Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, July 14, 2026

1 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2026 11:10 AM
To: Santa Monica Coalition
Subject: Santa Monica City Manager Oliver Chi
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
BREAKING (Part 2): Santa Monica City Manager Oliver Chi plots the further demise of our community.

Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaiWHsCCPW6/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link YouTube
https://youtube.com/shorts/py-lD3roQx4?feature=share
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2026 7:35 AM
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
LA's Mayor Karen Bass and Councilwoman Nithya Raman, as Chair of the Homeless Committee, have spent and handed out billions of Taxpayer funds to cronies and nonprofits. Neither will show how the money was spent or whose pockets it's in. That's fraud. Both deserve jail time, not public office.

Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dakz3iliL3M/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link YouTube
https://youtube.com/shorts/U1R0fWNHjKY?feature=share
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 8:22 AM
To: Santa Monica Coalition
Subject: Spectrum 1 News
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
We want MacArthur Park to be an iconic image of a hopeful Los Angeles. By plan, dealers and transient addicts from MacArthur Park use the Metro to travel to Santa Monica in 20 minutes. Santa Monica Police state that 165 addicts and mentally ill individuals exit the Metro each night at the intersection of 4th St. and Colorado Ave. They are homeless by choice. They require drug rehabilitation and should be involuntarily committed.
https://youtu.be/h77HWkO4AVg
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 7:21 PM
To: [email protected]; Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Cc: councilmtgitems; Jennifer Taylor; Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James; Sandra Santiago; Sergio Ramirez; Lisa Parson; Lauren Howland; Melissa Spagnuolo; Attorney Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Introducing the Santa Monica Global Conference Center – A Transformative Partnership Opportunity for Our City
Attachments: SMGCC Slideshow.mp4
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
Dear City Manager and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I hope this email finds you well. I am writing on behalf of Seedlings Inc. to introduce an exciting and timely opportunity to position Santa Monica as a premier global destination for business, innovation, and events.

We are proposing the development of the Santa Monica Global Conference Center (SMGCC) — a world-class, iconic facility designed by the internationally renowned architecture firm Morphosis, founded by Pritzker Prize-winning architect Thom Mayne. Morphosis has already expressed strong interest in this project and has agreed to continue to explore the project with the understanding that they would be architect of choice, pending the completion of a comprehensive feasibility study and conceptual design phase.

The proposed center would be located in the heart of Santa Monica, leveraging the city’s unmatched assets: walkability to Downtown, the Third Street Promenade, the Pier, the beach and ocean, Metro E Line access, and proximity to Silicon Beach’s thriving tech community.

The facility would feature approximately 200,000 square feet of flexible, state-of-the-art space, including:
 Two 50,000 sq ft divisible ballrooms
 A 1,000-seat indoor amphitheater
 Multiple meeting rooms, exhibition, and event spaces
At full operation, the project is projected to deliver powerful year-round economic benefits, including:
 400,000+ annual visitors
 280,000+ hotel nights
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
5  $380M+ in visitor spending
 $650M+ in total annual economic impact
 $45M+ in additional city tax revenue
 2,800+ permanent jobs
Beyond the numbers, the center would catalyze broader district-wide growth — supporting new hotels, office and creative spaces, restaurants, retail, and increased property values — while benefiting Santa Monica’s key industries: hospitality, technology, retail, and transportation.

Morphosis has agreed to conduct a landmark feasibility study and develop conceptual design renderings. We are respectfully requesting a $250,000 investment from the City of Santa Monica to fund this critical next step. This investment would deliver professional analysis and iconic design concepts that could instantly elevate Santa Monica’s profile as a leading global hub for conferences, summits, cultural events, and high-profile activations.

I have attached a detailed project overview presentation (including architectural vision, economic impact data, and year-round activation opportunities) for your review.I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to schedule a brief meeting with you and your team to discuss this proposal, answer questions, and explore how we might partner to advance this vision for Santa Monica’s future.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I am confident this project represents a once-in-ageneration opportunity to strengthen our economy, enhance our cultural leadership, and deliver lasting community benefits.

Best regards,
Joe
Seedlings Inc.

[email protected]
Sincerely,
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Joe DiRosa
Founder, CEO
Artist Series, Seedlings, Tartare, BrainPower
213-STAGE-LA
(213-782-4352)
[email protected]
www.seedlings.vc
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Sean Ahaus <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 8:56 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi
Subject: California Roadhouse Open Letter to Council
Attachments: Santa Monica Close-up Submission - 2027.07.13.pdf

EXTERNAL
Open Letter to Santa Monica City Leaders: It's Time to Resolve the California Roadhouse Lease For nearly two years, one of the Santa Monica Pier's most visible restaurant spaces has remained vacant.

That vacancy represents more than an empty building. It represents delayed jobs, unrealized tax revenue, lost
opportunities for local musicians and performers, and another missed opportunity to strengthen one of Santa
Monica's most recognizable public destinations.

My name is Sean Ahaus, founder of California Roadhouse, Inc. Our vision is to create a Californiathemed restaurant and live music venue celebrating the culture, music, and hospitality that have made Southern California famous around the world. We remain ready to move forward immediately.

Many people assume this project has stalled because of financing, construction, or permitting. It has not.

California Roadhouse has agreed to the commercial terms of the City's proposed lease. The remaining disagreement concerns labor-related provisions that we believe improperly extend beyond the City's role as a
landlord and into matters governed by state and federal labor law.

Reasonable people may disagree with our legal position. That is exactly why these issues deserve open discussion rather than prolonged silence.

For months, we have repeatedly requested meetings with members of the City Council, the City Manager, and the
City Attorney to explain our concerns and discuss a path toward resolution. Those requests have produced very
little meaningful dialogue.

I want to acknowledge Councilmember Lana Negrete, who took the time to meet with us and hear our concerns
directly. Whether or not elected officials ultimately agree with us, the willingness to listen is an important part of
public service.

Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
2 This issue is about more than one lease. It raises larger questions about how Santa Monica works with businesses that want to invest in the community. How should public property be managed? When should government act as a landlord, and when does it risk becoming a regulator? How do we encourage economic investment while respecting the legal rights of employers and employees alike? The public also deserves transparency. Residents should understand how the disputed lease provisions were
developed, who participated in those discussions, and why they remain necessary. When significant policy questions affect a publicly owned property and the future of dozens of jobs, transparency is fundamental to public trust.

Meanwhile, the consequences continue to grow. A public restaurant space remains vacant. Prospective employees continue waiting for work. Local musicians lose another potential stage. Visitors lose another destination on the Pier. Nearby businesses lose the additional activity that a successful restaurant could generate.

California Roadhouse remains prepared to sign a lawful lease and begin hiring immediately. We continue to believe this project can become a positive addition to the Santa Monica Pier while creating jobs, supporting local artists, attracting visitors, and contributing to the City's economic recovery.

My hope is simple: that City leaders return to good-faith negotiations, openly address the remaining issues, and
allow this project to move forward.

The Santa Monica Pier deserves to be known for opportunity, not prolonged vacancies. Most importantly, the
residents of Santa Monica deserve a transparent government that welcomes dialogue, encourages investment, and works to put people back to work.

Respectfully,
Sean Ahaus
Founder
California Roadhouse, Inc.

Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Open Letter for Santa Monica Close-up
By Sean Ahaus
Open Letter to Santa Monica City Leaders: It's Time to Resolve the California Roadhouse Lease For nearly two years, one of the Santa Monica Pier's most visible restaurant spaces has remained vacant.

That vacancy represents more than an empty building. It represents delayed jobs, unrealized tax revenue, lost opportunities for local musicians and performers, and another missed opportunity to strengthen one of Santa Monica's most recognizable public destinations.

My name is Sean Ahaus, founder of California Roadhouse, Inc. Our vision is to create a California-themed restaurant and live music venue celebrating the culture, music, and hospitality that have made Southern California famous around the world. We remain ready to move forward immediately.

Many people assume this project has stalled because of financing, construction, or permitting. It has not.

California Roadhouse has agreed to the commercial terms of the City's proposed lease. The remaining disagreement concerns labor-related provisions that we believe improperly extend beyond the City's role as a landlord and into matters governed by state and federal labor law.

Reasonable people may disagree with our legal position. That is exactly why these issues deserve open discussion rather than prolonged silence.

For months, we have repeatedly requested meetings with members of the City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney to explain our concerns and discuss a path toward resolution. Those requests have produced very little meaningful dialogue.

I want to acknowledge Councilmember Lana Negrete, who took the time to meet with us and hear our concerns directly. Whether or not elected officials ultimately agree with us, the willingness to listen is an important part of public service.

This issue is about more than one lease. It raises larger questions about how Santa Monica works with businesses that want to invest in the community. How should public property be managed? When should government act as a landlord, and when does it risk becoming a regulator? How do we encourage economic investment while respecting the legal rights of employers and employees alike? The public also deserves transparency. Residents should understand how the disputed lease provisions were developed, who participated in those discussions, and why they remain necessary. When significant policy questions affect a publicly owned property and the future of dozens of jobs, transparency is fundamental to public trust.

Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
My hope is simple: that City leaders return to good-faith negotiations, openly address the remaining issues, and allow this project to move forward.

The Santa Monica Pier deserves to be known for opportunity, not prolonged vacancies. Most importantly, the residents of Santa Monica deserve a transparent government that welcomes dialogue, encourages investment, and works to put people back to work.

Respectfully,
Sean Ahaus
Founder
California Roadhouse, Inc.

Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 8:53 AM
To: Santa Monica Coalition
Subject: Schools and Hotels

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Manager Oliver Chi and Mayor
Torosis: Transients blocking hotels and schools DON'T mix well with tourists and children. ESPECIALLY children.

Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaxvZRKiIk0/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link YouTube
https://youtube.com/shorts/RsssVf_-N3g?feature=share
John E. Alle

JOHN ALLE COMPANY

THE SANTA MONICA COALITION / SAFE CITIES
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: MM MM <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 9:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Santa Monica city council destroyed the city

EXTERNAL
SMDP,
The Santa Monica city council has destroyed the city of Santa Monica. They allowed BLM to loot the city and their endless communist regulations and taxes have made it a ghost town. Please see below. Can you please publish in the SMDP who each council member and the mayor get donations from. Some residents suspect that they are being influenced by NGOs, the world economic forum or China. Thank you.
https://www.smdp.com/santa-monica-city-council-to-weigh-dueling-ballot-measures-downtowndevelopment-rules-and-civic-auditorium-deal-tuesday/ Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
5 David Yakobson
From: S I <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 10:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re Tonights City Council Agenda and Joe Dirosa's Convention Center Proposal- I DO

NOT SUPPORT THIS MAN AND HIS RQUEST

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I wanted to briefly share my perspective regarding the recent proposal and public commentary surrounding the Civic Auditorium/Convention Center concept.

First and foremost, I want to make clear that I support in general exploring the redevelopment of this site and believe Santa Monica should be having bold conversations about the future of this important civic asset. Our city deserves thoughtful investment, creative thinking, and projects that strengthen our economy while respecting the character of our community.

That said, I believe the current presentation and advocacy surrounding this proposal are doing the idea itself a disservice and I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS.

Online and on Next Door the public has= been presented with speculative renderings and references to Morphosis as though this represents an actual architectural proposa from Morphosis. To my knowledge, it does not. While Morphosis is one of the world's most accomplished architectural firms, and Thom Mayne is unquestionably one of the great architects of our time, repeatedly invoking their name or their Pritzker Prize does not substitute for thoughtful planning or public process. Great architecture is about far more than the name attached to a project. It is about context, scale, materials, functionality, economics, sustainability, and ultimately how a building serves the community around it.

Likewise, I have yet to see the type of objective data that should accompany a proposal of this magnitude.

Before asking the public to embrace a project that could fundamentally reshape this portion of our city, I believe there should be independent analysis addressing issues such as economic feasibility, projected public benefit, parking, traffic, convention demand, operating costs, surrounding business impacts, and long-term fiscal sustainability. Not this mans ridiculous and self serving proposal that is on all gorunds, factually incorrect and misleading.

As someone who has lived in Santa Monica for nearly three decades, owns property here, owns businesses here, has developed projects here, and pays taxes here, I strongly believe we should welcome ambitious ideas, but they must be presented professionally, transparently, and with supporting data rather than self serving enthusiasm and little else but scorn against those who question it.

Unfortunately, much of the current advocacy has become unnecessarily combative, dismissive of legitimate questions, and lacking the factual foundation necessary to build meaningful public support. That approach ultimately hurts the conversation rather than advances it.

Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
6 I hope the City continues to explore redevelopment opportunities for this site. I simply encourage Council to evaluate any future proposal based on objective planning, sound economics, thoughtful design, and meaningful community engagement and not speculative renderings or unsupported claims.

Santa Monica deserves a first-class civic project. It also deserves a first-class process.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

J Joseph
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
7 David Yakobson
From: JANIS LEISHMAN <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:16 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 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,
Janis
Santa Monica
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
8 David Yakobson
From: robin henning <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:19 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

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.

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,
robin henning
Montana neighborhood
Let’s take the time to do things right no rushing history. Will be proud of Santa Monica in future generations for clear decisive action now.

Sent from my iPhone
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
9 David Yakobson
From: Craig Galloway <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:52 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

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.

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,
Craig S Galloway
Wilshire/Montana
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Clerk Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 9:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Agenda Packet - Jul 14, 2026 (Tue) -
Mitchell Kois
Staff Assistant III | City Clerk’s Office
(310) 458-8211 x5518
From: Stanley H. Epstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 6:06 PM
To: Clerk Mailbox <[email protected]>; Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]>; Oliver Chi <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Agenda Packet - Jul 14, 2026 (Tue) -

EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:Is there an acceptable reason why all residents should not be advised now of the $ amount of each and every factor that has not been collected by the City and who benefitted?All that is known and is not a Closed Session issue?Certainly estimated amounts of future revenues can be made, too. If the question comes up tomorrow evening, and no due diligence at all as the excuse ,that will be laughed at by people with any sophistication. I think it should be made public prior to the meeting if the City wants to be transparent and truthful.Kindly add these to public comments , Thanks .Stan Epstein
From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date: July 13, 2026 at 5:22:27 PM PDT
Subject: Agenda Packet - Jul 14, 2026 (Tue) - City Council Reply-To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Please see the attached Agenda Packet document for the following meeting:

City Council
Special Meeting
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
2 Tuesday, July 14, 2026 5:35 PM
1685 Main Street, Room 250, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Download PDF Agenda Packet | View Web Agenda Packet
Document Modified: 7/13/2026 5:18 PM

If you no longer wish to be included in this distribution list you can remove yourself through the meeting web portal or reply to this message.

Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Clarence McDowell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:50 AM
To: Clerk Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public Comment Handout for Tonight's Council Meeting — 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7 Displacement — HD-11536 / Permit No. 26BLD-0578
Attachments: Council_Meeting_Handout_McDowell_071426.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear City Clerk's Office,
My name is Clarence McDowell. My wife Victoria and I are residents of 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7, and we have been displaced from our home since September 3, 2025 — 314 days as of today.

I intend to speak during Public Comment at tonight's City Council meeting, July 14, 2026, regarding the City's ongoing failure to enforce Habitability Determination HD-11536 and the tenant relocation provisions of SMMC Chapter 4.36, including unanswered written questions submitted to the City Attorney's Office and Code Enforcement, and unpaid per diem relocation benefits now totaling approximately $53,449.

I have attached a one-page handout summarizing this matter for the Council's reference during my comment. I respectfully request that this handout be:

1. Distributed to the Mayor and Councilmembers prior to or during tonight's Public Comment period, and

2. Entered into the public record for tonight's meeting.

I understand the deadline for electronic display materials is 12:00 PM the day of the meeting, and I am submitting this ahead of that deadline. If any additional steps are needed on my part to have this handout distributed or displayed tonight, please let me know as soon as possible.

Thank you for your assistance.

Respectfully,
Clarence and Victoria McDowell
1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 291-4468
[email protected]
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
2 --
Best Regards,
Clarence McDowell
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
1011 PICO BLVD., UNIT 7 - TENANT RELOCATION - CITY COUNCIL HANDOUT McDowell Family Displacement — Case 25-COM-1682 | HD-11536 | Permit No. 26BLD-0578 Prepared for City Council Meeting: July 14, 2026
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ DISPLACEMENT SNAPSHOT (AS OF TONIGHT, JULY 14, 2026)
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ • Displaced since: September 3, 2025 → 314 consecutive days (10+ months) • Governing order: Habitability Determination HD-11536, issued Feb. 19, 2026 — landlord found 100% responsible for ongoing displacement; "Tenant Responsible" box left

UNCHECKED
• No written lifting order has ever been issued for HD-11536 • Established per diem rate (per landlord's own checks): $473.00/night • Per diem accruing since HD-11536 (Feb 19 – Jul 14, 2026): 145 nights = ~$68,585 total accrued
• Minimum confirmed UNPAID per diem balance as of tonight: approximately $53,449 (and rising $473/day)
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ FOUR YES/NO QUESTIONS — STILL UNANSWERED AFTER 3+ WEEKS ════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ First submitted June 26, 2026 (deadline July 2). Restated July 6 and July 10, 2026.

As of the Council meeting, the City Attorney's Office has issued NO written Yes/No answer to any of these:

1. LANDLORD ELECTION: Does a landlord's election to switch from per diem to comparable housing take legal effect — and suspend the per diem obligation — WITHOUT a prior written Director determination addressing all six SMMC 4.36.010 comparability factors (size, configuration/levels, location, school proximity, accessibility, other amenities)?

2. UNVERIFIED COMPARABILITY: When the Director admits she CANNOT determine whether the landlord's offered unit was comparable, does that uncertainty excuse Code Enforcement from enforcing unpaid per diem — shifting the entire burden to the displaced tenant to sue in civil court?

3. PACKING/MOVING COSTS: Does SMMC 4.36.120(d) allow the City to deny packing, moving, storage, and unpacking costs based on the ORIGINAL 2025 incident — when HD-11536 itself attributes the CURRENT, ONGOING displacement to the landlord's non-diligence?

4. UNAUTHORIZED PLAN MODIFICATION: Can the Building Department-approved Per Diem obligation in Attachment A to Permit No. 26BLD-0578 (stamped/approved April 21, 2026) be McDowell Family Displacement — Case 25-COM-1682 | HD-11536 | Permit No. 26BLD-0578 1 Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
modified — including by a landlord's mid-displacement switch to "comparable housing" — WITHOUT a written amended Relocation Plan, Building Department review/approval, and written re-notice to tenants, as SMMC 8.100.030(b) requires? ════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

CODE ENFORCEMENT'S REFUSAL TO ENFORCE
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ • City Attorney's Office position: "Code Enforcement is not able to determine whether the unit was in fact comparable... pursue remedies through a private civil action." • This tells a displaced, low-income tenant family to sue their landlord privately rather than have the City enforce its own self-executing statutory per diem obligation. • The City's own July 2025 Temporary Tenant Relocation Assistance Guidelines state, without qualification: "The landlord MUST pay for all actual reasonable moving costs, including... packing and unpacking [and] storage." Code Enforcement has twice told the family verbally that these costs are NOT owed — with no written code citation overriding the "must" Language.
• To date, we have documented and reported at least 10 serious to critical permit violations and not one additional code/permit violation has been issued since HD-1536 was cited on February 19th.
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ MR. MICK'S ULTIMATUM (JULY 7, 2026)
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ • Code Enforcement Manager Daniel Mick delivered an ultimatum tied to the landlord's substitute-housing offer at 804½ Pacific Ave., Venice.
• Mr. Mick simultaneously ADMITTED the SMMC Chapter 8.100 relocation-plan-amendment defect is a "separate issue" not being addressed at this time, and that any "decline/forfeiture" theory against the tenants would need internal City staff discussion — confirming NO settled City position exists.
• The family has renewed, in writing, its request that the City Manager's Office and Consumer Protection Division formally intervene.
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ MS. GANSCHOW'S CONTINUED SILENCE
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ Chief Deputy City Attorney Romy Ganschow has not provided written answers on:
• Landlord responsibility for packing/moving tenant belongings (despite HD-11536's own causation finding against the landlord)
McDowell Family Displacement — Case 25-COM-1682 | HD-11536 | Permit No. 26BLD-0578 2 Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
• Whether a Building Department-approved Relocation Plan can be unilaterally modified by the landlord without following SMMC 8.100.030(b)'s written amendment process • The four restated Yes/No questions above, now over three weeks outstanding ════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

PER DIEM ACCOUNTING SUMMARY
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ Date Event Accrued Per Diem
Sep 3, 2025 Fire event / displacement begins $0
Feb 19, 2026 HD-11536 issued $0 (rate established)
Mar 16, 2026 Last landlord payment covers through this date $11,825 Apr 8, 2026 Landlord told (verbally) benefits ended $21,678 May 28, 2026 City's alternate "gap end" date $55,529
Jun 26, 2026 Partial payment (Check #3783) issued $60,565 Jul 9, 2026 27th Formal Communication min. $51,084 unpaid $66,220 Jul 14, 2026 TONIGHT — Council Meeting $68,585 accrued / ~$53,449 min unpaid
Note: Per diem continues to accrue at $473.00/night for every additional day until a valid, written lifting order is simultaneously served on the tenants and the landlord, consistent with HD-11536's own terms.
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

1. Direct the City Attorney's Office to answer all four outstanding Yes/No questions in writing within 5 business days.

2. Direct Code Enforcement to enforce full payment of accrued per diem (min. ~$53,449) plus all packing/moving/storage/unpacking costs under SMMC 4.36.100.

3. Direct the Building Division to confirm whether the Relocation Plan was ever lawfully amended under SMMC 8.100.030(b); if not, treat per diem as fully in force.

4. Direct staff to issue a written lifting order for HD-11536, or confirm in writing that it remains in full effect.

All rights under SMMC Chapters 4.36, 4.56, 4.28, and 8.100; California Civil Code §§1941, 1942, 1942.4, 1942.5; and California Health & Safety Code §17920.3 are expressly reserved.

Clarence and Victoria McDowell | 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7, Santa Monica, CA 90405 McDowell Family Displacement — Case 25-COM-1682 | HD-11536 | Permit No. 26BLD-0578 3 Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: ELLEN POWELL <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 12:44 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.

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,
Ellen Powell
Santa Monica
Sent from my iPhone
Item 1
July 14, 2026
Item 1
July 14, 2026
1011 PICO BLVD., UNIT 7 - TENANT RELOCATION - CITY COUNCIL HANDOUT McDowell Family Displacement — Case 25-COM-1682 | HD-11536 | Permit No. 26BLD-0578 Prepared for City Council Meeting: July 14, 2026
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ DISPLACEMENT SNAPSHOT (AS OF TONIGHT, JULY 14, 2026)
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ • Displaced since: September 3, 2025 → 314 consecutive days (10+ months) • Governing order: Habitability Determination HD-11536, issued Feb. 19, 2026 — landlord found 100% responsible for ongoing displacement; "Tenant Responsible" box left

As of the Council meeting, the City Attorney's Office has issued NO written Yes/No answer to any of these:

1. Direct the City Attorney's Office to answer all four outstanding Yes/No questions in writing within 5 business days.

2. Direct Code Enforcement to enforce full payment of accrued per diem (min. ~$53,449) plus all packing/moving/storage/unpacking costs under SMMC 4.36.100.

3. Direct the Building Division to confirm whether the Relocation Plan was ever lawfully amended under SMMC 8.100.030(b); if not, treat per diem as fully in force.

4. Direct staff to issue a written lifting order for HD-11536, or confirm in writing that it remains in full effect.

All rights under SMMC Chapters 4.36, 4.56, 4.28, and 8.100; California Civil Code §§1941, 1942, 1942.4, 1942.5; and California Health & Safety Code §17920.3 are expressly reserved.

Santa Monica City CouncilJuly 14, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
July 14, 2026