From: Karen Melick
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Oscar Santiago; Steve Gomez
Cc: Jenny Rogers; Micah Akerson; Joelle Simmons
Subject: Agenda item 12.A Budget and Aquatic Fees Increases Date: Monday, June 22, 2026 6:09:43 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members and Manager Chi, Thank you to the Council and City staff for following up on my comments regarding the proposed aquatics fee increases at the May 26, 2026 meeting. I am responding to the City’s staff response in the staff report for this meeting to correct information contained in the staff report.
May 26, 2026 Fee Study Information on Community Recreation was Incomplete and Inaccurate It was unfortunate that the Community Recreation information in the Fee Study report in the May 26th meeting was incomplete and inaccurate. The Programmatic Fee Summary (Draft) did not include proposed increases for many recreation fees such as aquatics programming including swim lessons. The User Fee Summary Sheet was inaccurate as the Aquatics Permit Roll Up cost recovery rate was listed at 76%, this meeting’s staff report now says that it is 58% for adult permit groups and 44% for youth permit groups. The Comparison Study information for Swim Permits (page 105) was both incomplete (didn’t include Los Angeles rate) and inaccurate (says Santa Monica’s current fee is $30). This was not a good job by the fee study consulting firm and a disservice to the public to not provide accurate and complete information before the increases are approved.
Aquatics Programming and Permit Increases and Fees are not Aligned with Other Recreation Increases and Fees The Staff report response says that the increased aquatics programming (learn to swim classes and specialty programs like the Sharks swim team) and permit group fees “align with other Recreation and Arts Department fees”. Aquatics programming and permit fees are being increased by 7.6% to 9.9% whereas most other increases are 3 to 6%. There is no clear explanation as to why aquatics fees are being raised more than almost all other fees.
In addition, for adult aquatics programming and permits, non-resident fees are double the resident fee. For the adult sports leagues nonresidents pay 25% to 30% more than residents. For adult non-profit groups renting sports facilities (fields, Memorial Gym and outdoor basketball courts) non-resident groups pay 21% to 53% more than residents.
Financial Hardship
The staff report says that the “staff finds these fee adjustments reasonable and unlikely to cause significant hardship or displacement of users”. I asked staff how this was determined and they had no data, it’s just what they believe. They did not know that SCAQ and Swim with Heart have only recently gone in the black after multiple years of deficits because of COVID. Each group has significant debt from multiple years in the red. These permit groups are small non-profit organizations who are significantly impacted by fee increases.
All Nearby Cities offer Lane Rentals
The report says that “staff conducted additional research and found that only a few nearby cities offer swimming lane rentals”. This is not true. Culver City, West Hollywood, Los Angeles, El Segundo, Torrance and Long Beach all rent lanes. Beverly Hills and Malibu don’t have a public pool, only a pool at their high school.
Santa Monica’s Adult Aquatics Permit Fees
The report says that “Santa Monica’s lane rental rates remain below those of nearby agencies including the Cities of Long Beach, Torrance and El Segundo”. I have shown Recreation staff that Long Beach’s rates are significantly lower than Santa Monica’s adult rates and that El Segundo just approved lowering their lane rental rates. Santa Monica’s adult non-profit resident fee is lower than El Segundo and Torrance but Santa Monica’s other adult group permit fees are much higher than all other Cities. Santa Monica’s highest rate for private/commercial non-resident group is proposed to be $50 per lane hour. No other city’s rate is higher than $25 per lane hour.
Below is permit fee comparison information.
Higher Fees are a Barrier for Safety, Diversity and Inclusion Having high fees creates a barrier for diversity and inclusion not just for permit groups but also swim lessons which is a critical life safety skill. Santa Monica should be offering free swim lessons, not increasing the fee. It’s a form of exclusion that reminds me of when Cities closed their public swimming pools instead of integrating them.
The fact checker in me could not let the staff report go unanswered. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Karen Melick
Sunset Park
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Matt Goldenberg D.O. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 9:46 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Oliver Chi; Recreation and Arts Department; John Smith; Barry Rosenbaum; [email protected]; Karen Melick; Maryanne LaGuardia; Steven Johnson; Jenny Rogers; Micah Akerson; Sonam Makker; Noe Mendoza; Bradley Ewing Subject: Support for Item 12A - Thank You for Investing in Our Parks
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
My name is Matt Goldenberg. I am the Co-Chair of the North of Montana Association, but I write tonight as an individual resident in support of Item 12A, adoption of the budget.
I know this budget carries many hard choices, and I want to speak to one part of it for which I am particularly grateful. This budget reflects real investment in our parks, and that deserves recognition.
For decades, Santa Monica's parks have been overlooked. We have just 1.55 park acres for every thousand residents. This council inherited that challenge and chose to act on it. You had the vision and the courage to adopt a Parks and Recreation Vision Plan calling for five acres per thousand residents, and the commitment to start delivering on it even in a difficult budget environment.
Memorial Park is the clearest example. It has taken since the late nineties, and this council moved it forward. The Airport Park field is another important step in the right direction. The community supports these investments.
As the Vision Plan moves from adoption into delivery, I hope the neighborhoods currently farthest from green space are part of that next chapter. As our city grows and welcomes more families, closing the gap the Vision Plan identifies will increasingly depend on acquiring new parkland, not only improving existing parks. I was encouraged to see the Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee nexus study move forward earlier this month, and I hope it becomes a meaningful tool for funding that growth.
I am also hopeful that we can make the Great Park a reality. The recent state and county grants are a significant milestone, bringing us closer to the future you have boldly envisioned in your Vision Plan.
Thank you for prioritizing parks. Let's keep building toward the day when every child in this city can walk to a park.
With appreciation,
Matt Goldenberg
Co-Chair, North of Montana Association (writing in my individual capacity) Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: Nina Fresco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 10:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi
Cc: Nina Fresco
Subject: 12A Budget: Landmark Fees
Attachments: 2026-0623-CouncilHearingOnFeesForLandmarks-Letter.pdf; 2026-0526-Fee structure CC final.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please find a letter from the Santa Monica Conservancy requesting that you freeze the very high fees for landmarks designation until a holistic review of the program can be conducted.
We have also attached a copy of our previous letter to you on the subject sent in May.
Best,
Nina Fresco
Nina Fresco
Vice-President
Santa Monica Conservancy
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
2520 SECOND STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
310-496-3146
www.smconservancy.org
June 23, 2026
Re: City Council Agenda Item 12A: Budget/4. Fee Schedule.
Honorable Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
It is deeply disappointing to find that the recommended fees for designating a Historic Landmark will again be increased by several hundred dollars, despite our comments presented at your May 26 Study Session (attached). The high fees, increasing to $6,882.25, result in barriers to preserving places valuable to our diverse cultural histories, and to anyone not very wealthy.
Such fees are totally out of alignment with other California cities and are inconsistent with the public purpose served by protecting our community’s historic legacy. They are also inconsistent with the City's commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion.
We request that you not approve the proposed increase in this fee, but instead freeze it at the current level, which is already out-of-reach at $6,662.40.
We understand that planning staff may be studying more issues related to the city’s preservation program early next year. We suggest leaving the fees as they are for now and adding them to the list of items to consider as part of a future, holistic review of the program.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mario Fonda-Bonardi
Board President
Santa Monica Conservancy
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
City Council Meeting May 26, 2026
Agenda Item 7: Study Session
Number 4: Fee Study Report
Honorable Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
The Santa Monica Conservancy would like to oHer our comments on the Fee Study Report, for your consideration regarding the upcoming City budget.
Historic preservation is defined in our LUCE as a core value and as a community benefit, enriching our economy and neighborhoods. Our legal system considers designating and protecting historic places to be a public benefit that serves the public interest by promoting community well-being and shared memories.
The policy for full-cost-recovery for city services that benefit individuals makes sense, regardless of the City’s financial situation. However, the fees charged for historic preservation fail to take into account the significant public benefits resulting from the protection of our historic and cultural resources.
In fact, rather than personally benefiting from landmark status, owners of designated properties take on significant regulatory burdens to conserve the historic value of their properties. Though they are eligible for the Mills Act Property Tax abatement contracts, this contract is costly to obtain and requires them to make significant personal financial investment in the rehabilitation and maintenance of the landmark – which serves the public interest in ensuring that historic structures will continue to convey their significance into the future.
An applicant for landmark designation is charged over $6,000 to pay for an outside professional consultant’s report plus an application fee of approximately $1,200. This far exceeds corresponding fees for any other California city. Many cities charge no fee or a nominal fee in order to encourage community participation in the program, and most conduct evaluations of landmark nominations in-house, with qualified staH, which Santa Monica is not currently staHed for, resulting in the hiring of costly outside consultants.
In recent years, the national cultural heritage spotlight has turned to the historical legacy of communities whose histories had been overlooked. The Santa Monica Landmarks Commission in partnership with the Committee for Racial Justice did a local study on the matter and concluded that both the cost and the procedures surrounding our landmark nomination process discourage people from coming forward to nominate significant but overlooked places. As Santa Monica begins its journey towards restorative justice, identification and protection of places that embody our diverse history should be brought Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
within reach to all community members, particularly those who wish to tell their own stories and not have them told for them.
Please take another look at the steep application fee for the nomination of landmarks in our historic preservation program, noting that the total cost would not be particularly substantial for the city, and taking into consideration the vital public benefit of this program and its value in helping us address equity issues by giving people an opportunity to safeguard their cultural histories.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ruthann Lehrer and Nina Fresco
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
5 David Yakobson
From: James Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 11:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Misti Kerns; Carter Rubin; Nicholas Rolston; Julieta Giner; David Newberg; Peter Trinh; Randi Parent
Subject: Santa Monica City Council Agenda Item 12.A - FY2026-2028 CIP Budget Attachments: City Council Support Pier Related CIPs.pdf Santa Monica City Council Members;
Attached please find a letter from the Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board of Directors in support of the Pier-related CIPs included in Item 12.A - Adoption of the Second Year of FY2026-2028 Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget.
All best regards,
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
200 SANTA MONICA PIER, SUITE A, SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
1 June 23, 2026
Mayor Caroline Torosis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Agenda Item 12.A – Adoption of the Second Year of FY2026-2028 Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget – Pier-related CIPs
Dear Honorable Mayor Torosis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council:
On behalf of the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, we write to share input on the adoption of the second year of the FY 2026-28 Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget. At our June 22, 2026, board meeting, the Board received a report from City Staff identifying Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs) that were related to the Santa Monica Pier.
Staff identified seven different CIPs related to the Pier:
• Project No. C0931 – Major Event Electrical
• Project No. C0871 – Beach and Pier Vision Plan
• Project No. C0936 – PCH/Lot 1 North Traffic Signal
• Project No. C0527 – Pier Bridge Replacement Project (Highway Bridge Program) • Project No. C0675 – Pier Capital Improvement Multi-Phase Project • Project No. C0615 – Pier Fire Sprinkler Replacement
• Project No. C0674 – Pier Railing and Lighting Renewal Project The Pier Corporation supports each of these and encourages City Council to adopt them at tonight’s City Council Meeting. We appreciate the City’s proactive efforts to improve the Pier.
Sincerely,
Carter Rubin
Chair, Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board of Directors Jim Harris
Executive Director, Santa Monica Pier Corporation
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
6 David Yakobson
From: Kelly Kwong <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 11:46 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Heidi von Tongeln
Cc: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Oscar Santiago; Oliver Chi; Christopher Dishlip; Diane Forte; Lee A Kaplan
Subject: City of Santa Monica (the “City”) - Item 12.A on June 23, 2026, City Council Meeting Agenda – Proposed Master Fee Schedule (Utility Excavation Permit Fees) Attachments: 6-23-26 Santa Monica Fee Opposition Letter.pdf
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Members of the City Council, Attached please find correspondence from Lee Kaplan of Southern California Edison Kelly Morikawa Kwong
Legal Organization | Legal Admin Assistant, Sr Support
T: 626-302-7184 | E-mail: [email protected]
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
Lee A. Kaplan
Senior Attorney
[email protected]
P.O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Ave. Rosemead, California 91770 (626) 302-5098 June 23, 2026
VIA E-Mail Only
Mayor Caroline Torosis
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Email: [email protected]
Mayor Pro Tempore Jesse Zwick
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Email: [email protected]
Councilmember Lana Negrete
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Email: [email protected]
Councilmember Barry Snell
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Email: [email protected]
Councilmember Dan Hall
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Email: [email protected]
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Email: [email protected]
Councilmember Ellis Raskin
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Email: [email protected]
City Attorney Heidi von Tongeln
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Email: [email protected]
RE: City of Santa Monica (the “City”) - Item 12.A on June 23, 2026, City Council Meeting Agenda – Proposed Master Fee Schedule (Utility Excavation Permit Fees)
Honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”), I write regarding the proposed adoption of the City’s Master Fee Schedule, including the utility excavation permit fees identified in Item 12.A, Exhibit E-1. As explained in a June 15, 2026 email from SCE Senior Compliance Manager Isabel Clark to the City’s Senior Budget Analyst Andrew Lee, certain fees on the proposed Master Fee Schedule, including 503.14 (Utility Excavation Permit: up to 100 feet), 503.15 (Utility Excavation Permit: 100 feet & over), 503.20 (Blanket Utility Permit: Public Property Use up to 320 Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
City of Santa Monica
June 23, 2026
sq ft), and 503.21 (Blanket Utility Permit: Minor Excavation up to 100 linear ft), which seek to recover the costs of anticipated future damage to the public right-of-way may not be applied to SCE.
SCE and the City are parties to a longstanding franchise agreement dated July 5, 1938 and adopted by the City as Ordinance No. 676 (the “Franchise Agreement”) pursuant to which SCE is granted the right to construct, maintain, and operate electric facilities within the City’s public right-of-way in exchange for a franchise fee based on a percentage of SCE’s revenues. The Franchise Agreement establishes both the scope of SCE’s rights and the consideration to be paid to the City for those rights. Last year, SCE paid nearly $1.2 Million to the City under the Franchise Agreement in exchange for its use of the public right-of-way. The agreement does not authorize the imposition of additional standardized user fees as a condition of exercising those franchise rights.
Under that framework, SCE is responsible for the costs of repairing actual damage to public property caused by its operations. SCE guarantees its trenching work for the full useful life of City streets. Historically, SCE has agreed to pay fees intended to reimburse the City for staff time spent on authorized permitting and inspection activities and performed or funded any repairs needed to address actual realized damage to the right-of-way made necessary by our operations (such as trench failures, for example) if and when such damage arises. Both the Franchise Agreement and applicable caselaw establish that SCE may not be required to pay upfront fees intended to recover the speculated costs of potential future damage to the right-of-way.
Certain fees included on the City’s proposed fee schedule, including, without limitation:
503.14 (Utility Excavation Permit: up to 100 feet), 503.15 (Utility Excavation Permit: 100 feet & over), 503.20 (Blanket Utility Permit: Public Property Use up to 320 sq ft), and 503.21 (Blanket Utility Permit: Minor Excavation up to 100 linear ft) appear to be intended to recover the costs of projected or anticipated damage to the public right-of-way, including through standardized fees based on excavation length or similar proxies for assumed impacts. To the extent these fees are designed to recover prospective or generalized damage (rather than the cost of actual, project-specific impacts) they are inconsistent with the Franchise Agreement and may not be applied SCE.
Federal Courts have directly addressed the applicability of fees based on projected future damage to franchise-holding utilities. For example, in Southern California Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2003) the Court held that a trenching fee ordinance could not be applied to a franchise-holding utility where it imposed charges based on projected long-term damage to streets rather than actual, realized trenching impacts. The court emphasized that franchise provisions allowing recovery of the cost of repairs authorize recovery for “actual harms, not estimated ones,” and do not permit the imposition of fees in advance of excavation or based on generalized assumptions regarding future damage. The court further held that such fees were invalid where they were imposed “in advance” and “without proof of actual harm,” thereby replacing the franchise’s agreed framework (under which the utility repairs damage or reimburses actual costs) with a system of prospective, standardized charges. In addition, the court explained that municipalities may not impose charges that are effectively unrelated to the specific damages caused on a particular project, but must instead rely on mechanisms tied to actual, project-level impacts.
These principles apply directly here. Fees that attempt to recover the cost of anticipated or long-term degradation of the right-of-way, whether calculated on a per-foot basis or through other Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
City of Santa Monica
June 23, 2026
standardized assumptions, are fundamentally different from the recovery of actual repair costs contemplated by the franchise. As in Santa Ana, such fees alter the economic terms of the franchise by requiring SCE to pay for speculative future impacts rather than addressing real, demonstrated damage after it occurs.
Nor can such fees be justified under general ordinance compliance provisions in the Franchise Agreement. As the Ninth Circuit explained, those provisions do not authorize a municipality to impose new financial obligations that compromise the material terms of the franchise by legislation, or to unilaterally replace the agreed cost-recovery framework with one based on estimated or prospective impacts.
Accordingly, SCE respectfully requests that the City:
1. Confirm that the proposed utility excavation permit fees (and any other fees that aim to recover speculative future repair costs) will not be applied to SCE to the extent they are intended to recover costs associated with projected or future damage to the public right‑of‑way; and
2. Incorporate into the adopting resolution or Master Fee Schedule express language clarifying that franchise‑holding utilities operating under existing agreements with the City are not subject to fees that recover the costs of prospective or estimated future damage to City property.
Providing this clarification will ensure that the City’s fee schedule is applied in a manner consistent with existing franchise agreements and applicable law and will avoid confusion regarding the applicability of these fees to SCE.
SCE remains committed to working collaboratively with the City but expressly reserves all rights and remedies available at law and equity with respect to the application of any fees that are not authorized under the Franchise Agreement.
Sincerely,
Lee A. Kaplan
Senior Attorney
Southern California Edison Company
cc: [email protected]
[email protected]
Oscar Santiago, Director, Finance Department ([email protected]) Oliver Chi, City Manager ([email protected])
Christopher Dishlip, Director of Public Works ([email protected]) Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
City of Santa Monica
June 23, 2026
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
7 David Yakobson
From: Cris Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 11:57 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: Agenda Item 12A
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Council Members:
As a life-long Santa Monican and environmentalist who has helped organize the community to support and uphold Santa Monica’s sustainability initiatives and leadership, including the ground-breaking Rights of Nature/Sustainability Rights Ordinance, I am hopeful that the council’s discussion this evening on the budget addresses any implications for staff reorganization as well as for potential investments that could yield an array of positive returns.
Making investments in the City's sustainability leadership has enabled us to have all kinds of returns on investment (ROI), beyond the essential, i.e. ensuring that residents are safe with clean air, land and water with a healthy habitat. Just this month the City has received $10.5 Million for the planning of the Great Park following the airport closure. In my mind, that ROI reflects on our sustainability strengths, such as our Climate Action & Adaptation Plan and our Parks and Recreation Vision affirming our “City as Habitat.”
I commend the staff and the City leadership for being responsible as the budget unfolds, seeking to have a strong City that can create economic opportunities, with an ecological consciousness, for Santa Monica to have the transparency that fortifies public trust. Our City and community collaborates well as our trust and relationships are nurtured.
With respect,
Cris Gutierrez
Santa Monica Resident
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026
Item 12-A
June 23, 2026