for Additional Purposes Starting in the 2027-28 Budget – Continue to Use for Parks and Recreation
Considering that this $12M is currently being used to provide parks and recreation services, if the parcel tax passes, I ask that a significant portion of the funding continue to be used for parks and recreation, potentially earmarked for the Airport conversion project, for the creation of pocket parks in the park poor areas of the City and to help pay for a new aquatics center (had to put in a plug for that!).
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Karen Melick
Sunset Park
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 33 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:04 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; Jing Yeo; councilmtgitems
Subject: General Public Input - City of Santa Monica Council meeting of June 9, 2026
EXTERNAL
Request the City of Santa Monica Withdraw support for and co-sponsorship of AB 1740 General Public Input
June 9, 2026 (LCP, AB 1740)
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
The Board of Northeast Neighbors requests that the City Council withdraw Santa Monica's support and co-sponsorship of AB 1740
The recent amendments to AB 1740 create unintended incentives that could undermine the very goal of completing the LCP. By granting future Coastal Act exemptions in jurisdictions without certified LCPs, the bill may encourage developers and other stakeholders to oppose or delay local coastal planning efforts because an incomplete LCP could ultimately provide regulatory advantages.
In addition, AB 1740 establishes new statewide exemptions that would allow the removal of coastal public parking for bicycles and transit infrastructure without adequate consideration of the impacts on coastal access. Many inland residents, working families, seniors, and visitors rely on public parking to reach our beaches. Any changes affecting coastal access should be carefully evaluated through existing Coastal Act and LCP processes rather than through broad statutory exemptions.
The LCP process already provides a balanced, locally tailored framework for advancing housing, transportation, climate resilience, and public access while preserving the protections that make California's coast unique.
The City has appropriately identified LCP completion as the priority.
We ask that you withdraw support for AB 1740 and keep the focus on delivering a certified LCP that reflects Santa Monica's values and protects long-term coastal access for all.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 34 Thank you
Tricia Crane, Chair of Northeast Neighbors
With Unanimous Support of the Board
www.neneighbors.org
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 35 David Yakobson
From: Grant Mitts <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Grant Mitts
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 36 David Yakobson
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:26 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Cc: Bruce Leddy; Matt Goldenberg
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6.9.26 - LCP/AB 1740
EXTERNAL
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
June 9th, 2026
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
The Board of NOMA enthusiastically supports your renewed effort to complete the long-overdue LCP for Santa Monica. Now that the Coastal Commission and the City have agreed to a framework MOU, however, we feel it is important for Santa Monica to withdraw its sponsorship of AB 1740.
The bill is significantly altered from the one Santa Monica signed on to, and the current version potentially undermines the process of completing an LCP. It now creates a deadline that, if not met, gives housing exemptions to our coastal zone. These exemptions provide a disincentive to completing the LCP, as some parties might simply delay to get the exemptions.
Nothing should stand in the way of our finally getting a certified LCP and protecting our cherished coast.
NOMA joined the SM Democratic Club, SMRR, and many other neighborhood organizations in officially opposing AB 1740 which undermines the Coastal Commission's trusted authority and solely targets Santa Monica. We urge you to withdraw Santa Monica's sponsorship of this unnecessary and flawed bill, and pursue the LCP which will best serve our city.
The Board of NOMA
smnoma.org
[email protected]
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Riddle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 6:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Parking at 3356 Barnard Way
EXTERNAL
--------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Cynthia Riddle <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 2:24 PM
Subject: Parking at 3356 Barnard Way
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Good afternoon.
I am a resident of 3356 Barnard Way.
The building has a limited amount of parking for residents (senior citizens). The adjoining street parking has insufficient parking for residents (many of whom have attendants who also need parking, during the day). This is particularly difficult on street cleaning days.
Furthermore, the "overflow parking options" two blocks in all directions is quite limited as the Venice (LA) border is on the South and the ocean is on the West. To the North, the next possible street (Ocean Park Blvd) is half a mile away and it has its own residents who need parking spaces. Finally, to the East there is no parking on Neilson, while Marine and Main street only have metered options and a few options on 2nd street (which also has its own restrictions.)
Last November I conducted a survey of the residents' needs and did a diagram of the surrounding area.
In summary, there are 14 residents who must park on the street, and there are 13-16 aides who come on weekdays who need parking. All of this is made even worse by the number of people who come to the beach and park here with their handicap placards. We have also observed visitors to the building across the way (which has their own lot) parking in the limited space in front of our building.
The most challenging times are Monday and Friday, street cleaning days.
On 12/18 our building manager and I had a meeting with Peter Dzewaltowski and Amber Aboud, of the Santa Monica Parking Division, and I presented four scenarios with relatively easy ways to improve the situation. (One of them involves one additional sign to extend the parking area.) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 2 On 1/13, I was informed that Peter was waiting for feedback from the fire department.I have written to him five times since then with no response.
I am told that in order for this matter to be discussed / acted on, one of the Council members needs to add it to the agenda.
I hope this could be addressed before the summer traffic chaos.
Thank you
Cynthia Riddle
310-808-4922
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 3 David Yakobson
From: Lili Mineni <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 5:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Parking meter removal
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern,
I am reaching out, as I have been in communication with Owen Canady the contact for the current city bike lane project, but he has not been able to give me an answer to my concern.
In prior correspondence, I was informed that four parking meters have been removed. However, after personally counting the spaces along the two affected blocks of 14th Street at Broadway and Colorado, I have identified 11 metered parking spaces that have been eliminated. This significant discrepancy raises concerns about the accuracy of the information being used to assess the impact on the neighborhood.
As you know, businesses in this area are already facing substantial parking challenges. The removal of 11 metered spaces represents a meaningful loss of customer access and could have serious consequences for the small businesses that rely on convenient parking to remain viable.
Can you please clarify how the City arrived at the figure of four removed meters and provide an updated accounting of the total parking spaces lost as a result of this project? Additionally, I would appreciate information regarding what steps the City plans to take to replace these parking spaces or otherwise mitigate the impact on local businesses.
I would welcome a response addressing these questions, as this issue is of significant concern to business owners and residents in the area.
Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your reply.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 4 Sincerely,
Lili Mineni
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Dustin Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly.
The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Best,
Dustin
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 2 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Brooks <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Elizabeth B.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 3 David Yakobson
From: Kay Pea <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 4 David Yakobson
From: Alison Godin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Alison Godin
424-387-7397
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 5 David Yakobson
From: Maddy Uetrecht <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you,
Madison Uetrecht
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 6 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:32 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; Jing Yeo
Subject: June 9, 2026 - City Council General Public Comment - AB 1740 and Santa Monica's LCP
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Council -
I join the Surfrider Foundation and neighborhood organizations in urging you to withdraw the City's support for AB 1740.
Now that the LCP process, guided by an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027, is moving ahead there is no need for AB1740. AB1740 is extortion of the Coastal Commission and a disrespect of our coast on the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act. It's also the kind of tone-deaf action we have come to expect from you. Please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740.
The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly.
The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing, among other things, removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without considering inland visitors who depend on that parking.
Blanket Coastal Act exemptions set a dangerous precedent and are easily abused.
As a reminder, public records show this bill was drafted by Santa Monica city staff and Assemblymember Zbur's staff, with the support of some of our councilmembers, behind the backs of the public. The definitions in AB1740 clearly were contorted to apply ONLY to Santa Monica and likely are designed to help specific projects by specific developers in the remaining downtown area targeted by the bill. This is an unacceptable abuse of public trust.
Again, I urge you to withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs:
completing the LCP.
I also ask the City Attorney to investigate staff's use of public resources to work on legislation without a public vote. Staff and Council cited consistency with our legislative platform as justification for supporting AB1740. Last I checked, exempting Santa Monica from the Coastal Act and removing protections for the coast and environment are NOT in our legislative platform.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and Voter
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 7 Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 8 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete
Subject: Fw: Agenda item 1, General Comments
EXTERNAL
Hello,
I’m Clare Thomas, the President of the Friends of Sunset Park. I’m writing this on behalf of myself.
It’s extremely disappointing to see that FOSP, NOMA and Northeast Neighbors are no longer listed on the City’s website because we did not apply for the Neighborhood Association Grant money.
Approved Motion Addressed Neighborhood Organization Grant Program Requirements The approved motion regarding Neighborhood Associations at the September 30, 2025 City Council meeting says that “As a condition of participation in the Neighborhood Organization Grant Program, if a Neighborhood Association endorses or opposes a political candidate after receiving tax payer dollars, they are ineligible for participating (in the Grant Program) for at least 5 years covering the next two election cycles inclusive of the re-election cycle of any candidate they endorse. They will not be listed on the City website because we do not list political organizations as officially recognized organizations on our City website.” Approved Motion Does Not Address City Recognition of Neighborhood Organizations The motion does not say that a Neighborhood Association that doesn’t apply for the grant money will not be recognized by the City as a Neighborhood Association. Applying for the Grant program has not been a criteria for being a City recognized Neighborhood Organization. If a Neighborhood Organization endorses or opposes a political candidate, they would be ineligible for the grant money and not recognized on the City website.
Therefore, it is wrong for the City to remove it’s recognition of the three Neighborhood Organizations that did not apply for the grant money.
FOSP is not a Political Organization, It’s a Neighborhood Social Welfare Organization It is wrong to characterize FOSP as a political organization. FOSP has done two endorsements in 38 years. The last one. which generated this backlash against the neighborhood organizations, consisted of one paragraph in the weekly “What’s New” email to our members that stated the concerns identified by our members and how the candidates who were endorsed by the board best supported actions to address the concerns.
Neighborhood Organizations are not just for social events/community building. They also address safety and maintenance (police reports and discussion at monthly meeting), share information (weekly What’s New), advocate for issues that are important to our neighborhood, and write letters requested by the City for support of City grant funding.
If the Criteria for being a City Recognized Neighborhood Organization is Being Changed, that Needs to be Formalized
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 9 Since the approved motion did not say that only Neighborhood Organizations that apply for the Grant money would be City recognized Neighborhood Organizations, I ask that you continue the recognition of all seven Neighborhood Organizations and not disenfranchise 27% of the City's residents.
Thank you.
Clare Thomas
Sunset Park
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Laura Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Clerk Mailbox; Heidi von Tongeln; Oliver Chi; [email protected]; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; City of Santa Monica; [email protected]; Daniel Mick; Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman; Maurice Cochee; Planning; Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Embassy Apartments for public comment CC meeting June 9th 2026 Attachments: 01 City of SM Documents.pdf
EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council For public comments June 9, 2026.
Attached you will find ample evidence the Embassy Apartment House is a residential building and was never occupied or operated as a hotel for 80 years. Residents were unaware of the conversion until Palihouse took over in 2012.
The new operators are expanding the use by advertising events on their webpage and they recently had a sign on the sidewalk advertising a restaurant open to the public. And their staff told me they will have a liquor license soon. Really? I have to fight another liquor license? At what point will the City say NO to this egregious commercial expansion in our neighborhood? They had a very large party last week, alcohol was served, loud music played for hours, cars double parked, in the alley and in the red causing serious dangerous conditions. The parking violations and noise went on well past 10pm.
1927 Building permit for an Apartment Building.
Question asked: Is any part to be used for store or other business purposes? Answer: None
March 22, 1980 Letter from Embassy Management to Tenants denying the claim that the Embassy has applied for a hotel/motel exception. The letter describes residents as permanent tenants and the use of the building as Apartments.
April 13th 1980 Letter from an elderly resident affirming Management requested she not return the Rent-control questionnaire to determine occupancy for the purpose of determining rentcontrolled status. .
March 31, 1980 Rent-Staff Pam memo to deny Embassy hotel exemption. Reasons given
1. The NEVER paid transient occupancy taxes
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 2 2. Current Business License (1979-80) is for Apartments 3 Refusal of the then owner Ellis Nourafchen to provide any records to substantiate claim of “transient Occupancy”
The letter also makes note of the owners use of intimidation and harassment to prevent them from completing the occupancy declaration (see March 22 1980 letter mentioned above) April 14, 1980 Letter from Then owner Ellis Nourafchan he has never asked to be a HotelMotel April 24, 1980 Rent Control Minutes page one. Confirms the owner and 5 residents were heard.
The exemption was unanimously dined due to the owner’s failure to present ANY evidence that any units are qualified for transient occupancy exemption.
April 28, 1980 RCB letter to inform the owner his hotel exemption request was denied.
May 21, 1980 RCB letter to Embassy Apartments residents confirming the owners request for exemption was dined on April 24, 1980 and units must be registered as rent-controlled units.
July 8, 1980 letter showing the owners use of an attorney to intimidate an elderly resident to move out. Stating “The Embassy is not a special care facility dedicated to your happiness above that of our other guests.” And The Embassy was not designed to cater to the needs of the elderly. 1993 Comprehensive Historic Resources Inventory review of the Embassy Apartments. The review makes NO mention of hotel use. And the clearly describes the building as a Multi-family Apartment house.
May 11, 1998 letter from Santa Monica Building and Safety to stop using the apartments and a hotel on the grounds they are not permitted in the R-3 zone where the building is. Located.
August 17, 1998 letter from Building and safety to again cease hotel operations. They site several permits pulled that identify the buildings specific use as Apartments.
SMMC 9.04.08.06.020 Allowed land uses that ONLY hotels existing as of 1/1/195 may operate.
August 16, 2013 letter confirming from 1999 to 2007 the Embassy continued to operate the building under a Business license for the Rental of Residential Units. No Hotle business licensee was requested or issued before 2007.
Please fix this!
Respectfully,
Laura Wilson, resident of 1015 3rd street my bedroom is 15 feet from this nuisance.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 3 Sent via email for public comment and copies Hand Delivered to all City Council Members, City Manager and City Attorney at the June 9th City Council Meeting.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Laura Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Clerk Mailbox; Heidi von Tongeln; Oliver Chi; [email protected]; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; City of Santa Monica; [email protected]; Daniel Mick; Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman; Maurice Cochee; Planning; Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: Embassy Apartments for public comment CC meeting June 9th 2026 Attachments: 01 City of SM Documents.pdf
EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council For public comments June 9, 2026.
Attached you will find ample evidence the Embassy Apartment House is a residential building and was never occupied or operated as a hotel for 80 years. Residents were unaware of the conversion until Palihouse took over in 2012.
The new operators are expanding the use by advertising events on their webpage and they recently had a sign on the sidewalk advertising a restaurant open to the public. And their staff told me they will have a liquor license soon. Really? I have to fight another liquor license? At what point will the City say NO to this egregious commercial expansion in our neighborhood? They had a very large party last week, alcohol was served, loud music played for hours, cars double parked, in the alley and in the red causing serious dangerous conditions. The parking violations and noise went on well past 10pm.
1927 Building permit for an Apartment Building.
Question asked: Is any part to be used for store or other business purposes? Answer: None
March 22, 1980 Letter from Embassy Management to Tenants denying the claim that the Embassy has applied for a hotel/motel exception. The letter describes residents as permanent tenants and the use of the building as Apartments.
April 13th 1980 Letter from an elderly resident affirming Management requested she not return the Rent-control questionnaire to determine occupancy for the purpose of determining rentcontrolled status. .
March 31, 1980 Rent-Staff Pam memo to deny Embassy hotel exemption. Reasons given
1. The NEVER paid transient occupancy taxes
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 2 2. Current Business License (1979-80) is for Apartments 3 Refusal of the then owner Ellis Nourafchen to provide any records to substantiate claim of “transient Occupancy”
The letter also makes note of the owners use of intimidation and harassment to prevent them from completing the occupancy declaration (see March 22 1980 letter mentioned above) April 14, 1980 Letter from Then owner Ellis Nourafchan he has never asked to be a HotelMotel April 24, 1980 Rent Control Minutes page one. Confirms the owner and 5 residents were heard.
The exemption was unanimously dined due to the owner’s failure to present ANY evidence that any units are qualified for transient occupancy exemption.
April 28, 1980 RCB letter to inform the owner his hotel exemption request was denied.
May 21, 1980 RCB letter to Embassy Apartments residents confirming the owners request for exemption was dined on April 24, 1980 and units must be registered as rent-controlled units.
July 8, 1980 letter showing the owners use of an attorney to intimidate an elderly resident to move out. Stating “The Embassy is not a special care facility dedicated to your happiness above that of our other guests.” And The Embassy was not designed to cater to the needs of the elderly. 1993 Comprehensive Historic Resources Inventory review of the Embassy Apartments. The review makes NO mention of hotel use. And the clearly describes the building as a Multi-family Apartment house.
May 11, 1998 letter from Santa Monica Building and Safety to stop using the apartments and a hotel on the grounds they are not permitted in the R-3 zone where the building is. Located.
August 17, 1998 letter from Building and safety to again cease hotel operations. They site several permits pulled that identify the buildings specific use as Apartments.
SMMC 9.04.08.06.020 Allowed land uses that ONLY hotels existing as of 1/1/195 may operate.
August 16, 2013 letter confirming from 1999 to 2007 the Embassy continued to operate the building under a Business license for the Rental of Residential Units. No Hotle business licensee was requested or issued before 2007.
Please fix this!
Respectfully,
Laura Wilson, resident of 1015 3rd street my bedroom is 15 feet from this nuisance.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 3 Sent via email for public comment and copies Hand Delivered to all City Council Members, City Manager and City Attorney at the June 9th City Council Meeting.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Tracey Hom <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Oliver Chi; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]; Roni Crichton
Subject: adding agenda items on Friday
EXTERNAL
We oppose you sneaking agenda items into the agenda on Fridays, usually Friday evenings. We get it, you dont want the residents to know what you are doing or to organize. STOP it. It is absolutely terrible.
Tracey P. Hom Esq.
10850 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 825
Los Angeles, California 90024
310 749 5343
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Joseph Hardin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 12:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.I am prohousing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.Thank you for your hard work, Joe Hardin
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 2 David Yakobson
From: Deborah Collodel <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 12:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 3 David Yakobson
From: Benjamin Wright <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 1:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Benjamin Wright
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 4 David Yakobson
From: Sharon Reinaga <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 1:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking. I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP. Thank you.
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 5 David Yakobson
From: Emily Kulaga <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 2:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council, Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027.
As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward. Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740.
The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact. Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs:
completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Emily Kulaga
T: (615) 336-3694
E: [email protected]
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) 6 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Chang <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 4:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 1: General Comment 6/9/26 (LCP, AB 1740)
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing completion of Santa Monica's LCP and for your leadership in reaching an MOU with the Coastal Commission targeting certification by December 2027. As someone who loves this coast and wants the best for our community, I appreciate this important step forward.
Now that the LCP process is moving, please withdraw the City's support for AB 1740. The bill's latest amendments create a perverse incentive for developers to oppose or delay LCP completion, because an incomplete LCP triggers future Coastal Act exemptions that benefit them directly. The bill also creates new statewide exemptions allowing removal of coastal public parking for bike and transit lanes without meaningful consideration of impacts on beach access for inland visitors and families who depend on that parking.
I am pro-housing and pro-transit. But blanket Coastal Act exemptions set dangerous precedent and are easily abused. The LCP is the right path - it can deliver what this bill proposes, with public access protections intact.
Please withdraw your support for AB 1740 and keep the focus where it belongs: completing your LCP.
Thank you.
Item 1
June 9, 2026
Item 1
June 9, 2026
1.A.a
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7761 : Written Comments) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 9, 2026
Agenda Item: 2.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: 2026 Juneteenth Proclamation
Prepared By: Amy Larkin, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
2.A
Packet Pg. 295
1 David Yakobson
From: Laverne Ross <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 4:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Laverne Ross
Subject: Addendum Request Juneteenth Discretionary Funding Proposal for June 9, 2026 Council Agenda
EXTERNAL
Dear City Clerk and Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers, Please accept the attached and embedded request as an
Addendum for inclusion on the June 9, 2026 City Council Agenda. This Addendum contains JCISM’s discretionary
funding request in support of the 34th Annual Juneteenth Celebration and its associated community programs.
Thank you for your consideration and for your continued support of community-centered cultural programming in Santa Monica.
Respectfully, LaVerne Ross Founder and President, JCISM Founder, Santa Monica Juneteenth Celebration
equest for City Council Discretionary Funding
To: Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council
From: JCISM and the 34th Annual Juneteenth Celebration
Planning Partners Submitted by: LaVerne Ross, Founder and President Funding Request: $15,000
Item 2-A
June 9, 2026
Item 2-A
June 9, 2026
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Written Comments (7734 : Proclamation: Juneteenth) 2 On behalf of JCISM and the Planning Partners of the 34th Annual Juneteenth Celebration, we respectfully request
consideration of a discretionary funding allocation in the amount of $15,000 to support community programs and
services associated with this year’s Juneteenth Celebration and related educational initiatives.
For thirty-four years, the Santa Monica Juneteenth Celebration has served as a cultural, educational, and community-building event that brings together residents of all ages and
backgrounds to commemorate freedom, honor history,
promote unity, and celebrate the contributions of African Americans to our city, state, and nation.
The requested funding would be allocated as follows:
1. Juneteenth Celebration Entertainment Equipment Support – $5,000 Funds will assist with stage entertainment, cultural
presentations, educational programming, sound equipment, technical support, and related event expenses necessary for the thousands of attendees expected to participate in the 34th Annual Juneteenth Celebration.
2. Educational Scholarships for Underrepresented Graduating High School Students – $2,000
Funds will support scholarships awarded to deserving
graduating high school seniors who have demonstrated
academic achievement, leadership, community service, and perseverance while pursuing higher education opportunities.
3. Accessibility Assistance for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired – $4,000 Funds will be utilized to purchase equipment and accessibility resources that enhance participation and inclusion for deaf and hearing-impaired individuals attending community
Item 2-A
June 9, 2026
Item 2-A
June 9, 2026
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Written Comments (7734 : Proclamation: Juneteenth) 3 programs and educational events. This investment supports the City’s commitment to equity, accessibility, and inclusion for all residents.
4. Community Services Initiative – $3,000
Funds will support a children’s craft and storytelling initiative led by community storyteller and arts facilitator LaVerne Ross.
This program will provide free, culturally grounded craft activities and guided storytelling sessions that promote literacy, creativity, and youth engagement. Funding will cover materials, supplies, and facilitation to ensure full accessibility for families throughout Santa Monica.
Community Impact
The Juneteenth Celebration has become one of Santa
Monica’s longest-running cultural observances and continues to provide meaningful educational programming,
family-friendly activities, historical presentations, youth engagement opportunities, and cultural enrichment for
residents and visitors alike.
This funding request will strengthen the City’s investment in:
Cultural and historical education
Youth achievement and scholarship opportunities
Accessibility and inclusion
Community engagement and civic participation
Family-oriented programming
Cross-cultural understanding and unity
We respectfully request the City Council’s support of this funding proposal and thank you for your continued
partnership in preserving and advancing the legacy of
Juneteenth within the Santa Monica community.
Item 2-A
June 9, 2026
Item 2-A
June 9, 2026
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Written Comments (7734 : Proclamation: Juneteenth) 4 Respectfully submitted, LaVerne Ross Founder and President, JCISM Founder, Santa Monica Juneteenth Celebration
Item 2-A
June 9, 2026
Item 2-A
June 9, 2026
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Written Comments (7734 : Proclamation: Juneteenth) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 9, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.A
1 of 7
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Christopher Dishlip, Director of Public Works, Architecture Services Division Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of the Reconnecting Communities Pilot Grant with the California Department of Transportation for the Reconnecting Pico Project and Execution of Necessary Associated Documents
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;
2. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept a grant awarded to the City in the amount of $2,000,000 from the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program for the Santa Monica Reconnecting Pico Project in the Public Works Department, and to accept all grant renewals;
3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute all necessary documents to accept the grant and all grant renewals; and
4. Authorize a budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report (requires 5 votes).
Summary
Santa Monica’s Department of Public Works continues to advance adopted City plans and initiatives through the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) Discretionary Grant Program (Attachment C). The goal of the program is to reconnect communities harmed by past transportation infrastructure decisions through community-supported planning activities and capital construction projects that are championed by those communities, funding the study of removing, retrofitting, or mitigating existing facility to restore community connectivity, conduct
4.A
Packet Pg. 300
2 of 7
public engagement, and support other transportation planning activities. This grant award is for planning only, not construction. Santa Monica will conduct a thorough investigation into the feasibility and optimal placement of potential cap parks along the I10 freeway segment from 11th Street to 20th Street in the Pico Neighborhood, prioritizing cap park locations in alignment with available funding sources and an implementation timeline.
On September 30, 2024, Public Works submitted the Reconnecting Pico Neighborhood Project (Reconnecting Pico) to enhance community-centered transportation and improve access to economic opportunity, education, health, and green spaces, while simultaneously alleviating environmental burdens for residents of the Pico Neighborhood. Public Works was awarded RCP grant funding in the amount of $2,000,000 in late 2024 and, on October 15, 2025, the City was cleared to work with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) California Division Office on the grant agreement (Attachment D). Staff is requesting authorization to accept the grant funds of $2,000,000 in grant funding plus the required local match of $505,712.
Discussion
The Santa Monica Freeway, also known as Interstate 10 (I-10), played a pivotal role in mid-20th-century efforts to construct a nationwide interstate highway network. Authorized by the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956, this initiative aimed to fortify transportation infrastructure, spur economic growth, and bolster national security. By markedly reducing travel times between the Westside and downtown Los Angeles, the I-10 facilitated the integration of geographic communities that were once distinct. In the subsequent decades, the Santa Monica economy experienced substantial growth, with the freeway serving as a catalyst for economic development.
However, this achievement came at a substantial cost. The construction of the freeway led to the unjust displacement of more than 1,500 residents in what is now the Pico Neighborhood. Though legally sanctioned through eminent domain, this action resulted in a profound injustice, forcibly relocating families from their homes, and severing deep4.A Packet Pg. 301
3 of 7
rooted connections to their neighborhoods. The scars of this displacement persist, giving rise to enduring economic, health, and environmental justice disparities.
This displacement sparked significant opposition, particularly from the Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA), formed in 1979 to advocate for the rights and wellbeing of affected residents. In the early 1980s, with funding from a federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), the Pico Neighborhood Community Plan emerged.
Spearheaded by the PNA, it sought to safeguard the Pico Neighborhood for its existing residents, recognizing the profound impact of historical housing discrimination, economic pressures, and harmful public policies. Subsequently, in the 1990s, the City of Santa Monica embarked on the Pico Boulevard Streetscape Plan, a concerted effort to improve conditions for pedestrians along the boulevard. This comprehensive initiative encompassed the redesign of transit stops, medians, street trees, lighting, and the addition of gateway features. In 2010, the City of Santa Monica took a significant step toward rectifying the imbalances brought on by the freeway’s construction by exploring the feasibility of capping a portion of the freeway from 14th to 17th Streets with a park.
This initiative aimed to redress historical injustices, mitigate environmental impacts, provide green space, establish alternative transportation routes, and reconnect the Pico Neighborhood to economic opportunities. However, this initiative was halted due to financial constraints. With the support of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the City of Santa Monica will be empowered to build upon previously completed work and partner with the local community to adequately address these historical wrongs and current disparate impacts of the Santa Monica Freeway on the residents of the Pico Neighborhood.
While prioritizing cap park locations in alignment with available funding sources and an implementation timeline, the project also envisions the development of a pedestrianfriendly environment featuring improved sidewalks, dedicated bikeways, and the potential integration with public transit systems, ensuring accessibility for individuals of all abilities. The overarching project goals include addressing historical disparities, promoting economic opportunities, and mitigating environmental justice concerns through:
4.A
Packet Pg. 302
4 of 7
1. Existing Conditions Analysis/Site Research:
1.1 Review background information, obtain long-range plans, and update existing preliminary studies such as land surveys, geotechnical reports, and traffic pattern studies.
1.2 Establish baseline data on the freeway’s impacts on the environment, public health, economy, and community.
1.3 Evaluate right-of-way impacts and investigate air-rights issues and opportunities.
2. Community Outreach/Public Engagement:
2.1 Compile a list of all potential local stakeholders to be used throughout the entirety of the project.
2.2 Conduct public outreach to establish a community vision for future green space and surrounding areas.
2.3 Engage a broad cross-section of the community through various outreach methods and events.
2.4 Prepare project guiding principles, design and phasing concepts, costbenefit analyses, and funding scenarios to determine a preferred alternative based on feedback and the outcomes of the community/public engagement.
3. Development of Concepts, Conduct Constructability Review:
3.1-3.6 Determine Preferred Alternative, Evaluate Funding Sources, and Prepare Final Feasibility Study Document with all necessary components including an executive summary, project history, existing conditions, project description, construction phasing options, cost estimates, and funding strategies.
4. Pre-Development Activities:
4.1 Prepare conceptual plans and studies to support environmental review for a construction project.
4.2 Coordinate closely with Caltrans regarding project scope approvals, encroachment permits, airspace leases, and other project acceptance requirements.
5. Final Report:
4.A
Packet Pg. 303
5 of 7
5.1 Prepare Final Report for feasibility cap feasibility and site recommendations.
Next Steps
If Council adopts the resolution (Attachment C) to accept the RCP Grant, Caltrans will issue a notice to proceed allowing project activities to begin upon execution of the grant agreement by the California Department of Transportation. Following the execution of the agreement, the City will issue a Request for Proposals to select a consultant who will support management of the Reconnecting Pico Project. The grant award will require a local in-kind match of $190,240 for staff time and a cash match of $315,472 from the Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee revenues.
Staff would return to Council in Winter 2026–27 to award a Professional Services Agreement for design services. The project is anticipated to begin in Spring 2027.
Environmental Review
Preparation of the Reconnecting Pico Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts feasibility and planning studies for possible future actions that the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded. Implementation of future improvements identified in the study would be subject to future environmental review as required under CEQA prior to project approval.
Past Council Actions
April 23, 2024
(Attachment A)
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Climate Grant
Applications by City Manager or Designee
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to accept a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) Discretionary Grant Program for the Santa
4.A
Packet Pg. 304
6 of 7
Monica Reconnecting Pico Project and appropriate funds for the required 25 percent local match.
Approval of the recommended action requires the following budget amendment.
FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment
Establish Revenue Budget Appropriate Funds
Account # Amount Account # Amount
20500011.406280 $ 2,000,000 C2009230.689000 $ 2,000,000 Total $ 2,000,000 Total $ 2,000,000
In addition, staff recommends appropriation of available Park and Recreation Development Impact Fee resources to meet the local match requirement.
FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment
Release Funds Appropriate Funds
Account # Amount Account # Amount
10.370334 – Park
Impact Fee $ 315,472 C1009230.689000 $ 315,472
Total $ 315,472 Total $ 315,472
If modifications or renewals are awarded, budget adjustments will be included in subsequent year budgets, contingent on Council budget approval.
Prepared By: Tony Lopez, Senior Park Planner
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. April 23, 2024 Staff Report (Web Link)
B. Reconnecting Communities Notice of Funding Opportunity C. Resolution No. 11582 (CCS)
4.A
Packet Pg. 305
7 of 7
D. RCP FY24_CA_ Santa Monica Reconnecting Pico_Grant
Agreement_Draft_030226_CoSM
E. Reconnecting Pico Grant Acceptance Resolution
F. Written Comments
G. PowerPoint Presentation
4.A
Packet Pg. 306
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) Discretionary Grant Program
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) ACTION: Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), Assistance Listing #20.940 SUMMARY:
SUMMARY OVERVIEW OF KEY INFORMATION:
Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program grants
Issuing Agency Office of the Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation
Program Overview The purpose of this notice is to request applications for Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program grants. RCP Program is awarded on a competitive basis for projects that reconnect communities by removing, retrofitting, or mitigating highways or other transportation facilities that create barriers to community connectivity, including to mobility, access, or economic development.
Goals and Objectives As established in “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,” or “BIL” projects funded by RCP Program advance community-centered transportation connection projects, with a priority for projects that benefit disadvantaged communities. RCP Program focuses on improving access to daily needs such as jobs, education, healthcare, food, nature, and recreation, and foster equitable development and restoration, and provide technical assistance to further these goals.
The Department will prioritize grant funding applications that demonstrate the following characteristics:
• Equity and Justice40 (i.e., will benefit economically disadvantaged communities)
• Access
• Facility Suitability
• Community Engagement, and Community-based Stewardship, Management, and Partnerships
• Equitable Development
• Climate Change Mitigation and/or Adaptation and Resilience • Workforce Development and Economic Opportunity
• Planning Integration
Eligible Applicants Community Planning Grants:
• a State
• a unit of local government
4.A.b
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Reconnecting Communities Notice of Funding Opportunity (7602 : Reconnecting Pico Grant Award) 2 • a Tribal government
• a Metropolitan Planning Organization
• a non-profit organization
Capital Construction Grants:
• owner(s) of the eligible facility proposed in the project for which all necessary feasibility studies and other planning activities have been completed; or
• eligible Community Planning Grant applicant may submit the application in partnership with the facility owner to carry out the proposed project.
Eligible Facility Highway or other surface transportation facility that creates a barrier to community connectivity, including barriers to mobility, access, or economic development due to high speeds, grade separations, or other design factors. Eligible facilities include limited access highways, viaducts, any other principal arterial facilities, and other facilities such as transit lines and rail lines.
Eligible Projects Planning Grants fund the study of removing, retrofitting, or mitigating an existing facility to restore community connectivity; public engagement; and other transportation planning activities.
Capital Construction Grants fund a project to remove, retrofit, mitigate, or to replace an existing eligible facility with a new facility that reconnects communities.
Funding Amount For the period covered by this NOFO BIL allocates a total of $607 million. FY 2024 ($200 million), 2025 ($202 million), and 2026 ($205 million)
• Planning Grants and Technical Assistance funding - $150 M ($50 million annually)
• Capital Construction Grant funding $457 million total If additional funding is provided for the RCP program during FY 2024 or FY 2025, DOT intends to use those funds for projects selected to receive a grant under this NOFO.
Cost Share • Community Planning Grants: 80% RCP funds and 20% local match
• Capital Construction Grants: 50% RCP funds and 50% local match. Other Federal funds may be used to bring the total Federal share up to a maximum of 80% of the total cost of the project
Deadline Monday, September 30, 2024, at 11:59 PM ET: Application Due DATES: Applications must be submitted by 11:59 PM EDT on Monday, September 30, 2024.
Late applications will not be accepted.
ADDRESSES: Applications must be submitted via Valid Eval, an online proposal submission system used by USDOT, at
https://usg.valideval.com/teams/rcp_community_planning_fy24/signup for Community Planning
4.A.b
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Reconnecting Communities Notice of Funding Opportunity (7602 : Reconnecting Pico Grant Award) 3 Grants and at https://usg.valideval.com/teams/rcp_capital_construction_fy24/signup for Capital Construction Grants. Customer support for Valid Eval can be reached at [email protected].
Only applicants who comply with all submission requirements described in this notice and submit applications through Valid Eval on or before the application deadline will be eligible for award. Opportunity number, DOT-RCP-FY24-01.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Ongoing updates, webinar notices, FAQs: https://www.transportation.gov/reconnecting.
Email: [email protected]
Contacts:
• RCP Program: Andrew Emanuele at [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS: Each section of this notice contains information and instructions relevant to the application process for the RCP Program. All prospective applicants should read this notice in its entirety to understand how to submit eligible and competitive applications.
A PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
B FEDERAL AWARD INFORMATION
C ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
D APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION
E APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION
F FEDERAL AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION
G FEDERAL AWARDING AGENCY CONTACTS
H OTHER INFORMATION
A. Program Description
1. Overview
The purpose of the RCP Program is 1) to advance community-centered transportation connection projects, with a priority for projects that benefit disadvantaged communities (See Section H.1. Definitions), that improve access to daily needs such as jobs, education, healthcare, food, nature, and recreation, and foster equitable development and restoration, and 2) to provide technical assistance to further these goals.
The RCP Program provides grant funding and technical assistance for planning and capital construction to address infrastructure barriers, restore community connectivity, and improve peoples’ lives. The variety of transformative solutions to knit communities back together can include infrastructure removal, pedestrian walkways and overpasses, capping and lids, roadway redesigns, complete streets conversions, and main street revitalization.
The RCP Program welcomes applications from diverse local, State, Tribal, and regional communities regardless of size, location, and experience administering Federal funding awards.
The total amount of funding available in this NOFO for FY 2024, 2025, and 2026 is up to $607 million.
1 The FY 2024, 2025, and 2026 funding will be implemented as appropriate and 1 Sections 11101(d)(3) and 11509 of Division A of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58, November 15, 2021, “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,” or “BIL”) authorized a total of $500 million of contract
4.A.b
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Reconnecting Communities Notice of Funding Opportunity (7602 : Reconnecting Pico Grant Award) 4 consistent with the priorities in Executive Order 14052, Implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (86 FR 64355).2 The FY 2025 and 2026 RCP awards are subject to availability of funds. If additional funding is provided for the RCP program during FY 2024, FY 2025, and FY 2026, DOT intends to use those funds for projects selected to receive a grant under this NOFO.
2. RCP Grant Types and Deliverables
The RCP Program provides funding for two types of grants. Planning Grants fund the study of removing, retrofitting, or mitigating an existing facility to restore community connectivity; conduct public engagement, and other transportation planning activities. Capital Construction Grants are to carry out a project to remove, retrofit, mitigate, or replace an existing eligible facility with a new facility that reconnects communities. See Section C for further eligibility information.
3. RCP Grant Priorities and Policy Priorities
The primary goal of the RCP Program is to reconnect communities harmed by past transportation infrastructure decisions, through community-supported planning activities and capital construction projects that are championed by those communities. The RCP Program aligns with Biden-Harris Administration policies and priorities, including the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) Strategic Plan goals. The Department seeks to fund projects that advance the Departmental priorities of safety, equity, climate and sustainability, workforce development, job quality, and wealth creation as described in the USDOT Strategic Plan, Research, Development and Technology Strategic Plan, and in executive orders.3 A cornerstone of the RCP program is DOT’s Equity Strategic Goal, which is to reduce inequities across our transportation systems and the communities they affect. The RCP Program seeks to redress the legacy of harm caused by transportation infrastructure, including barriers to opportunity, displacement, damage to the environment and public health, limited access, and other hardships. In pursuit of this goal, the program will support and engage economically disadvantaged communities to increase affordable, accessible, and multimodal access to daily needs such as jobs, education, healthcare, food, nature, and recreation, and foster equitable development and restoration.
authority from the Highway Trust Fund to be awarded by the DOT for the FY 2022-2026 RCP Program. Title VIII, Division J appropriated an additional $500 million from the General Fund to be awarded by the DOT for the FY 2022-2026 RCP Program. Of the total amount of the FY 2024 RCP funding available in this notice (FY 2024, 2025, and 2026), $307 million is authorized contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and $300 million is appropriations from the General Fund (GF). Due to the imposition of the obligation limitation on the HTF, approximately $260.5 million is available for award. Due to the Federal Highway Administration’s 1.5% administrative take-down from GF funds, $295.5 million is available for award. 2 The priorities of Executive Order 14052, Implementation of the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act are: to invest efficiently and equitably, promote the competitiveness of the U.S. economy, improve job opportunities by focusing on high labor standards and equal employment opportunity, strengthen infrastructure resilience to hazards including climate change, and to effectively coordinate with State, local, Tribal, and territorial government partners. 3 Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad (86 FR 7619). Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (86 FR 7009). Executive Order 14025, Worker Organizing and Empowerment (86 FR 22829), and Executive Order 14052, Implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (86 FR 64335).
4.A.b
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Reconnecting Communities Notice of Funding Opportunity (7602 : Reconnecting Pico Grant Award) 5 Thus, the program will be implemented consistent with the policy goals highlighted in DOT Equity Action Plan4; Executive Order 14091, Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government; Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad; Interim Implementation Guidance for the Justice40 Initiative (July 2021) and Addendum (January 2023); Executive Order 14096, Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All, the America the Beautiful initiative, the Interagency Memorandum of Understanding on Promoting Equitable Access to Nature in Nature-Deprived Communities signed by DOT. 5 In addition, the program will highlight these additional equity-related objectives: Housing Supply5—by encouraging an increase in housing supply, particularly location-efficient affordable housing, locally-driven land use and zoning reform, rural main street revitalization, growth management, and transit-oriented development—and rural and Tribal communities—by seeking to award funding to rural and Tribal communities which face unique challenges related to mobility and economic development, including isolation, transportation cost burden, and traffic safety, consistent with DOT’s Rural Opportunities to Use Transportation for Economic Success (ROUTES) initiative.
See Section E.1.i for more detail on merit criteria and/or selection considerations that implement priorities discussed above.
4. Technical Assistance
DOT will provide technical assistance for grantees and potential grantees under the RCP Program, including through Reconnecting Communities Institute (RCI)6. A RCI technical assistance opportunity is to participate in a Reconnecting Communities Community of Practice, which provides an interactive training opportunity to advance the planning and delivery of projects intended to reconnect communities. All applicants selected for funding through RCP will have an opportunity to participate in the RCI Community of Practice, along with any recommended or highly recommended applicants that are not selected.
Potential applicants who are interested in pursuing a reconnecting type project but are not prepared to apply can submit a request for technical assistance. These potential applicants are encouraged to submit a request for technical assistance through Reconnecting Communities Institute. Those communities will be able to join one or more Communities of Practice, receive other technical assistance, and facilitation toward the creation of planning and construction projects that may be eligible for funding under formula programs, including federal-aid programs such as: National Highway Performance Program; Surface Transportation Block Grant Program; Highway Safety Improvement Program; or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program, or 4 https://www.transportation.gov/priorities/equity/actionplan 5 https://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/news-updates/2022/09/23/fact-sheet-biden-%e2%81%a0harris-administrationadvances-commitment-to-create-more-equitable-access-to-parks-and-nature-in-communities/ 6 The mission of the RCI will be to serve as DOT’s center for learning to restore and reconnect communities that have been harmed, isolated, and cut off from opportunity by transportation infrastructure. Enrollment into the RCI will be open to States, local and tribal governments, metropolitan planning organizations, and nonprofit organizations. For more information about the RCI, please visit https://www.transportation.gov/grants/reconnectingcommunities/reconnecting-communities-institute-rci
4.A.b
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Reconnecting Communities Notice of Funding Opportunity (7602 : Reconnecting Pico Grant Award) 6 under eligible discretionary grant programs such as: Rebuilding America Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity, Thriving Communities, Safe Streets and Roads For All, or Multimodal Project Discretionary Grants. DOT or its partners may also organize convenings to facilitate the creation of a multi-year pipeline of projects that address reconnecting communities.
For more information, please visit RCP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), Reconnecting Communities Institute (RCI) | US Department of Transportation or email at [email protected].
B. Federal Award Information
1. Total Funding Available
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) (Pub. L. 117-58) allocates up to $607 million over the period of this NOFO. $200 million in 2024, $202 million in 2025, and $205 million in 2026 for the RCP program. BIL allocates $50 million annually for Planning Grants, which includes funding for technical assistance: $150 million in 2024, $152 million in 2025, and $155 million in 2026 for Capital Construction Grant funds. In addition to the FY 2024 funding, the Department intends to make award decisions for the FY 2025 and 2026 funding, subject to availability of funding. FY 2025 funds cannot be obligated before October 1, 2024, and FY 2026 funds cannot be obligated before October 1, 2025. See Section C – Eligibility Information. If additional funding is provided for the RCP program during FY 2024, FY2025, or FY 2026, DOT intends to use those funds for projects selected to receive a grant under this NOFO.
DOT understands that the amount allocated for Capital Construction Grants may not cover the recipient’s full request. If a Capital Construction Grant recipient does not receive the full funds requested, the funded RCP project will receive a ‘Reconnecting Extra’ designation which encourages and facilitates RCP Program recipients’ pursuit of supplemental DOT discretionary program funding. If a project designated ‘Reconnecting Extra’ applies for FY 2024 – FY 2026 DOT funding and is determined eligible, DOT will deem the RCP project application ‘Highly Recommended’ subject to evaluation with the relevant program’s merit criteria. The Department will still consider the RCP project’s alignment with the relevant program’s requirements and any project risks before awarding that RCP project. Projects with this designation that apply for DOT financing programs, such as the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program and the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program, will be considered for assistance to the extent permissible under law.
2. Availability of Funds
RCP Program grant funds are available until expended. However, to ensure that projects are started and completed in an efficient manner, DOT encourages all projects awarded with FY 2024 RCP Program grant funds to be obligated by September 30, 2027. DOT encourages all projects awarded with FY 2025 RCP Program grant funds to be obligated by September 30, 2028. DOT encourages all projects awarded with FY 2026 RCP Program grant funds to be obligated by September 30, 2029. DOT retains the right to prioritize projects for selection that are most likely to achieve this timeline and choose from which source to award funds to recipients, as applicable. If additional funding is provided for the RCP program during FY 2024, FY 2025, or FY 2026, applicants selected will be informed of the obligation and expenditure deadlines.
4.A.b
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Reconnecting Communities Notice of Funding Opportunity (7602 : Reconnecting Pico Grant Award) 7 Obligation occurs when a selected applicant and DOT enter into a written grant agreement after the applicant has satisfied applicable administrative requirements. Unless authorized by DOT in writing after DOT’s announcement of RCP Program awards, any costs incurred prior to DOT’s obligation of funds for a project (“pre-award costs”) are ineligible for reimbursement per 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1.9.
7 In order to meet this timeline, DOT will prioritize
project readiness and the likelihood that obligation can occur by this deadline when making project selections.
DOT will pay for or count toward cost sharing or matching funds only costs incurred after a grant agreement has been executed. At its sole discretion and in limited circumstances, DOT may establish “pre-award” authority for recipients. If approved by DOT, pre-award authority permits DOT, after a grant agreement is executed, to pay for or count toward cost sharing or matching funds specific, identified costs that were incurred before that grant agreement was executed.
In general, RCP Program funds are administered on a reimbursement basis. Grant recipients will generally be required to pay project costs upfront using their own funds, and then request reimbursement for those costs through billings. If a recipient cannot complete a project on a reimbursement basis, DOT will—on a case-by-case basis—consider recipient requests to use alternate payment methods as described in 2 CFR 200.305(b), including advance payments and working capital advances.
Because award recipients under the RCP program may be first-time recipients of Federal funding, DOT is committed to implementing the program as flexibly as permitted by statute and helping award recipients through the process of securing a grant agreement and delivering both Planning Grants and Capital Construction Grants.
3. Award Size
i. Planning Grants
DOT may award up to $150 million for eligible public engagement, feasibility studies, and other planning activities. BIL specifies that the maximum RCP Program Planning Grant award is $2 million.
ii. Capital Construction Grants
DOT may award up to $457 million for eligible construction activities necessary to carry out a project to remove, retrofit, or mitigate an existing eligible facility or replace an existing eligible facility with a new facility that reconnects communities. BIL specifies that the minimum capital construction grant award is $5 million. DOT anticipates that Capital Construction Grants may range from $5 million to $100 million. If a project is partially funded, project components executed through the RCP award must demonstrate independent utility. 7 Pre-award costs are only costs incurred directly pursuant to the negotiation and anticipation of the RCP Program award where such costs are necessary for efficient and timely performance of the scope of work, as determined by DOT. Costs incurred under an advance construction (23 U.S.C. 115) authorization before the DOT announces that a project is selected for a FY 2024 RCP Program award cannot be charged to FY 2024 RCP funds. Likewise, costs incurred under an FTA Letter of No Prejudice under Chapter 53 of title 49 U.S.C. before the DOT announces that a project is selected for a FY 2024 RCP Program award, cannot be charged to FY 2024 RCP Program funds.
4.A.b
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Reconnecting Communities Notice of Funding Opportunity (7602 : Reconnecting Pico Grant Award) 8 C. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
The designated lead applicant will serve as the recipient to administer and implement the project. If the applicant seeks to transfer the award to another entity, that intention should be made clear in the application and a letter of support from the otherwise eligible, designated entity should be included in the application.