1 David Yakobson
From: Kevin McKeown <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 9:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Jing Yeo
Subject: Item 12-B — Follow-up
EXTERNAL
Feedback from a Councilmember convinces me my original letter, below, was insufficiently clear about the immediacy of my concern. I apologize.
I urge you to make sure vulnerable renters are protected not only under the eventual local TOD plan, but RIGHT NOW when you introduce limited up-zoning for our section of the Expo/Bundy station catchment, so that the eastern Pico neighborhood qualifies for a thoughtful future local TOD plan without endangering renters.
The staff recommendation would have you up-zone R-2 and R-3 parcels, but what might that mean for properties where the upzoning itself induces building owners to demolish and replace with a denser, more profitable building? That involuntary dislocation of renters due to the immediate upzoning, not due to the eventual local TOD plan, is what concerns me right now. I hope to convince you to share my concern.
Apparently staff has done enough surveying of the affected Pico multi-family properties to predict that only two parcels will fail to be exempt under SB79/our local TOD. The renters who live on those parcels need our immediate attention, support, and protection.
Not identified so far is the number of parcels, some of which may have enough rental/low income units for SB79 exemption, which will be tipped over into demolition/redevelopment profitability by the immediate upzoning alone.
Our neighbor renters on those parcels could find themselves on the sidewalk long before we craft our local TOD plan. Oops.
Still, you need to up-zone enough parcels to make up for the City of L.A.’s failure to zone appropriately in their other 75% of the area around the Expo/Bundy station. To make up for whatever number of R-2 and R-3 parcels must be removed from the upzoning to protect renters from displacement, I’m suggesting a hybrid solution.
If you need five more parcels to meet the statutory threshold, there are five R-1 parcels along Centinela Avenue, already a traffic thoroughfare rather than a quiet residential street.
If you need fifteen more parcels, there are fifteen R-1 parcels that lie entirely within the quarter-mile radius of the Expo/Bundy station. Certainly those properties, within easy walking distance of light rail, make greater sense for upzoning in the intended spirit of SB79 than more distant multi-family parcels where existing renters, our neighbors, might be evicted.
Upzoning a few R-1 parcels avoids involuntary displacement. The home-owners of those properties get to make a choice about their own future. Renters on multi-family parcels do not enjoy that choice.
Our community, again and again, has made difficult decisions to ensure our neighbors don’t get forced out of their homes and out of their community. I ask that you again take extraordinary measures to protect vulnerable renters from involuntary dislocation.
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
2 Thanks,
Kevin
> On Jul 12, 2026, at 10:53 AM, Kevin McKeown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Kevin McKeown <[email protected]>
> Subject: Item 12-B — Protect Pico renters!
> Date: July 12, 2026 at 10:48:07 AM PDT
> To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]> >
> I implore you to keep in mind one overriding imperative as you re-zone part of the Pico neighborhood to give SB79 relief near L.A.’s Expo/Bundy light rail station:
>
> Under no circumstances should any existing Santa Monica residents be forced out of their homes! >
> Please analyze carefully which multi-family parcels might be subject to immediate development pressure if you up-zone them. That development, for a renter household, is likely to mean displacement and an inability to remain part of our Santa Monica community.
>
> While up-zoning R-1 lots may raise concerns about “neighborhood character,” a single-family homeowner remains in control of their own property and does not face involuntary displacement. >
> Are there more nuanced options than re-zoning R-1 vs. re-zoning R-2 and R-3? You may not have to settle for an either/or in accommodating L.A.’s failure to zone appropriately around mass transit, as Santa Monica has done. >
> You could up-zone only those multi-family parcels where the economics are such that no renters will be displaced, and up-zone enough R-1s (with no displacement) to meet the statutory thresholds to defer more drastic impacts on the Pico neighborhood.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kevin McKeown
> retired former Mayor
————————————
K e v i n M c K e o w n
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.mckeown.net__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!oeScWf2pPbBW48KOvHh3PNyI4waMr7XEP1Bq5m9JPIkIbtjmz8iO0rgyxZL2aqFANrrN-sWhQWlgnx4lLFxnSO-Ezs$ Choose to be conscious
————————————
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Colin Warn <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2026 8:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Do Not Delay SB79 Implementation (Staff Report 7706)
EXTERNAL
Hello Santa Monica Council,
In a county with an affordability crisis, we should be doing everything we can to upzone near transit as fast as possible.
I’m extremely disappointed to see the current proposal is to delay full SB79 implementation. The reason people like Trump got elected is in no small part because of an affordability crisis, of which housing affordability is the largest factor (which is a function of how many housing units are available, dictated in no small part by zoning laws).
Please do not continue to perpetuate a system that continues to make places like Santa Monica unaffordable, giving people more reasons for people to vote for candidates like Trump.
Regards,
Colin Warn
90292
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2026 11:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public hearing item 12B - provide visual for inventory of sites eligible for temporary exclusion
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council and city Manager,
Where are the visuals of the inventory list? A large number of the population understand visuals but staff has failed to provide these.
Public Hearings require staff to be as transparent as possible. Please demand that this item include clearly marked visual(s) of each and every site on the attached inventory list that is eligible for temporary exclusion. A listing of the inventory without a visual disadvantages the vast majority of the citizenry.
The public can only comment on what is able to comprehend from the documents provided by city staff. A listing without visuals lacks transparency. Fix this now so you are as transparent as possible.
Thank you.
Ann Thanawalla
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Kevin McKeown <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 10:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Jing Yeo
Subject: Item 12-B — Protect Pico renters!
EXTERNAL
I implore you to keep in mind one overriding imperative as you re-zone part of the Pico neighborhood to give SB79 relief near L.A.’s Expo/Bundy light rail station:
Under no circumstances should any existing Santa Monica residents be forced out of their homes! Please analyze carefully which multi-family parcels might be subject to immediate development pressure if you up-zone them. That development, for a renter household, is likely to mean displacement and an inability to remain part of our Santa Monica community.
While up-zoning R-1 lots may raise concerns about “neighborhood character,” a single-family homeowner remains in control of their own property and does not face involuntary displacement.
Are there more nuanced options than re-zoning R-1 vs. re-zoning R-2 and R-3? You may not have to settle for an either/or in accommodating L.A.’s failure to zone appropriately around mass transit, as Santa Monica has done.
You could up-zone only those multi-family parcels where the economics are such that no renters will be displaced, and up-zone enough R-1s (with no displacement) to meet the statutory thresholds to defer more drastic impacts on the Pico neighborhood.
Thanks,
Kevin McKeown
retired former Mayor
————————————
K e v i n M c K e o w n
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.mckeown.net__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!o0N5H2kgKRh3OEDWtMBVZRo Gm8NQI39mYp9P5TORwbljE793S1BWLuk5GZFMl65CdY81GTp8wkjc8j7kxlf2u0d3kyg$ Choose to be conscious
————————————
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Mathew Millen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 2:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 7/14 item 12B/ SB79
EXTERNAL
Listing property by assessor parcel number is a total obfuscation and lack of transparency. please continue this item or before the meeting LIST THE STREET ADDRESS ACCOCIATED WITH EACH PARCEL.
Thanks for your consideration
Mathew Millen Pico Neighborhood resident
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Miles Freeman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 4:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 12B
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing as a long-time renter who lives in Santa Monica and opposes the newly proposed ordinance regarding SB79. The proposed ordinance seeks to, in effect, largely delay implementation with SB79 until 2030.
Respectfully, your constituents cannot wait another 4 years to even begin to see more affordable housing come to one portion of Santa Monica. California is in the midst of a housing crisis. The average LA area home costs over $1 million. The average age for first-time homebuyers in California is somewhere in the late 30s to early 40s. Santa Monicans need more affordable housing now, not sometime in the 2030s. And transit-oriented development is particularly needed given how congested LA's streets and highways are already.
I am asking that you please move more quickly to implement SB79 and respectfully request that you do not adopt the proposed ordinance set forth in Agenda Item 12B. Thank you.
Best,
Miles Freeman
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 5:13 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Council Mailbox Cc: Bradley Ewing; Sam Shapiro-Kline
Subject: Oppose Item 12.B, SB79 Delay
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Santa Monica Forward opposes delaying the implementation of SB79 in Santa Monica, which would eliminate a key lever in addressing our housing crisis.
Santa Monica has blocked new housing for decades, dating to a policy shift in the 1970s. The consequences of this approach are painfully obvious: living in Santa Monica is deeply unaffordable, if not outright unattainable for many. The people who make our city function cannot afford to live in it. The homes the city has blocked over the years could have housed the teachers who make our school district exceptional, the bus drivers who keep our city running on time, and the new families that keep our city vibrant and alive. S.B. 79 is a chance to finally change course.
Proponents of delaying the implementation of SB79 may claim that this is necessary to prevent displacement or gentrification. However this would be a continuation of the same policy which has resulted in displacement and gentrification across Santa Monica and the entire state.
On May 13, 2025, this same Council voted six to one to endorse a letter to the state senate in support of SB 79. At the time, Council fully recognized how important it was to build more housing in Santa Monica. That letter read “we are in a statewide housing crisis that demands bold, systems-level responses.” The situation hasn’t changed, but Council now seems ready to delay those same essential responses. By moving to delay S.B. 79, Council would make it clear that while it supports housing in theory, it does not support it in practice. SB79 was designed to place housing exactly where it should be - near-transit, in high resource areas.
Best,
Sam Shapiro-Kline & Brad Ewing
Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward
--
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.
SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Will Finch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Subject: 12B: Please don’t delay implementation of SB 79!
EXTERNAL
Public comment for council meeting today.
SB 79 is one of the most important pieces of legislation in California. We should not be delaying its effects. Santa Monica needs transit oriented housing as much as the rest of the state, and it is urgent. This is good for the environment and for improving affordable housing options.
If the delay is absolutely unavoidable, then please quickly expedite our alternative TOD plan (alternative 2 under SB 79) rather than waiting years for the full implementation while we continue to fall behind on necessary housing.
Will Finch, 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 12B - SCAG says dedicated Bus lanes are for speed and reliability- a 5 blocks qualifies bus lane is NOT THAT
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
The staff report for item 12B uses the following criteria to upZone Wilmont. “ Santa Monica Boulevard and 4th Street
1. At the intersection of two or more major bus routes (Big Blue Bus Routes 2 & 3, Big Blue Bus Routes 1 & 7, and Metro Line 4) with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
2. Adjacent to the full-time dedicated bus lane on Santa Monica Boulevard between Ocean Avenue and 5th Street.
3. Serviced by bus routes with operating intervals of 15 minutes or less, including Big Blue Bus Routes 1 and 7, and Metro Line
4. Please ask staff how a dedicated bus lane for five blocks qualifies to meet the criteria set by SCAG.
On page 79 of SCAG’s Regional Dedicated Transit Lanes Study it says dedicated bus lanes are used for SPEED and Reliability.
“ THE CASE FOR IMPROVING REGIONAL
TRANSIT TRAVEL
The SCAG region has ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in transportation, the number one cause of climate change, in part, by reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips and increasing transit mode share. A key step toward meeting these goals, as well as local and county goals for mobility and equity, can come from improving the speed and reliability of transit services throughout the region.
This Regional Dedicated Transit Lanes Study explores the opportunities, needs, challenges, and best practices for developing a regional network of dedicated bus lanes and other transit priority treatments. This regional transit priority network is intended to enable enhanced transit services, improved mobility, accessibility and sustainability, and advance implementation of Connect SoCal.
The study’s objectives were to identify:
•
The key benefits of dedicated bus lanes and the primary factors for successful implementation.
•
Provide a preliminary assessment on where dedicated bus lanes might be most feasible and beneficial in the SCAG region.
•
Provide recommendations and guidance for local
jurisdictions that are seeking to pilot or implement
dedicated bus lanes.”
Does a transit bus moving 5 blocks through downtown Santa Monica where there is a long stop light at every intersection have speed?
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: 12B - SCAG says dedicated Bus lanes are for speed and reliability- a 5 blocks qualifies bus lane is NOT THAT
EXTERNAL
Addendum- staff is saying Wilmont upZoning should be included in the 1/2 mile be cause 4 BLOCKS (ocean Ave to 5th street)qualifies as a DEDICATED BUS Lane to meet SCAG criteria.
As previously cited, SCAG says dedicated bus lanes must provide SPEED and RELIABILITY.
How does a 4 blocks qualifies long dedicated bus line traveling through a delayed stop light and each intersection and traveling through the pedestrian Third Street Promenade meet the speed and reliability criteria?
It’s a joke. There’s no merit to it. It’s being used to gift developers to pressure Rent Controlled housing in Wilmont!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 14, 2026, at 11:46 AM, Ann Maggio <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear City Council,
The staff report for item 12B uses the following criteria to upZone Wilmont. “ Santa Monica Boulevard and 4th Street
1. At the intersection of two or more major bus routes (Big Blue Bus Routes 2 & 3, Big Blue Bus Routes 1 & 7, and Metro Line 4) with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
2. Adjacent to the full-time dedicated bus lane on Santa Monica Boulevard between Ocean Avenue and 5th Street.
3. Serviced by bus routes with operating intervals of 15 minutes or less, including Big Blue Bus Routes 1 and 7, and Metro Line 4.
Please ask staff how a dedicated bus lane for five blocks qualifies to meet the criteria set by SCAG.
On page 79 of SCAG’s Regional Dedicated Transit Lanes Study it says dedicated bus lanes are used for SPEED and Reliability.
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
4 “ THE CASE FOR IMPROVING REGIONAL
TRANSIT TRAVEL
The SCAG region has ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in transportation, the number one cause of climate change, in part, by reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips and increasing transit mode share. A key step toward meeting these goals, as well as local and county goals for mobility and equity, can come from improving the speed and reliability of transit services throughout the region.
This Regional Dedicated Transit Lanes Study explores the opportunities, needs, challenges, and best practices for developing a regional network of dedicated bus lanes and other transit priority treatments. This regional transit priority network is intended to enable enhanced transit services, improved mobility, accessibility and sustainability, and advance implementation of Connect SoCal.
The study’s objectives were to identify:
•
The key benefits of dedicated bus lanes and the primary factors for successful implementation.
•
Provide a preliminary assessment on where dedicated bus lanes might be most feasible and beneficial in the SCAG region.
•
Provide recommendations and guidance for local
jurisdictions that are seeking to pilot or implement
dedicated bus lanes.”
Does a transit bus moving 5 blocks through downtown Santa Monica where there is a long stop light at every intersection have speed?
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
5 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 12:00 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi
Subject: City Council July 14, 2026 - Item 12B SB79 Bus Stops - OPPOSE
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council –
I urge you to oppose the addition of any bus stops in the SB79 plan in Item 12B.
You have been out of step with this community on SB79 from its inception. You endorsed it out of the gate – well before it was in final form – and were one of only two cities in the whole state to do so. Most other cities, including the city of Los Angeles are opposing SB79 and trying to push back on implementing it because they recognize the harm it causes to existing communities by incentivizing demolition and displacement.
First, we already have a compliant Housing Element and shouldn’t have to do more. Second, we already meet the targets of SB79 in volume and should not be forced to allow even more height and density.
Furthermore, adding bus lines subject to SB79 in Santa Monica makes a mockery of any legitimate planning process. The map was supposed to be fixed at passage, yet we see three new bus stops, effectively upzoning Wilmont to Washington and 10th. This is crazy and unjustified because bus stops are NOT indicative of “high quality transit” and they are easily manipulated by unaccountable decisionmakers to gift entitlement windfalls to investors overnight.
A few questions must be answered.
1. How many blocks must a dedicated bus line be? How does a dedicated lane of several blocks equate to high quality transit when the entire line impacts speed?
2. Who controls which blocks become dedicated and where is the environmental study regarding the impact of doing so on zoning?
3. Why are 15-minute peak intervals sufficient to justify massive upzoning? That is not good service by the standards of any city with functioning public transit.
4. Who controls the intervals and where is the environmental study regarding the impact of doing so on zoning?
5. How long does the line have to be in place with dedicated lanes and intervals to earn the upzoning?
6. What happens if the dedicated lane is removed? Does the owner have to tear the building down?
7. What happens if the intervals are increased? Does the owner have to tear the building down? Proximity to transit should not be a single metric that can fundamentally alter our communities without regard to any other real impacts on people currently living here. But more importantly, including bus lines in this plan creates massive opportunities for abuse and manipulation, the negative effects of which will be impossible to undo.
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
6 We are entitled to thoughtful planning that takes into account the community that lives here. SB79 is not that.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026
Item 12-B
July 14, 2026