Agenda packet, first session — Santa Monica City Council, July 28, 2026 (part 2 of 4)

• Zoning variances
• Vacation of a public easement across private property • Pre-applications, such as for General Plan Amendment, considered by the legislative body prior to filing of formal application
• Contracts entered under the City Manager’s Authority
• Closed session items that may result in a contract/settlement agreement approved by Council (real estate or litigation)
It does not apply to:
• Contracts under $50,000
• Contracts where no party receives financial compensation • Contracts between two or more public agencies
• Competitively bid contracts that are required by law, agency policy, or agency rule to be awarded pursuant to a competitive process
• Purely ministerial decisions
• General policy decisions or rules where the interests affected are many and diverse
• Ordinances and resolutions (except items like development agreements adopted by ordinance)
• Ballot measures
• Departmental policies
• Council rules
• Labor contracts and project labor agreements
• Personal employment contracts
• Allocation of resources in the City budget

2. Who is required to disclose?
A “party” to a proceeding is any person who files an application for, or is the subject of, a proceeding. In general, a person or company who applies for a permit, license, or right to use property in a particular way, which requires the City’s discretionary approval, will qualify as a party.

Parties are also required to disclose contributions by their agents. An “agent” is someone who (1) represents a party to a proceeding for compensation; and (2) appears before or otherwise communicates with the City for the purpose of influencing the pending proceeding. This can include law firms, architects, engineers, consultants, and similar entities. Both the individual and their employer or firm are considered “agents.” A party should also disclose contributions of other entities majority owned by the party, as well as contributions of any other entity whose contributions it directs or controls.

3. What must be disclosed?
A party must disclose campaign contributions over $500 made in the prior twelve months.

A “contribution” is anything of value for which the party has not received full consideration, including money, nonmonetary items, payments made for advertising or

4.D.c
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form (7766 : VAP Thelma Terry)

Page 3 ends

other expenses coordinated with a candidate or committee, loans, tickets to political fundraisers, etc.

4. Who is considered an officer of the City?
An “officer” is anyone who may make, participate in making, or attempt to influence a decision in the proceeding or who exercises authority over officers who may do so. This includes elected officials, members of appointed boards and commissions, the City Manager, and any individual who is a candidate for elected office or who has been a candidate in the twelve months prior to the decision. This definition is included on the Disclosure Form.

5. When should the disclosure occur?
The Disclosure Form must be completed (1) by a party to a contract with the City (or that party’s agent) at the time the party submits a response to a Request for Proposal or other competitive solicitation, enters into contract negotiations with the City, or executes a contract with the City, whichever is earliest; or (2) by a party to a license, permit, or other entitlement proceeding before the City at the time the party (or their agent) submits the license, permit, or entitlement application to the City. The party (or their agent) must submit a supplemental form if they make any new reportable contributions while the same contract, license, permit, or other entitlement is being considered. The party (or their agent) must also use the form if they need to correct any previously submitted form.

Parties are solely responsible for completing the form accurately, and could face penalties for failure to do so. The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is the body who enforces violations of the Levine Act. If a party is uncertain about whether they are required to report or combine a contribution, they should consult with their attorney.

Nothing herein constitutes legal advice and individuals are urged to consult with their own attorney regarding the requirements of the law. To the extent there is any inconsistency, the language of the Levine Act and FPPC Regulations govern over this notice. Resources for officers, parties, participants, and agents, are available on the FPPC’s website at https://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to-play-limits-and-prohibitions.html

4.D.c
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form (7766 : VAP Thelma Terry)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

OAKS INITIATIVE NOTICE

NOTICE TO APPLICANTS, BIDDERS, PROPOSERS

AND OTHERS SEEKING DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, CONTRACTS,

OR OTHER BENEFITS FROM THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Santa Monica’s voters adopted a City Charter amendment commonly known as the Oaks Initiative. The Oaks Initiative requires the City to provide this notice and information about the Initiative’s requirements. You may obtain a full copy of the Initiative’s text from the City Clerk.

This information is required by City Charter Article XXII—Taxpayer Protection. It prohibits a public official from receiving, and a person or entity from conferring, specified personal benefits or campaign advantages from a person or entity after the official votes, or otherwise takes official action, to award a “public benefit” to that person or entity. The prohibition applies within and outside of the geographical boundaries of Santa Monica.

All persons or entities applying or receiving public benefits from the City of Santa Monica shall provide the names of trustees, directors, partners, and officers, and names of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation or revenue interest. An exception exists for persons serving in those capacities as volunteers, without compensation, for organizations exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3), (4), or (6), of the Internal Revenue Code. However, this exception does not apply if the organization is a political committee or controls political committees. Examples of a “public benefit” include public contracts to provide goods or services worth more than $25,000 or a land use approval worth more than $25,000 over a 12-month period.

In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, the City compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any person or persons who is seeking a “public benefit.” If the “public benefit” is sought by an entity, rather than an individual person, the information includes the name of every person who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity. Therefore, if you are seeking a “public benefit” covered by the Oaks Initiative, you must supply that information on the Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form. This information must be updated and supplied every 12 months.

4.D.d
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Oaks Initiative Form (7766 : VAP Thelma Terry)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

OAKS INITIATIVE DISCLOSURE FORM
In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, the City compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any person or persons who is seeking a “public benefit.” If the “public benefit” is sought by an entity, rather than an individual person, the information includes the name of every person who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity.

Public benefits include:

1. Personal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12-month period;

2. Sale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

3. Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

4. Non-competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more in any 12-month period;

5. Land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to an established land use plan, where the decision has a value in excess of $25,000;

6. Tax “abatement, exception, or benefit” of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12- month period; or

7. Payment of “cash or specie” of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12- month period.

Name(s) of persons or entities receiving public benefit:

Name(s) of trustees, directors, partners, and officers:

Name(s) of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest:

Prepared by: ____________________________Title: __________________________ Signature: ______________________________________ Date: ________________ Email: ____________________________________ Phone: ____________________ FOR CITY USE ONLY:

Bid/PO/Contract # ____________________________ Permit # ___________________________

4.D.d
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Oaks Initiative Form (7766 : VAP Thelma Terry)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Public benefits include:

1. Personal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12-month period;

2. Sale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

3. Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

4. Non-competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more in any 12-month period;

5. Land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to an established land use plan, where the decision has a value in excess of $25,000;

6. Tax “abatement, exception, or benefit” of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12- month period; or

7. Payment of “cash or specie” of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12- month period.

Name(s) of persons or entities receiving public benefit:

ABC Corporation
Name(s) of trustees, directors, partners, and officers:

Name(s) of trustees, directors, partners, and officers of the ABC Corporation Name(s) of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest:

Name(s) of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest in ABC Corporation
Prepared by: ____________________________Title: __________________________ Signature: ______________________________________ Date: ________________ Email: ____________________________________ Phone: ____________________ FOR CITY USE ONLY:

Bid/PO/Contract # ____________________________ Permit # ___________________________

4.D.d
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Oaks Initiative Form (7766 : VAP Thelma Terry) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 28, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.E
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica City Council to Amend the Text of the Zoning Ordinance to Exclude Certain Sites from Senate Bill (SB) 79 Implementation Until One Year Following the Adoption of the 7th Cycle (2029-2037) Housing Element
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Executive Summary
At its meeting on July 14, 2026, the City Council introduced for first reading an Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica City Council to Amend the Text of the Zoning Ordinance to Exclude Certain Sites from Senate Bill (SB) 79 Implementation Until One Year Following the Adoption of the 7th Cycle (2029-2037) Housing Element. The ordinance is now presented to the City Council for adoption.

Prepared By: Ivan Larios, Legal Assistant
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. ORD-SB 79 Deferral 2d

4.E
Packet Pg. 247
2 of 2
B. Written comments

4.E
Packet Pg. 248
1 City Council Meeting: July 28, 2026 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _______ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE

TEXT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN SITES FROM SENATE BILL (SB) 79 IMPLEMENTATION UNTIL ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE ADOPTION OF THE 7TH CYCLE (2029-2037) HOUSING ELEMENT
WHEREAS, California faces a housing shortage both acute and chronic, particularly in areas with access to robust public transit infrastructure; and WHEREAS, building more homes near transit access reduces housing and transportation costs for California families, and promotes environmental sustainability, economic growth, and reduced traffic congestion; and
WHEREAS, public transit systems require sustainable funding to provide reliable service, especially in areas experiencing increased density and ridership; and WHEREAS, the state does not invest in public transit service to the same degree as it does in roads, and the state funds a smaller proportion of the state’s major transit agencies’ operations costs than other states with comparable systems; and WHEREAS, transit systems in other countries derive significant revenue from transit-oriented development at and near their stations; and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2025, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 79 (“SB 79”), the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, which became effective on July 1, 2026; and
WHEREAS, in adopting SB 79, the Legislature made findings and declarations, including that the State faces a housing crisis of availability and affordability, in large part due to a severe shortage of housing, and solving the housing crisis therefore requires a

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 Deferral 2d (7826 : SB 79 - Second Reading) 2 multifaceted, statewide approach, including, but not limited to, encouraging an increase in the overall supply of housing, encouraging the development of housing that is affordable to households at all income levels, removing barriers to housing production, expanding homeownership opportunities, and expanding the availability of rental housing; and
WHEREAS, SB 79 requires cities to permit, as an allowable use, housing development projects that meet applicable standards and are located within a half mile distance of a major transit stop, as defined, on any site zoned for residential, mixed use, or commercial development; and
WHEREAS, SB 79 further provides guaranteed height, density, and FAR standards for eligible housing projects near Transit-Oriented Development (“TOD”) stops and additional concessions beyond State Density Bonus Law; and WHEREAS, although SB 79 has certain mandated requirements, it provides flexibility and a measure of local control to jurisdictions with respect to its implementation; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a study session wherein staff presented an overview of SB 79 including its impact on Santa Monica and three implementation options permitted under SB 79: 1) implementation of SB 79 on July 1, 2026; 2) a temporary exclusion of certain sites in transit-oriented zones, as defined, until 2030, one year after adoption of the City’s 7th Cycle (2029-2037) Housing Element; and 3) adoption of a TOD Alternative Plan; and

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 Deferral 2d (7826 : SB 79 - Second Reading) 3 WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the study session, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend that City Council direct staff to pursue adoption of an ordinance to temporarily exclude sites to allow time to adopt a TOD Alternative Plan; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, the City Council conducted a study session to review the same implementation options for SB 79, including the Planning Commission’s April 15, 2026 recommendations to the Council, and directed staff to proceed with adopting a temporary exclusion ordinance until such time a TOD Alternative plan could be implemented; and
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.46.030(A), the City Council further adopted a Resolution of Intention, Resolution Number 11755 (CCS), declaring its intention to direct the Planning Commission to initiate the process of amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance to effectuate the requirements of Senate Bill 79; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, and after considering all oral and written testimony, adopted Resolution Number 26-008 (PCS), recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to exclude certain sites from Senate Bill (SB) 79 implementation until 2030, one year following the adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element, and to increase development standards for targeted parcels in the multi-unit residential zoning districts within one-half mile of the Metro E Expo/Bundy station, based on the findings set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, adoption of an ordinance that temporarily excludes certain sites from SB 79 implementation will, among other things, ensure that the City’s local

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 Deferral 2d (7826 : SB 79 - Second Reading) 4 implementation of SB 79 does not conflict with local land use initiatives and environmental concerns; and
WHEREAS, until such an ordinance is adopted, the City is prohibited from imposing certain height, density, and floor area ratio limits for eligible housing projects located within a half mile of a TOD stop; and
WHEREAS, implementing temporary exclusions to delay implementation of increased development standards mandated by SB 79 to one year after adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element will protect the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, on July 2, 2026, as required by SB 79, the Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”), as the region’s metropolitan planning organization, adopted draft map of designated TOD stops and zones; and WHEREAS, the City conducted modeling analyses based on SCAG map to evaluate sites within the City that are eligible for temporary exclusion pursuant to the criteria in Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1); and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to temporarily exclude sites: (1) that permit density and residential floor area ratios at no less than 50 percent of SB 79’s minimum standards; (2) with designated historic resources; and (3) located in a transit-oriented development zone in which at least 33 percent of sites have permitted density and residential floor area ratio no less than 50 percent of the standards specified in SB 79 and which includes sites with densities that cumulatively allow for at least 75 percent of the aggregate density for the transit-oriented development zone, as specified; and WHEREAS, the City has and will continue to comply with SB 79’s purpose and intent, including, without limitation, building more homes near transit access, promoting

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 Deferral 2d (7826 : SB 79 - Second Reading) 5 environmental sustainability, economic growth, reducing traffic congestion, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing; and
WHEREAS, the additional time provided with adoption of the exclusion ordinance, will allow the City to make more informed, long-term land use decisions pending completion of a TOD Alternative Plan; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, and, after considering all oral and written testimony, and certain corrections read into the record by the City Attorney, the City Council desires to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to exclude sites from SB 79 implementation until one year following the adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. City Council hereby amends the text of the Zoning Ordinance related to projects meeting the temporary exclusionary requirements pursuant to SB 79. In amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council hereby finds and declares that, for the reasons articulated above, and in the staff report dated July 14, 2026:

1. The amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan in that the amendments are required to implement an Exclusion Ordinance pursuant to SB 79 and are otherwise consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan by helping to meet local housing goals and to facilitate more diverse housing choices in the City’s highest opportunity areas.

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 Deferral 2d (7826 : SB 79 - Second Reading) 6 2. The amendments are consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the amendments are necessary to implement State law pertaining to SB 79 on qualifying parcels in order to help meet local housing goals and to facilitate more diverse housing choices in the City’s highest opportunity areas.

SECTION 2. Chapter 9.06, Transit-Oriented Development Zones, is hereby added to Division 2, Article 9 Planning and Zoning of the Santa Monica Municipal Code and shall read as follows:

Chapter 9.06 Transit-Oriented Development Zones

9.06.010 Purpose
This Chapter, in accordance with Government Code Section 65912.160(e), exempts certain qualifying sites from the provisions of Senate Bill 79, the “Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act” (codified in California Government Code Sections 65912.155 through 65912.162), until one year following the adoption of the 7th Cycle (2029-2037) Housing Element of the City’s General Plan.

9.06.020 Exclusion of Eligible Sites from Increased Development Standards In accordance with Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1), a parcel meeting any one of the following criteria shall be excluded from the provisions of Government Code Section 65912.157 until one year following the adoption of the 7th Cycle (2029-2037) Housing Element:

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 Deferral 2d (7826 : SB 79 - Second Reading) 7 A. A parcel, as identified on the City’s Official Zoning Districting map, that permits density and residential floor area ratio at no less than 50 percent of the standards specified under subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 65912.157.

B. A parcel in a transit-oriented development zone, as defined by Government Code Section 65912.156(m), in which:

1. At least 33 percent of sites in the relevant transit-oriented development zone have permitted density and residential floor area ratio no less than 50 percent of the standards specified under subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 65912.157; and

2. Includes sites with densities that cumulatively allow for at least 75 percent of the aggregate density for the transit-oriented development zone specified under subdivision (a) of Section 65912.157.

C. A parcel with a Landmark, as defined by Section 9.56.030(j), designated as of January 1, 2025.

9.06.030 Director Authority
The Director, or designee, may issue and update maps identifying eligible sites meeting the criteria for temporary exclusion as set forth in Section 9.06.020 and Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1), to ensure consistency with the transit-oriented development stops and zones map published by the Southern California Association of Governments pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.160(f).

SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 Deferral 2d (7826 : SB 79 - Second Reading) 8 SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 Deferral 2d (7826 : SB 79 - Second Reading) 1 David Yakobson
From: Bruce Adler <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 7:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting July 28, 2026 Item 4E– Second Reading of the SB 79 Exclusion Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Fatal Compliance Flaws in the City’s Proposed SB 79 Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Alternative Plan / Phased Implementation Ordinance AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica City Council to Amend the Text of the Zoning Ordinance to Exclude Certain Sites from Senate Bill (SB) 79 Implementation Until One Year Following the Adoption of the 7th Cycle (2029-2037) Housing Element
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to issue a formal objection regarding the city’s draft Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Alternative Plan under California Government Code Section 65912.161.

My objection relates to the content of Staff Report 7706 submitted at the first reading on July 14th, 2026, and the "SB 79 Exclusionary Ordinance Model Methodology" paper and the "Inventory of Sites Eligible for Temp Exclusion" spreadsheet submitted by the city staff to support their staff report:
https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=149 9&MediaPosition=&ID=7706&CssClass=
https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=20692 https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=20693 The mathematical model used to justify this ordinance is seriously and fatally flawed. The inventory spreadsheet, submitted by the city staff on July 14, 2026 to support that model, has dozens of issues which when combined, I believe, puts the city below the density threshold required by Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1) for a local implementation plan.

To legally exclude or defer any parcel from the maximum density requirements of Senate Bill 79, Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1)(B)(i) strictly requires the city to prove that its alternative zoning map maintains a collective housing yield of at least 75% of the state baseline capacity across the remaining, unexempted sites. The model and inventory prepared by the city staff (and presented at the first reading of this ordinance) does not prove that conclusion.

Item 4-E
July 28, 2026
Item 4-E
July 28, 2026

4.E.b
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7826 : SB 79 - Second Reading) 2 The submitted model and the accompanying spreadsheet rely heavily on "phantom capacity"—counting massive, highly visible parcels that have zero realistic probability of conversion to housing. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) applies strict "realistic capacity" standards. When independent housing advocates and the HCD audit this map, the following sites (and others) will be disqualified, causing the city’s model to crash below the mandatory 75% threshold and triggering immediate, unmitigated state upzoning citywide:
 The City Yards: (Resource Recovery / Recycling Facility / Waste Transfer Station) and Gandara Park: Counting the city's largest industrial and open space parcel as a primary housing engine is a severe compliance trap. HCD requires housing sites to be safe for human habitation. Without a fully funded, approved plan to decommission, chemically remediate, and physically relocate our entire municipal waste infrastructure, HCD will assign this site a 0% development probability.  Providence Saint John’s Health Center and other structures on HMU parcels:

Active regional trauma centers operating under restrictive institutional master plans are structurally and legally impossible to convert into multi-family housing. Because residential units are not permitted by right, HMU parcels fail the baseline eligibility test for SB 79 capacity calculations.
 Santa Monica Place Mall: While commercially zoned, this is a fully operational, highvalue luxury asset with long-term commercial leases. HCD guidelines dictate that active, high-performing commercial properties must receive a heavy "likelihood of conversion" discount. Counting it at 100% capacity violates state planning law.  Santa Monica Civic Auditorium: This site creates a direct legal paradox. The city cannot invoke Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1)(F) to shield historic landmarks from development while simultaneously claiming that the very same landmark will serve as a high-density residential pipeline to hit the 75% target.  Inappropriate Commercial Over-Zoning: Beyond these major landmarks, the city's model inappropriately counts various parks, open spaces, public/governmental facilities, and local institutions simply because they happen to sit on land designated as commercial. HCD explicitly disallows open spaces and public administrative buildings from being categorized as realistic housing inventory without formal surplus land declarations or active RFPs.
 Various Historic and Very New Commercial Sites: non-eligible sites such as The Pen Factory, The Water Garden, The Hyatt Centric Delfina and other hotels, and portions of Colorado Center. HCD guidelines do not allow counting such sites at 100% capacity.  Fatal Systemic Overlap and Double-Counting of Parcels: Beyond individual site invalidations, the city’s entire mathematical architecture is built on an illegal accounting error. Because Santa Monica’s transit stations feature heavily overlapping half-mile radii, hundreds of parcels sit within multiple TOD zones simultaneously. As indicated in footnote 1 of the chart on page 7 of the staff report, the city has erroneously counted these exact same parcels—and their projected units and square footages—multiple times across every single overlapping zone to make it appear as Item 4-E
July 28, 2026
Item 4-E
July 28, 2026

4.E.b
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7826 : SB 79 - Second Reading) 3 though every district independently meets the 75% threshold.This practice of "double, triple, and quadruple counting" capacity directly violates HCD's strict un-duplicated net capacity accounting standards. A single piece of land can only be built upon once; it cannot carry the legal weight of multiple separate neighborhood exemptions. HCD's GIS audit teams will instantly flag these duplicate Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs), scrub the phantom units from the model, and reject the ordinance.

If the city approves this ordinance based on a model built on the flawed spreadsheet presented at the first reading, the HCD will issue an immediate Notice of Non-Compliance.

I urge the Council to direct staff to recalculate the TOD Alternative Plan using strictly realistic, underutilized commercial parcels, surface lots, and vacant land. Proceeding with the current flawed math guarantees a state rejection, stripping the city of the very local planning control you are trying to preserve.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Item 4-E
July 28, 2026
Item 4-E
July 28, 2026

4.E.b
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7826 : SB 79 - Second Reading) 4 David Yakobson
From: Bruce Adler <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 8:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: TECHNICAL PROCEDURAL OBJECTION: July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 4E – Second Reading of the SB 79 Exclusion Ordinance

EXTERNAL
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council:

This written comment submits a formal procedural objection to the proposed adoption of the Ordinance amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance regarding Senate Bill (SB) 79 implementation on tonight’s agenda. The item is improperly agendized as a "Second Reading" (Adoption). Under the Santa Monica City Charter and standard California municipal law governing the legislative process, this draft cannot legally be adopted tonight because it has been fundamentally altered from the draft introduced on first reading on July 14, 2026.

To preserve the integrity of the public process and avoid a fatal procedural defect that would invalidate the ordinance, the City Council must treat tonight’s item as a new First Reading (Introduction) and delay the final vote to a subsequent meeting.

The text presented tonight fails to match the introduced text in the following material, non-clerical, and highly substantive ways:

1. Alteration of Title and Legislative Intent: The title of the ordinance introduced on July 14 explicitly stated its purpose was "to increase development standards for parcels zoned multiunit residential that are located within one-half mile of the Metro E Expo/Bundy Station". The draft presented tonight has struck this clause entirely, completely altering the public notice and scope of the law.

2. Complete Elimination of Section 9.06.030 and Table 9.06.030: The original ordinance introduced a strict grid of maximum allowable densities (1 unit per 1,080 sq. ft.) and specific Floor Area Ratio (FAR) caps (1.25 for R2; 1.5 for R3). Tonight's version completely excises this section, fundamentally changing the zoning restrictions to be applied to city parcels.

3. Complete Elimination of Section 3 (Table 9.08.030): The original draft introduced comprehensive, multi-page overhauls to the standard development limits for standard R2, R3, and R4 multi-unit residential districts—including edits to baseline housing densities, building heights, and front/interior setbacks. Tonight's draft completely strikes this section.

4. Geographic Scope Reduction: The initial introduction gave explicit public notice of land-use changes bound specifically to a targeted one-half mile radius of the Expo/Bundy Station.

Tonight's draft removes this localized boundary completely, shifting the application entirely to a broad, citywide formula.

A second reading is legally reserved for final approval of a text whose policy mechanisms have already been properly introduced to the public. Removing multi-page zoning schedules, deleting Item 4-E
July 28, 2026
Item 4-E
July 28, 2026

4.E.b
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7826 : SB 79 - Second Reading) 5 targeted geographic boundaries, and eliminating local density constraints are massive substantive policy shifts, not minor clerical cleanups.

Adopting this drastically altered version tonight under the guise of a "Second Reading" bypasses mandatory statutory intervals, deprives the public of lawful notice on the finalized text, and subjects the ordinance to immediate legal vulnerability.

Conclusion and Remedy:

The City Council must direct the City Clerk to record tonight’s action as a First Reading and Introduction of the revised ordinance text. The item must then be scheduled for a lawful Second Reading and formal adoption at a future council meeting.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Item 4-E
July 28, 2026
Item 4-E
July 28, 2026

4.E.b
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7826 : SB 79 - Second Reading) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 28, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.F
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Amending the Text of the Zoning Ordinance to Effectuate the Goals of the Realignment Plan, Including, but not limited to, Amendments to Maximize the Potential of City-Owned Sites in the Downtown Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Executive Summary
At its meeting on July 14, 2026, the City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance to effectuate the goals of the Realignment Plan, including, but not limited to, amendments to maximize the potential of City-owned sites in the Downtown.

The ordinance is now presented to the City Council for adoption.

Prepared By: Ivan Larios, Legal Assistant
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d

4.F
Packet Pg. 262
1 City Council Meeting: July 28, 2026 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA MONICA AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO

EFFECTUATE THE GOALS OF THE REALIGNMENT PLAN, INCLUDING, BUT NOT

LIMITED TO, AMENDMENTS TO MAXIMIZE THE POTENTIAL OF CITY-OWNED

SITES IN THE DOWNTOWN
WHEREAS, Downtown Santa Monica (“Downtown”) is one of Los Angeles County’s most recognizable city centers; and
WHEREAS, framed by the Santa Monica Bay and mountains, the Downtown is located centrally at the western edge of the city, providing convenient retail, entertainment, and employee destinations for all the City’s neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, with its unique location, the Downtown serves as the heart of the local community, making it a destination not only for locals and Angelenos who see a vibrant, exciting, and urban-scale ambiance, but also for world travelers who come here to enjoy easy access to beaches, hotel accommodations, culture, shopping, and the larger region; and
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2017, the City Council of the City of Santa Monica (“City Council”) adopted the Downtown Community Plan (“DCP”) which sets forth the City’s vision of Downtown as a high quality, mixed-use district offering opportunities as a major public space framed by a mix of retail, restaurants, services, and housing that form unique experiences enjoyable to both residents and visitors; and

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 2 WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance includes land use regulations governing the Downtown Plan area, that respond to the DCP’s vision and principals, and that direct future development within the Downtown Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the DCP identifies the area adjacent to the 1-10 freeway as a “Gateway” possessing conditions that necessitate special considerations regarding development standards and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the DCP identifies a future effort, the Gateway Master Plan, which would identify critical improvements, provide a framework for orderly development of currently vacant or underutilized areas, and explore various funding models for implementation, which would potentially include participation by properties within the Gateway Master Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the Gateway Master Plan area is generally bound by 5th Street, Colorado Avenue, and the I-10 Freeway; and
WHEREAS, the Gateway Master Plan planning process was initially scheduled to be completed in 2021, but was delayed due to the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) and other City emergencies and priorities; and
WHEREAS, with the City Council’s adoption of the Fiscal Year 2025-2027 Operating Biennial Budget in June 2025, the City Council affirmed its commitment to various Strategic Priorities, including, but not limited to promoting economic opportunity and growth; endorsing affordable, livable, and secure housing for all; using the City’s real estate strategically; developing distinct business attraction and retention strategies; and activating our public spaces with signature events; and

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 3 WHEREAS, in line with these goals, City Council adopted its Realignment Plan on October 28, 2025, which prioritizes: (1) developing affordable, livable, and secure housing by, among other things: (a) focusing housing development in the Downtown; and (b) incentivizing future development along the Boulevards that remains compatible with existing neighborhoods through local incentives and without jeopardizing Housing Element compliance; and (2) strategic use of City’s land assets and removing artificial land value constraints, which includes, but is not limited to: (a) reassessing development standards, land uses and processes for City-owned parcels in the Downtown and Gateway Master Plan sites; (b) regulatory adjustments for City-owned parcels and for Gateway Master Plan sites; and (c) providing more flexibility to maximize community benefit from City-owned sites and support economic opportunity and growth and developing housing opportunities; and
WHEREAS, as the commercial and economic landscape evolves, Downtown’s economic recovery and competitive advantage will depend on its ability to deliver on a diverse range of uses and access to a broad range of housing options; and WHEREAS, the City’s Strategic Priority regarding developing affordable, livable, and secure housing for all includes expanding affordable housing options, stabilizing the Housing Trust Fund, and pursuing equity-based housing initiatives; and WHEREAS, consistent with these Strategic Priorities, the Realignment Plan, and important government interests, the City seeks to revive the “Gateway” concepts in the DCP while also allowing the City to be more strategic regarding the use of City-owned parcels that meet the goals for housing production and also provides flexibility for other uses; and

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 4 WHEREAS, amendments to the Zoning Ordinance include, but are not limited to, providing flexibility in development standards, land uses, and processes for the City to manage its real estate assets in the Downtown area in alignment with the strategic objective of economic opportunity and growth; and
WHEREAS, the amendments will allow the City to maximize land residual revenues through redevelopment or joint-venture opportunities at all City-owned parcels; and
WHEREAS, in line with the goals for maximizing economic potential of City-owned Downtown sites; amendments include exempting City-owned Downtown sites from the Zoning Ordinance and providing added flexibility to maximize community benefits of these valued sites; and
WHEREAS, the amendments also include other minor changes, corrections, and clarifications as necessary; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2026, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.46.030(B), the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intention, Resolution Number 26-006 (PCS), declaring its intention to consider recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance consistent with the City’s Realignment Plan including, but, not limited to, amendments necessary to provide for (1) focusing housing development in the downtown; and (2) maximizing the potential of city-owned sites in the Downtown and Gateway Master Plan sites; and WHEREAS, on June 17, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance; and

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 5 WHEREAS, at the June 17, 2026, hearing, after considering all oral and written testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Number 26-010, recommending to the City Council that the Council amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to maximize the potential of city-owned sites in the Downtown as noted herein, and the Planning Commission continued discussion for additional amendments regarding Downtown housing developments to allow for additional discussion; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to maximize the potential of city-owned sites in the Downtown and to require certain community benefits for the Gateway Master Plan sites.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. City Council hereby amends the text of the Zoning Ordinance to maximize the potential of city-owned sites in the Downtown and require certain community benefits for the Gateway Master Plan sites. In amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council hereby finds and declares that, for the reasons articulated above, and in the staff report dated July 14, 2026:

1. The amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan in that the downtown is the economic center for the City and is envisioned by the Downtown Community Plan as a high quality, mixed-use district offering opportunities for housing, jobs, arts and culture, local-serving retail, innovative businesses, and gathering spaces. As City-owned land represents significant public assets and place making opportunities, the amendments

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 6 to remove constraints on these sites will allow for the greatest level of flexibility to ensure that public land can be strategically maximized for creative proposals, reinvestment, and community benefit within the downtown. Therefore, the proposed amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.

2. The amendments are consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the amendments allow for the greatest level of flexibility in how best to utilize City-owned sites in the Downtown in order to generate public benefits, increase economic opportunities, and create transformative place making redevelopment projects. Therefore, the proposed amendments maintain and facilitate the existing polices, standards, and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance that promote public health, safety, and welfare.

SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.01.040 is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 9.01.040 Applicability.

A. General Rules for Applicability of Zoning Regulations.

1. Applicability.
a. This Zoning Ordinance shall apply, to the extent permitted by law, to all property within the corporate limits of the City and to property for which applications for annexation and/or subdivisions are submitted to the City, including all uses, structures and land owned by any private person, firm, corporation or

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 7 organization, or the City or other local, State, or Federal agencies, except as provided below.
b. Governmental Agencies. Any governmental agency shall be exempt from the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance only to the extent that such property may not be lawfully regulated by the City.
c. City Government Uses. City government uses, including, without limitation, fire stations, police stations, and public safety facilities, may be permitted in any district subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. d. Projects that Include Affordable Housing on City-Owned Property. In accordance with Program 2.E of the 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element, this Zoning Ordinance shall not apply to property owned by the City when used for projects that include housing affordable to 80% area median income (AMI) households, subject to a public process to be determined by the City Council, and upon a determination that the project is consistent with the General Plan. Any such exemption shall apply only for the life of the project approved in accordance with this paragraph.
e. Projects on City-Owned Property in the Downtown. Notwithstanding the provisions in subdivision (a) above, projects on City-owned property within the Downtown Community Plan Area shall be exempt from the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance, subject to a public process to be determined by the City Council. Any such exemption shall apply only for the life of the project approved in accordance with this paragraph.

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 8 f. Relocation of School and Child Care and Early Education Facilities Impacted by the 2025 Pacific Palisades Fire ("Palisades Fire"). Notwithstanding the land use regulations of Division 2, Base and Overlay Districts, of Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance, schools, as that term is defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.51.030.A.11, and child care and early education facilities, as that term is defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.51.030.A.3 that were displaced by the Palisades Fire or expansions to existing schools to accommodate students displaced by the Palisades Fire may operate within the City's nonresidential zones without obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. Schools with existing Conditional Use Permits in residential zones that are subject to occupancy limitations may expand to accommodate students from other campuses operated by the existing school displaced by the Palisades Fire. Prior to occupancy and upon request by the City, schools or child care and early education facilities operating or expanding under this Section shall submit a Parking and Loading Operations Plan to the Director of the Community Development Department, or designee, for review and approval, which may be amended from time to time.

2. Compliance with Regulations. Except as provided in this Zoning Ordinance, land or buildings may be used and structures may be erected or altered only in accordance with the following provisions:
a. No new building shall be erected and no existing building shall be moved, altered, or enlarged, nor shall any land, building or premises be used, designed, or attempted to be used or designed for any purpose or in any manner other than a use listed in this Chapter, as permitted in the district in which the land,

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 9 building, or premises is located. The lawful use or uses of all buildings, improvements, and premises existing in any district at the time of the adoption of the ordinance codified in this Chapter may be continued except as provided by this Chapter.
b. No building shall be erected nor shall any existing building be moved, reconstructed, or structurally altered to exceed in height or floor area the limit established by this Chapter for the district in which such building is located. c. No building shall be erected nor shall any existing building be moved, altered, enlarged, or rebuilt, nor shall any open spaces surrounding any buildings be encroached upon or reduced in any manner except in conformity with the property development standards for each district in which such building is located. d. No yard or open space provided adjacent to any building for the purpose of complying with the regulations of this Chapter shall be considered as providing a yard or open space for any other building or structure. e. No parcel or building shall be separated in ownership, or reduced in size in any manner, so that:
i. Any separate portion shall contain a parcel area or parcel dimension less than the minimum required for the district in which the property is located;
ii. Any yard area is reduced below the minimum required for the district in which the project is located;
iii. The parcel fails to comply with any other requirement of this Chapter;

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 10 iv. Any portion of a parcel that is necessary to provide the required area per dwelling unit is separated from the portion of the parcel on which the building is located.
f. No lot or parcel of land held under common ownership which does not meet the requirements of the district in which it is located shall be separated in ownership or further reduced in size in any manner.
g. A building or use may cross property lines only if:
i. The building site shall be subject to all requirements of this Chapter as though the total area comprised in the site were a single parcel; ii. A covenant by the owner(s) of the parcels shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator and recorded with the County Recorder's office before any use or combination of parcels occurs. The covenant shall state the intention of the owner(s) to develop the parcels as a single building site and shall be in the form required by the Zoning Administrator. h. A legally-created parcel of land existing prior to the effective date of this Zoning Ordinance having less area, frontage, or dimensions than required by this Zoning Ordinance in the zoning district in which the parcel is located, shall be considered a legal conforming parcel.

B. Relation to Other Regulations.

1. General. Where conflict occurs between the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance and any other regulations, City ordinance, chapter, resolution, guideline, or regulation, the more restrictive provisions shall control, unless otherwise specified. See,

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 11 e.g., Section 9.56.270.F (the State Historic Building Code applies to alterations to historic resources and properties on the Historic Resources Inventory).

2. Permit Streamlining Act. All actions taken by the decision-making body pursuant to this Zoning Ordinance shall be consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section65920 et seq. (the Permit Streamlining Act), to the extent applicable.

3. Relation to Private Agreements. Where this Zoning Ordinance imposes greater restriction than imposed by an easement, covenant, or agreement, this Zoning Ordinance shall control.

4. Relation to Prior Ordinance. The provisions of this Zoning Ordinance supersede all prior Zoning Ordinances codified in Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code and all prior amendments. No provision of this Zoning Ordinance shall validate any land use or structure established, constructed, or maintained in violation of the prior Zoning Ordinance, unless such validation is specifically authorized by this Zoning Ordinance.

5. Application During Local Emergency. The City Council may authorize a deviation from a provision of this Zoning Ordinance during a local emergency declared and ratified under the Santa Monica Municipal Code.

C. Consistency with the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance and any amendment thereto shall be consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan.

D. Effect on Previously Approved Projects and Projects in Progress. The following projects shall have a vested right to proceed without complying with this Zoning Ordinance:

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 12 1. Previously Approved Development. The erection, construction, enlargement, demolition, moving, conversion of, and excavation and grading for any building or structure for which a valid permit or building permit was issued prior to the effective date of this Zoning Ordinance and which does not subsequently expire. A permit that does not contain an express limit on the time for exercising the permit shall be deemed valid only if a building permit is obtained within one year of the effective date of this Zoning Ordinance;

2. Development Agreement. Development in accordance with the terms and conditions of a development agreement approved by the City Council pursuant to Chapter

9.60 of the Municipal Code prior to the effective date of this Zoning Ordinance;

3. Vesting Tentative Maps. Any residential project for which a vesting tentative map application was determined complete prior to the effective date of this Zoning Ordinance; and

4. Applications for Projects in Progress. Any application fora Planning entitlement, except a Development Agreement application, determined complete on or before April 15, 2015.

SECTION 3. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.10.070 is hereby amended to read as follows:

9.10.070 Project Requirements for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Projects and Projects Located on Gateway Sites
A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to implement LUCE policies which require that as development is approved above the base FAR and height, it must be accompanied by a range of community benefits from 4 priority categories: Affordable Housing, Trip

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 13 Reduction and Traffic Management, Community Physical Improvements, and Social and Cultural Facilities. In addition to promoting the development of additional affordable housing and to maintaining existing City programs that provide incentives for the production of affordable housing, these requirements are intended to reduce the additional burdens more intense development allowed by the General Plan will impose on the City by requiring applicants to pay additional fees to mitigate project impacts or, in specific instances, allowing applicants to incorporate features into their projects.

B. Applicability.

1. The requirements of this Chapter apply to all projects involving new development and additions that are not housing projects, as defined by Section

9.52.020.1125, and for which applicants propose to exceed the Tier 1 maximum allowable base floor area or height or a project on a Gateway Site, as identified in the Downtown Community Plan, with an FAR above 1.75 and up to 3.0.

2. Pursuant to Section 9.10.030(D), Development Agreements and Planning Applications submitted on or before November 11, 2016, shall have a vested right to proceed without complying with the Downtown Community Plan except that they shall be subject to the following affordable requirements:
a. 20% on-site affordable housing; or
b. 25% off-site affordable housing.

C. Qualifying Benefits for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Projects with Residential Uses. An applicant seeking approval for a project that is not a housing project, as defined by Section

9.52.020.1125, but proposes residential uses shall comply with the following requirements.

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 14 1. Housing. All Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects that propose to include dwelling units must meet the following requirements:
a. Affordable Housing. Subject to the modifications contained in this Section 9.10.070, all of the affordable units shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program. Applicants proposing residential and mixed-use residential projects shall incorporate on-site or off-site affordable housing units as set forth in Table 9.10.070.A.

TABLE 9.10.070.A: ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE AFFORDABLE

HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
Tier
On-Site Affordable
Housing %
Off-Site Affordable
Housing %
Tier 2 20% 25%
Tier 3 25% 30%
i. Affordable housing units may be provided off site pursuant to Section 9.64.060, except that the total number of affordable housing units shall be increased to the percentage of the total number of units in the project as set forth in Table 9.10.070.A. The off-site affordable housing units shall meet the following conditions:
(1) The affordable housing units are owned in whole or
part and operated by a nonprofit housing provider for the life of the project;
(2) The Final Construction Permit Sign Off or Certificate of Occupancy for the affordable units is issued prior to or concurrently with the project containing the market-rate units; and

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 15 (3) The off-site units may be located anywhere in the City except for within the area defined in Figure 9.64.060.A, Off-Site Affordable Housing Prohibition Area, in Section 9.64.060, Off-Site Option.
ii. The total number of affordable housing units shall incorporate the affordability mix specified in Table 9.10.070.B. Any fractional affordable housing units that result from the percentage mix of total affordable housing units shall be aggregated into whole affordable housing units (i.e., any resulting fraction shall be added to other resulting fractions). The resulting whole units may be provided at 50%, 80%, or moderate-income household affordability levels.

TABLE 9.10.070.B AFFORDABILITY
Affordability Level
Affordability Mix for
Affordable Housing
Units in Tier 2
Projects
Affordability Mix for
Affordable Housing
Units in Tier 3
Projects
50% Income
Household
10% 10%
80% Income
Household
5% 10%
Moderate Income 5% 5%
iii. An affordable housing unit shall have a minimum total floor area of no less than the average floor area of comparable market rate units in the project.
b. Unit Mix. Applicants proposing Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects with dwelling units shall incorporate the following:

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 16 i. For market rate units:
(1) At least 10% of the units shall be three-bedroom units; (2) At least 15% of the units shall be two-bedroom units; and
(3) No more than 15% of the units shall be studio units. ii. For affordable housing units:
(1) The unit mix percentage for affordable two- and threebedroom housing units shall be equal to or greater than the unit mix percentage required for the corresponding market rate units pursuant to subsection (C)(1)(b)(i) of this Section;
(2) The unit mix percentage for studio affordable housing units shall not exceed 15% of the total number of affordable units; and
(3) Affordable housing units shall be no smaller than the average size of comparable market rate units in the project. iii. The Director may grant a waiver from this unit mix requirement pursuant to the requirements and procedures for Waivers in SMMC Chapter 9.43.

2. Transportation Impact Fee. All Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects shall pay an additional transportation impact fee (TIF) of 90% of the maximum allowable fee established in the Transportation Impact Fee nexus study, for that portion of the floor area above the maximum Tier 1 floor area allowed by the Downtown Community Plan.

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 17 3. Open Space. All Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects shall pay an additional parks and recreation development impact fee of 90% of the maximum allowable fee established in the Parks and Recreation Fee nexus study for that portion of the floor area above the maximum Tier 1 floor area allowed by the Downtown Community Plan.

4. Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee. All Tier 2 and Tier 3 commercial portions of mixed-use projects shall pay a housing mitigation fee 23% above the base fee as required by Chapter 9.68, Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee Program, for that portion of the floor area above the maximum Tier 1 floor area allowed by the Downtown Community Plan.

5. Transportation Demand Management. All Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects shall include the following Transportation Demand Management measures in addition to those required by Chapter 9.53, Transportation Demand Management:
a. For nonresidential components of projects, provide the following:
i. Bike valet, free of charge, during all automobile valet operating hours.
b. For residential components of projects, provide the following:
i. Free on-site shared bicycles intended for resident and guest use. This shall be optional if Citywide bikeshare is available within a 2-block radius of the project site.

D. All Other Tier 2 and Tier 3 Projects Qualifying Benefits. An applicant seeking approval for Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects up to 30,000 square feet that are not housing projects, as defined by Section 9.52.020.1125, and do not propose any residential uses,

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 18 that exceed the base floor area or height allowed in the district where the project is located shall provide community benefits in each of the following categories.

1. Impact Fees.
a. Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee. Tier 2 and Tier 3 up to 30,000 square feet – Projects shall pay a housing mitigation fee 23% above the base fee as required by Chapter 9.68, Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee Program, for that portion of the floor area above the maximum Tier 1 floor area allowed by the Downtown Community Plan.
b. Transportation Impact Fee. Tier 2 and Tier 3 up to 30,000 square feet – Projects shall pay an additional transportation impact fee (TIF) 23% above the base fee required by Chapter 9.66, Transportation Impact Fee Program, for that portion of the floor area above the maximum Tier 1 floor area allowed by the Downtown Community Plan.
c. Open Space. Tier 2 and Tier 3 up to 30,000 square feet. Projects shall pay an additional parks and recreation development impact fee 23% above the base fee required by Chapter 9.67, Parks and Recreation Fee Program, for that portion of the floor area above the maximum Tier 1 floor area allowed by the Downtown Community Plan.

2. Transportation Demand Management. All Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects shall include the following Transportation Demand Management measures in addition to those required by Chapter 9.53, Transportation Demand Management: bike valet, free of charge, during all automobile valet operating hours.

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 19 E. Non-Housing Projects on Gateway Sites. An applicant seeking approval for a non-housing project on a Gateway site greater than 1.75 FAR and up to 3.0 FAR shall provide community benefits in each of the following categories.

1. Impact Fees.
a. Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee. Projects shall pay a housing mitigation fee 23% above the base fee as required by Chapter 9.68, Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee Program, for that portion of the floor area above 1.75 FAR and up to 3.0 FAR.
b. Transportation Impact Fee. Projects shall pay an additional transportation impact fee (TIF) 23% above the base fee required by Chapter 9.66, Transportation Impact Fee Program, for that portion of the floor area above 1.75 FAR and up to 3.0 FAR.
c. Open Space. Projects shall pay an additional parks and recreation development impact fee 23% above the base fee required by Chapter 9.67, Parks and Recreation Fee Program, for that portion of the floor area above 1.75 FAR and up to 3.0 FAR.

2. Transportation Demand Management. Projects with a floor area above

1.75 FAR and up to 3.0 FAR shall include the following Transportation Demand Management measure in addition to those required by Chapter 9.53, Transportation Demand Management: bike valet, free of charge, during all automobile valet operating hours.

SECTION 4. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 20 inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: ORD-City-Owned Sites 2d (7827 : Gateway Master Plan - Second Reading) 1 July 17, 2026
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 17, 2026
A special meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by the City Clerk at 9:00 a.m., on, Friday, July 17, 2026, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Caroline Torosis (arrived at 9:03 a.m.) Mayor Pro Tem Jesse Zwick (arrived at 9:04 a.m.)
Councilmember Lana Negrete
Councilmember Dan Hall
Councilmember Ellis Raskin
Councilmember Barry Snell
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya
Also Present: City Manager Oliver Chi
City Attorney Heidi von Tongeln
Interim City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the City Clerk, the City Council convened at 9:00 a.m., with all members present except Mayor Pro Tem Zwick and Mayor Torosis.

Motion by Councilmember Raskin, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya, to have Councilmember Hall Chair the meeting in the absence of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote, with Mayor Pro Tem Zwick and Mayor Torosis, absent.

Councilmember Raskin led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

STATEMENT OF

ACCOUNTABILITY
(LAND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT)
The City of Santa Monica Statement of Accountability (Land Acknowledgement) was read into the record by Councilmember Snell.

LEVINE ACT

DISCLOSURE
No Councilmembers made disclosures regarding the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308).

PUBLIC INPUT FOR
CLOSED SESSION ONLY:

There were no members of the public present to comment on the Closed Session item.

CLOSED SESSIONS
Mayor Torosis arrived at
On order of the Interim Chair, the City Council recessed at 9:03 a.m., to consider Closed Sessions and returned at 1:49 p.m., with all members

4.G
Packet Pg. 283 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 17, 2026 9:00 AM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 July 17, 2026
9:03 a.m.

Mayor Pro Tem Zwick
arrived at 9:04 a.m.

Mayor Torosis was excused
at 1:30 p.m.

Councilmember Zernitskaya
was excused at 1:45 p.m.
present, except Mayor Torosis and Councilmember Zernitskaya to report the following:

5.A. 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
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor Pro Tem, the City Council meeting adjourned at 1:49 p.m.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Denise Anderson-Warren Dan Hsll
Interim City Clerk Interim Chair

Jesse Zwick
Mayor Pro Tem

4.G
Packet Pg. 284 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 17, 2026 9:00 AM (CONSENT CALENDAR) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 28, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.H
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Christopher Dishlip, Director of Public Works, Engineering and Street Services Division
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution to Vacate and Quitclaim a Public Service Utility Easement for a Sewer Line Located within the Roosevelt Elementary School Campus
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and a finding of no significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Existing Facilities);

2. Adopt the attached resolution vacating the public service utility easement associated with a City-owned 8-inch sewer line, located between Alta Avenue and Montana Avenue, and traversing the Roosevelt Elementary School campus at 801 Montana Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90403 (APN 4280-022-900); and

3. Authorize the City Manager to approve and execute a Quitclaim Deed with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (“District”) vacating a Public Service Easement for an 8-inch City-owned sewer line traversing through Roosevelt Elementary School campus.

Summary
The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (“District”) requests that the City of Santa Monica (City): 1) vacate a public service utility easement and 2) transfer ownership (quitclaim) of a segment of the City-owned 8-inch sewer line (“City sewer”) located between Alta Avenue and Montana Avenue and traversing the Roosevelt Elementary School campus. This sewer easement vacation and quitclaim is sought to accommodate the District’s Roosevelt Elementary School Campus Plan Project, which

4.H
Packet Pg. 285
2 of 5
includes construction of a new Transitional Kindergarten/Kindergarten (TK/K) classroom and library building.

The City sewer segment proposed to be transferred to the District is located entirely within Roosevelt Elementary School property and currently conveys City wastewater flow. Once the District completes the required sewer rerouting and campus improvements, the existing City-owned 8-inch sewer line traversing the campus would no longer be necessary for municipal purposes, and the City would have no future operational need for the line. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Attachment B) executed between the City and the District on April 2, 2026, the District has agreed to design, construct, and maintain all rerouted and existing City sewer facilities within the Roosevelt Elementary School campus at its own cost. Staff therefore recommends the adoption of a resolution to vacate public service utility easement through the Roosevelt Elementary School campus and quitclaim the sewer line to the District.

Discussion
Roosevelt Elementary School, located at 801 Montana Avenue, is undergoing capital improvement projects as part of the District's Roosevelt Elementary School Campus Plan Project. The City owns an 8-inch sewer line (Sewer Line No. 1373), including the segment between Manholes 610 and 612, from Alta Avenue to Montana Avenue, that runs through the school campus (between Lincoln Boulevard and 9th Street). The existing City sewer segment predates the District's planned construction activities. In order to accommodate the campus improvements and establish the District’s responsibility for the City sewer infrastructure serving Roosevelt Elementary School, it is necessary for the City to vacate the associated sewer easement and quitclaim its interest in the sewer facilities to the District.

The area proposed for vacation is more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A (Legal Description) and depicted on the attached Exhibit B (Plat Map) part of Drawing

4.H
Packet Pg. 286
3 of 5
No. 4839 (Attachment A). The easement area encompasses approximately 16,500 square feet (0.379 acres) within the Roosevelt Elementary campus.

Following the vacation and once the quitclaim becomes effective, the District is required to complete the following steps pursuant to the executed MOU:
• Submit plans and specifications to the City to temporarily plug Sewer Line No. 1373 at Manholes 610 and 612 at Alta Avenue and Montana Avenue as necessary to complete construction tie-ins of the on-campus sewer lines. • Obtain all required City permits prior to activating any new service laterals connecting to the newly constructed manholes.
• Construct and maintain all rerouted on-campus sewer facilities at the District’s sole cost, in a manner that does not impair City sewer operations outside the campus
• Install a permanent plug at Manhole 610 at Alta Avenue following receipt of all necessary City approvals and completion of temporary construction activities.

City staff sent notices to public and private utilities (e.g., Southern California Edison) requesting information pertaining to current utilities within the proposed deeded area to be vacated. Staff received no comments during the 14-day comment period provided in the notice. There exist utilities owned by Southern California Edison who reserve their own easements under instrument 93-187783 and instrument No. 2180. The City has no current or prospective future uses for the public service easement proposed for vacation.

Legal Basis for Vacation
The vacation of the public service easement qualifies for summary vacation under California Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Section 8333(c). The easement has been determined to be excess by the easement holder. In accordance with SHC Sections 8335–8336, Council approval requires adoption of a resolution of vacation. The City

4.H
Packet Pg. 287
4 of 5
Clerk would then file a certified copy of the resolution of vacation with the Los Angeles County Recorder, and upon such recordation, the vacation would be complete.

Pursuant to SHC Section 8313 and Government Code Section 65402, the City's Mobility Division has reviewed the proposed vacation and found it to be in conformance with the City's 2010–2030 Land Use and Circulation Element.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
August 24, 1931
(Attachment C)
Ordinance No. 615 Ordered the vacation and closing of a 20- foot alley in Block B, Tract No. 2743, lying between Lincoln Boulevard and 9th Street, from Montana Avenue to Alta
Avenue. The ordinance determined no damage would result from the vacation and that no assessment was necessary.

Environmental Review
The proposed vacation of the public service easement and quitclaim of the sewer pipe is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 15301 exempts Class 1 (Existing Facilities) projects from CEQA, which include the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The street vacation would not expand or materially change the existing easement area nor increase sewer operations. Therefore, this vacation is categorically exempt as set forth in Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. Additionally, the vacation is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply, “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the activity may have a significant effect on the environment.”

4.H
Packet Pg. 288
5 of 5
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.

Prepared By: Boaz Chan, Civil Engineering Assistant
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Attachment A - Resolution of Vacation and Quitclaim
B. MOU_SMMUSD (1)
C. Street Series Ordinance No. 615

4.H
Packet Pg. 289
City Council Meeting July 28, 2026 Santa Monica, California

RESOLUTION NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA MONICA, SUMMARILY VACATING AND QUITCLAIMING A PUBLIC SERVICE

UTILITY EASEMENT AND CITY SEWER FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN ROOSEVELT

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAMPUS AT
801 MONTANA AVENUE, SANTA MONICA, CA 90403 (APN: 4280-022-900) WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica (City) received a request from the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (“District”) to vacate and quitclaim (Quitclaim Deed) a public service utility easement and line for a segment of the City-owned 8-inch sewer line (“Sewer Facilities”), Sewer Line No. 1373, located between Manholes 610 and 612, from Alta Avenue to Montana Avenue, which traverses through the Roosevelt Elementary School campus located at 801 Montana, Santa Monica (“Campus”); and WHEREAS, the vacation and quitclaim are sought to accommodate the District’s Roosevelt Elementary School Campus Plan Project, which includes the construction of a new TK/K Classroom and Library Building; and
WHEREAS, the Sewer Facilities segment proposed for vacation is located entirely within the Campus and currently conveys wastewater flow between Manholes 610 and 512, extending from Alta Avenue to Montana Avenue; and
WHEREAS, once the District completes the required sewer rerouting and campus improvements, the existing City-owned 8-inch sewer line traversing the Campus will no longer be necessary for municipal purposes, and the City will have no future operational need for the Sewer Facilities; and

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution of Vacation and Quitclaim [Revision 3] (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public WHEREAS, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the City and the District on April 2, 2026, the District has agreed to design, construct, operate, and maintain all rerouted and existing sewer facilities located within the Campus at the District’s sole cost and responsibility once the vacation and quitclaim are effectuated; and WHEREAS, consistent with the Quitclaim Deed, the District has been granted an opportunity to fully inspect the Sewer Facilities and related public service utility easement prior to accepting the transfer, and the District will accept the Sewer Facilities and related easement in their existing “as is” condition, with no warranty or representation by the City as to title, condition, or suitability for any purpose; and WHEREAS, upon recordation of the Resolution and the Quitclaim Deed, the District will assume ownership of the Sewer Facilities and related public service utility easement and will be solely responsible for the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and all other obligations associated with the Sewer Facilities and related easement, at the District’s sole cost and responsibility; and WHEREAS, the District will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs, and expenses arising from or related to the District’s ownership, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, use, or condition of the City Sewer Facilities and related easement following the vacation and quitclaim; and WHEREAS, the area proposed for vacation is more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A (Legal Description) and depicted on the attached Exhibit B (Plat Map), part of Drawing No. 4839, both of which are incorporated herein by this reference, and encompasses approximately 16,500 square feet (0.379 acres) within the Campus; and

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution of Vacation and Quitclaim [Revision 3] (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public WHEREAS, the City has no current or prospective future use for the public service utility easement proposed for vacation and, therefore, staff recommends that the easement be summarily vacated; and
WHEREAS, the proposed summary vacation is made in accordance with Chapter 4, Division 9 of the California Streets and Highways Code, including Streets and Highways Code sections 8333(c), 8335, and 8336; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed vacation pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 8313 and Government Code section 65402 and has found the vacation to be in conformance with the City’s 2010– 2030 Land Use and Circulation Element; and
WHEREAS, the proposed vacation and quitclaim of the public service utility easement is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, all entities having any right, title, or interest in the public service utility easement being vacated and quitclaimed have been notified of this action; and WHEREAS, from and after the date this Resolution and the Quitclaim Deed are recorded in the Official Records of Los Angeles County, the public service utility easement and the City’s right, title, and interest in the City Sewer Facilities located within the Campus shall be vacated and quitclaimed to the District.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution of Vacation and Quitclaim [Revision 3] (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the recitals of this Resolution, and exhibits referenced therein, are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into this Resolution as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds and declares that the public service utility easement described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B constitutes excess public service easement area and is not required for present or prospective public use, and hereby orders the summary vacation of the easement.

SECTION 3. The City Council finds and declares that the City’s right, title, and interest in the public service utility easement and City Sewer Facilities located within the Campus shall be quitclaimed to the District in their existing “as is” condition, with no warranty or representation by the City as to title, condition, or suitability for any purpose.

The District shall assume ownership of the City Sewer Facilities and related easement, shall be solely responsible for the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and all other obligations associated with the City Sewer Facilities and related easement going forward, and shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs, and expenses arising from or related to the District’s ownership, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, use, or condition of the City Sewer Facilities and related easement following the vacation and quitclaim.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution of Vacation and Quitclaim [Revision 3] (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this Resolution, attested by the City Clerk under seal, to be recorded without acknowledgment, certificate of acknowledgment, or further proof in the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall cause a Quitclaim Deed in the form attached to this Resolution to be executed on behalf of the City, notarized, and recorded in the Official Records.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution of Vacation and Quitclaim [Revision 3] (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public Exhibit A & B
Legal and Plat Map of Vacation Area per DWG No. 4839

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution of Vacation and Quitclaim [Revision 3] (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public S a n t a M o n i c a
M I CHAE L E . JOHNSON
The land referred to herein below is situated in the city of Santa Monica, in the county of Los Angeles, state of California, and is described as follows:

All that portion of Block "B", of Tract no. 2743, in the city of Santa Monica, county of Los Angeles, state of California, as per map recorded in Book 28, Page 7, of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county, being that certain alley, 20 feet wide, lying within said block, and shown on the map of said tract, which was vacated by Ordinance no. 615 on August 24, 1931.

This description contains an area of 16,500 square feet (0.379 acres), more or less.

A plat showing the above-described parcel is attached hereto and made a part hereof as “Exhibit B”.

This legal description and associated plat was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of the Professional Land Surveyor's Act. _________________________ __________ Michael E. Johnson, PLS 7673 Dated

END OF DESCRIPTION
06/25/2026
4839

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution of Vacation and Quitclaim [Revision 3] (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public M I CHAEL E . JOHNSON 06/25/2026

PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECTION
_________________________________ MICHAEL E. JOHNSON P.L.S. 7673 DATE: ___________________________
S a n t a M o n i c a
4839

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution of Vacation and Quitclaim [Revision 3] (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public

EXHIBIT C

FORM OF QUITCLAIM DEED
Recording requested by
and when recorded return to
and mail tax statements to:

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
1685 Main Street, Mail Stop 15
Santa Monica, CA 90401
______________________________________________________________________

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE
Exempt from recording fee - California Government Code Section 6103

QUITCLAIM DEED BETWEEN

CITY OF SANTA MONICA AND

SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
THIS QUITCLAIM DEED for the transfer of certain sewer facilities and related rights (hereafter, "Quitclaim Deed") is made and entered into this ____ day of ____________, 2026, by and between the CITY OF SANTA MONICA, a municipal corporation ("Grantor"), and the SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a California public school district ("Grantee").

Grantor owns and operates certain local sewer facilities, including the City-owned 8-inch sewer line, Sewer Line No. 1373, located between Manholes 610 and 612, from Alta Avenue to Montana Avenue, within the Roosevelt Elementary School campus at 801 Montana Avenue, Santa Monica, California (collectively, the "Facilities"). This Quitclaim Deed documents and memorializes the transfer of Grantor's right, title, and interest in the Facilities and related public service utility easement to Grantee. Grantee will operate and maintain the Facilities that are the subject of this Quitclaim Deed as part of its campus facilities.

NOW, THEREFORE, Grantor and Grantee agree as follows:

1. Grant of Sewer Facilities
Grantor does hereby quitclaim, grant, convey, and transfer to Grantee all of Grantor's right, title, and interest in and to the Facilities and the related public service utility easement located within the Roosevelt Elementary School campus, as described in Exhibit "A" and shown visually in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of any apparent discrepancy between Exhibits "A" and "B," Exhibit "A" shall control.

This Quitclaim Deed shall also convey any underlying right-of-way interest necessary to operate and maintain the Facilities within the campus.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution of Vacation and Quitclaim [Revision 3] (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public

2. No Warranty of Title or Condition
Grantor makes no warranty or representation of any kind regarding its title to the Facilities or related easement, the condition of the Facilities, or the suitability of the Facilities for any purpose. Grantee has been granted an opportunity to fully inspect the Facilities and accepts the Facilities "as is."

3. Assignment
The benefits and burdens of this Quitclaim Deed shall be binding upon and inure to all successors-in-interest and assigns of the parties.

4. Further Assurances
Each party agrees to execute and deliver any additional documents and instruments, and to take any further actions, reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of this Quitclaim Deed.

5. Entire Agreement
This Quitclaim Deed, together with the City Resolution authorizing the vacation and quitclaim and the exhibits attached hereto, constitutes the entire agreement between Grantor and Grantee regarding the subject matter of this Quitclaim Deed, including all representations and warranties between them.

6. Notices
Notices relating to this Quitclaim Deed must be in writing and sent to the addresses set forth below. A party may change its address for notices by giving notice as required by this Section. A written notice will be considered given (i) when personally delivered, or (ii) two business days after deposit in the United States Mail as first class mail, certified or registered, return receipt requested with postage prepaid, or (iii) one business day after deposit with a reputable overnight delivery service for next business day delivery, or (iv) on the business day of successful transmission by electronic mail. The parties' addresses for notices are as follows:

To Grantor: City of Santa Monica
Attn: City Engineer
1685 Main Street, Mail Stop 15
Santa Monica, CA 90401

To Grantee: Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Attn: Superintendent
1717 4th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401

7. Governing Law
This Quitclaim Deed shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution of Vacation and Quitclaim [Revision 3] (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public

8. Authority
Each party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Quitclaim Deed on its behalf have the legal power, right, and authority to make this agreement and bind each respective party.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Quitclaim Deed has been executed by the parties hereto. [Signatures on the following page.]

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution of Vacation and Quitclaim [Revision 3] (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By___________________________
Heidi von Tongeln, City Attorney
GRANTOR:

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
By: ___________________________
Printed Name: __________________
Title: _________________________
Date: __________________________
GRANTEE:

SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT
By: ___________________________
Printed Name: __________________
Title: _________________________
Date: __________________________

SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT
By: ___________________________
Printed Name: __________________
Title: _________________________
Date: __________________________

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution of Vacation and Quitclaim [Revision 3] (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
On ____________________, before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________ , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity, and that by his/her/their signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.

I certify UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature ________________________________ (seal)

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution of Vacation and Quitclaim [Revision 3] (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Between the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District and the City of Santa Monica
Regarding Roosevelt Elementary School Sewer Line
This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is entered into on _____________ by and between the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, a California public school district ("District"), and the City of Santa Monica, a California municipal corporation ("City").

RECITALS
A. The District owns and operates the Roosevelt Elementary School campus located at 801 Montana Ave., Santa Monica, California 90403 (APN: 4280-022-900).

B. The City owns an 8” sewer line identified as Sewer Line No. 1373, including the segment located between Manholes 610 and 612, which traverses the Roosevelt Elementary School campus ("Sewer Segment").

C. The Sewer Segment existed prior to the consideration of the District’s planned construction and improvements under the District’s Roosevelt Elementary School Campus Plan Project (“Project”).

D. The parties hereto desire to set forth a written understanding of each party’s obligations prior to and during Project construction, ensure continued sewer service, and clarify future ownership and maintenance responsibilities.

AGREEMENT

1. Temporary Plug Plan and Specification Submittal
The District will submit to the City plans and specifications, subject to applicable permits and City standards, to temporarily plug Sewer Line No. 1373 at Manholes 610 and 612 as necessary to complete construction tie-ins (two new manholes on City owned 8-inch sewer line that currently run through Roosevelt Elementary School) and related work associated with the Project. Please refer to Exhibit A for the Project plans.

2. Permanent Plug and Separation
Following the District receiving the necessary approvals, completion of temporary construction activities, and completion of the vacation approval described below, the District may install a permanent plug at Manhole 610 to permanently disconnect the northern portion of the Sewer Segment from the City’s public sewer system, subject to issuance of all required City permits, including an over-the-counter permit, and final inspection and acceptance by the City.

Docusign Envelope ID: 13F0504D-C824-4C05-AF7B-35AFF3A34056 4/2/2026

4.H.b
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: MOU_SMMUSD (1) (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public Service Easement for Sewer Line No.) The District shall not activate any new service laterals connecting to the newly constructed manholes until such time as ownership of the sewer line has been formally transferred to the District following completion of the vacation process.

3. On-Campus Rerouting
The District shall design, construct, and maintain any rerouted sewer facilities located entirely within the Roosevelt Elementary School campus, at the District’s sole cost and responsibility, in a manner that does not impair City sewer operations outside the campus. The District will provide and submit plans for rerouting for the City’s approval.

4. Vacation and Quitclaim
A. The District agrees to process a formal request for vacation of the Sewer Segment between Manholes 610 and 612 in accordance with applicable City procedures.

5. Indemnification and Insurance
The District shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from claims arising out of the District’s construction, rerouting, or maintenance of sewer facilities located on the campus, except to the extent caused by the City’s sole negligence or willful misconduct. The District shall comply with the City’s insurance requirements, as attached in Exhibit B, and incorporated herein.

6. No Dedication
Nothing in this MOU shall be construed as a dedication of District property for public use.

7. Effective Date
This MOU shall become effective upon execution by both parties hereto.

8. Exhibits
The following exhibits are incorporated by reference into this MOU as though fully set forth herin.

Exhibit A Project Plans
Exhibit B Insurance Requirements
//
//
Docusign Envelope ID: 13F0504D-C824-4C05-AF7B-35AFF3A34056

4.H.b
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: MOU_SMMUSD (1) (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public Service Easement for Sewer Line No.)

9. Execution in Couterparts
This MOU may be executed in one or more counterparts. All such separate counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Facsimile signatures shall be valid as if manually signed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum of Understanding as of the dates set forth below.

SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
By: ________________________________
Name: ________________________________
Title: ________________________________
Date: ________________________________

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
By: ________________________________
Name: ________________________________
Title: ________________________________
Date: ________________________________
Docusign Envelope ID: 13F0504D-C824-4C05-AF7B-35AFF3A34056 Christopher Dishlip
Public Works Director
4/2/2026
4/2/2026
Carey Upton
Chief Operations Officer

4.H.b
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: MOU_SMMUSD (1) (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public Service Easement for Sewer Line No.) Exhibit A
Project Plans
Docusign Envelope ID: 13F0504D-C824-4C05-AF7B-35AFF3A34056

4.H.b
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: MOU_SMMUSD (1) (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public Service Easement for Sewer Line No.) X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X X X
X
X X
X
X X X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X

X X X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X

X X X X X X

X X X X
X
X
X
X

X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X

X X X X X
X
X X
RP EB" CA I T AC L SA WELL AS GENEROUS IN YOUR IDEALS. KE P YOUR EY SE NO HT E TS SRA . . . UB. . . T ER EM MBER TO KE P YOUR FEET ON THE RG NUO " . D MONTANA AVENUE 9TH STREET
LINCOLN BOULEVARD FFE 177.30 FFE 177.30 ALTA AVENUE
LINCOLN CT S a n t a M o n i c a SEWER KEYNOTES
A
A
NORTH
Docusign Envelope ID: 13F0504D-C824-4C05-AF7B-35AFF3A34056 4.H.b Packet Pg. 307
Attachment: MOU_SMMUSD (1) (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public Service Easement for Sewer Line No.) S a n t a M o n i c a
1 MANHOLE 1 BASE PLAN DETAIL
2 MANHOLE 2 BASE PLAN DETAIL Docusign Envelope ID: 13F0504D-C824-4C05-AF7B-35AFF3A34056 4.H.b Packet Pg. 308
Attachment: MOU_SMMUSD (1) (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public Service Easement for Sewer Line No.) Rev. October 2023
Exhibit B
Insurance Requirements
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.

Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal and advertising injury, with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (Insurance Services Office Form CG 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form CA 00 01 covering Code 1 (any auto), or if Contractor has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and Code 9 (non-owned), with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Workers’ Compensation: Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits and Employers’ Liability Insurance with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease (see footnote #1).

If the Contractor maintains broader coverage or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City of Santa Monica requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage or higher limits maintained by the Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City of Santa Monica.

Other Insurance Provisions

1. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
a. Additional Insured Status: The City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of Contractor including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. CGL coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form CG 20 10 11 85, or if not available, through the addition of both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38 and CG 20 37).

Docusign Envelope ID: 13F0504D-C824-4C05-AF7B-35AFF3A34056

4.H.b
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: MOU_SMMUSD (1) (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public Service Easement for Sewer Line No.) Rev. October 2023
b. Primary Coverage: For any claims related to this Agreement, the Contractor’s insurance shall be primary coverage as least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers.

Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be in excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
c. Notice of Cancellation: Each insurance policy required herein shall state that coverage shall not be cancelled except after notice has been given to the City of Santa Monica. d. Waiver of Subrogation: Contractor hereby grants to the City of Santa Monica a waiver of any right of subrogation which any insurer of said Contractor may acquire against the City of Santa Monica by virtue of payment of any loss. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City of Santa Monica has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City of Santa Monica for all work performed by the Contractor, its employees, agents and subcontractors.

Self-Insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City of Santa Monica. The City of Santa Monica may require the Contractor to purchase coverage with a lower retention or provide satisfactory proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the name insured or the City of Santa Monica.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in California with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City of Santa Monica.

Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City of Santa Monica with original certificates and amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage provided by this clause). All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City of Santa Monica before work commences. However, failure to obtain required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide them. The City of Santa Monica reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including the endorsements required herein, at any time.

Docusign Envelope ID: 13F0504D-C824-4C05-AF7B-35AFF3A34056

4.H.b
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: MOU_SMMUSD (1) (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public Service Easement for Sewer Line No.) Rev. October 2023
Failure to Maintain Insurance Coverage
If Contractor, for any reason, fails to maintain insurance coverage which is required pursuant to this Agreement, the same shall be deemed a material breach of contract. The City of Santa Monica, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from the Contractor resulting from said breach.

Subcontractors
Contractor shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein. All exceptions must be approved in writing by the Risk Manager.

Footnotes
# 1: Workers’ Compensation insurance coverage is not required if the Contractor does not have employees. The Contractor must, however, execute the City’s Workers’ Compensation Coverage Exemption Declaration Form.

Docusign Envelope ID: 13F0504D-C824-4C05-AF7B-35AFF3A34056

4.H.b
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: MOU_SMMUSD (1) (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public Service Easement for Sewer Line No.)

4.H.c
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Street Series Ordinance No. 615 (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public Service Easement for Sewer Line No.)

4.H.c
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Street Series Ordinance No. 615 (7772 : Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of a Public Service Easement for Sewer Line No.) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 28, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.I
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Dana Brown, Human Resources Director, Human Resources Department Subject: Adoption of a Salary Resolution approving the new Salary's for the revised Clarification Series of Building Inspector I, Building Inspector II, Senior Building Inspector and Inspection Supervisor
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15324 (Class 24 Regulations of Working Conditions) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Adopt the salary resolution (Attachment A).

Summary
The City's current building inspector classification series and compensation structure have become increasingly difficult to sustain due to recruitment and retention challenges in a highly competitive labor market. A review of comparable Southern California public agencies found that Santa Monica's building inspector classifications require qualifications and certifications that are comparable to or, in many cases, exceed those of neighboring jurisdictions while offering salaries that generally fall below the regional market. While the City is currently underway with a citywide classification and compensation study, there are presently exigent conditions among the building inspectors that must be addressed immediately.

To address these challenges, staff recommends restructuring the building inspector classification series by revising existing classification specifications to better align with assigned duties and industry standards and adjusting salaries to position Santa

4.I
Packet Pg. 314
2 of 5
Monica at or near the top of the regional market. These changes are intended to improve recruitment, support employee retention, establish clearer career progression, and ensure the City remains competitive in attracting highly qualified building inspection professionals.

Discussion
The building inspector classification series currently consists of Combination Building Inspector I, II, and III, Lead Combination Building Inspector, and Inspection Supervisor.

Over time, the City has experienced increasing difficulty recruiting and retaining qualified inspectors due to the limited availability of candidates possessing the required technical experience and International Code Council (ICC) certifications.

Staff also determined that the current classification structure does not provide clear career progression and includes distinctions between classifications that no longer align with operational needs or common industry practice. In addition, the City's classification titles differ from those commonly used by surrounding jurisdictions, which may impact recruitment by making it more difficult for applicants to compare positions across agencies.

Human Resources conducted a compensation and classification review of comparable public agencies, including the cities of Beverly Hills, El Segundo, Inglewood, Manhattan Beach, and West Hollywood. The analysis found that Santa Monica generally requires qualifications equal to or greater than those required by neighboring agencies, particularly with respect to required ICC certifications and inspection experience. However, compensation for Santa Monica's Building Inspector classifications generally falls below the regional market, with the greatest disparities occurring in the senior technical classifications. The review also found that neighboring agencies commonly utilize a simplified classification structure consisting of Building Inspector, Senior Building Inspector, Principal Building Inspector, or supervisory classifications, rather than multiple combination inspector levels.

4.I
Packet Pg. 315
3 of 5
Based on the market analysis and operational review, staff recommends restructuring the Building Inspector classification series as follows:

Current Classification  Proposed Classification  Proposed Monthly Salary
Building Inspector Trainee  TBD
Combination Building Inspector
I, II
Building Inspector I  $11,007
Combination Building Inspector
III
Building Inspector II  $12,658
Lead Building Inspector  Senior Building Inspector  $13,544 Inspector Supervisor  No change in class title  $14,898 The proposed salaries were developed to accomplish several objectives:
• Position Santa Monica at or near the top of the regional labor market. • Better align compensation with the City's higher qualification and certification requirements.
• Improve recruitment and retention of qualified building inspectors. • Establish meaningful salary progression between classifications while recognizing increasing technical expertise and supervisory responsibilities.

The proposed restructuring modernizes the City's Building Inspector classification series by creating a clear career ladder from trainee through senior while maintaining a distinct supervisory classification. The proposal simplifies the existing classification structure, aligns titles with industry practice, enhances internal promotional opportunities, and supports succession planning by establishing an entry-level classification. The proposed restructuring also requires revision of classification specifications. These revisions are being prepared for submittal to the Personnel Board in the coming month. Lastly, the Building Inspector Trainee classification would establish a new entry point into the career series and facilitate the development of future inspectors through internal training and advancement. This classification, while necessary, is not critical at this time and will be further developed during the budget process.

The current staffing situation in Building and Safety is untenable. There are currently

4.I
Packet Pg. 316
4 of 5
four vacant building inspector positions that need to be filled immediately. To assist with recruitment, staff recommends a $15,000 signing bonus to be offered to new employees hired at the Building Inspector II or Senior Building Inspector level. Likewise, staff recommends a $5,000 referral free to be offered to employees who successfully refer a new employee at the Building Inspector II or Senior Building Inspector level. It is anticipated that a cash incentive will attract experienced building inspectors to join our team as well as solicit assistance from current City employees to help fill these critical vacancies.

Because the proposed classification and compensation changes affect represented employees, the City has met and conferred with the applicable employee organizations which represent these classifications pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act reaching the agreement brought forward here for Council approval.

Environmental Review
The changes to staff wages are categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15324 (Class 24 Regulations of Working Conditions) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Class 24 consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies to regulate employee wages, hours of work, or working conditions where there will be no demonstrable physical changes outside the place of work.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The exact cost of the recommended action in this report will depend on the recruitment timeline and actual hiring dates. The FY 2026-27 budget includes the funding for the positions and once the vacancies are filled, the additional associated costs will be calculated and incorporated into a future budget process.

4.I
Packet Pg. 317
5 of 5
Prepared By: Sarah Rebensdorf, Human Resources Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Salary Resolution

4.I
Packet Pg. 318

ATTACHMENT X
City Council Meeting: July 28, 2026 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER ________(CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ESTABLISHING NEW CLASSIFICATIONS AND ADOPTING SALARY RATES FOR THE FOLLOWING NEW OR EXISTING CLASSIFICATIONS:

BUILDING INSPECTOR I, BUILDING INSPECTOR II,

INSPECTION SUPERVISOR, AND SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The following salary levels are hereby established, effective August 9, 2026, for the indicated classifications:

Classification Salary Reason
Building Inspector I $11,007/monthly; Step 5 Reclassification Building Inspector II $12,658/monthly; Step 5 Reclassification Inspection Supervisor $14,898/monthly; Step 5 Equity adjustment Senior Building Inspector $13,544/monthly; Step 5 Reclassification SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Heidi von Tongeln
City Attorney

4.I.a
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Salary Resolution (7828 : Salary Resolution - Building Inspection) 1 May 26, 2026
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 26, 2026
A regular meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Torosis at 5:32 p.m., on Tuesday, May 26, 2026, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA, and a teleconference location in Washington, DC 20037.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Caroline Torosis
Mayor Pro Tem Jesse Zwick (arrived at 5:34 p.m.)
Councilmember Lana Negrete
Councilmember Ellis Raskin
Councilmember Barry Snell
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya (via teleconference)

Absent: Councilmember Dan Hall
Also Present: City Manager Oliver Chi
City Attorney Heidi von Tongeln
Interim City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren

CONVENE/PLEDGE
Mayor Pro Tem Zwick
arrived at 5:34 p.m.

On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:32 p.m., with all members present except Councilmember Hall and Mayor Pro Tem Zwick.

Councilmember Snell led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

STATEMENT OF

ACCOUNTABILITY
(LAND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT)
The City of Santa Monica Statement of Accountability (Land Acknowledgement) was read into the record by Councilmember Raskin.

LEVINE ACT

DISCLOSURE
No Councilmembers made disclosures regarding the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308).

AGENDA

MANAGEMENT
Motion by Councilmember Raskin, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to hear the City Manager’s Report, the Mayor’s Highlight, and Special Agenda Items before General Public Comment, approve request by staff to pull items

5.C. and 5.D. from the agenda, and continue item 12.A. to the next meeting.

The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, Mayor Torosis
NOES: None

4.J
Packet Pg. 320 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 26, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 May 26, 2026
ABSENT: Councilmember Hall

CITY MANAGER
REPORT
The City Manager Report was presented.

MAYOR’S HIGHLIGHT The Mayor presented the Department of Transportation.

PUBLIC INPUT FOR

SPECIAL AGENDA
ITEMS:

There were no members of the public to comment on Special Agenda items.

PROCLAMATIONS/

COMMENDATIONS/

SPECIAL AGENDA
ITEMS

2.A. Proclamation: Pride Month, was presented.

PUBLIC INPUT FOR

GENERAL PUBLIC

COMMENT AND

SPECIAL AGENDA
ITEMS:

Members of the public Stephen Meade, Denise Barton, Carlo Cabanilla, Johnathan Foster, Morgan Hunter Gross, Zoe Muntaner, Redeat Gebeyehu, Christine Parra, Alison Jordan, and David Whatley commented on various local issues.

PUBLIC INPUT FOR

CONSENT CALENDAR

AND CLOSED SESSION
ONLY:

Members of the public Denise Barton, Morgan Hunter Gross, Ashley Oelsen, Johnathan Foster, and Zoe Muntaner commented on Consent Calendar items.

There were no members of the public present to comment on Closed Session items.

CONSENT CALENDAR: All items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.

At the request of Mayor Torosis, Items 4.A and. 4.H. were removed from the Consent Calendar.

At the request of Councilmember Raskin and Mayor Torosis, Item 4.I. was removed from the Consent Calendar.

The City Clerk read a correction into the record regarding the April 28, 2026, minutes, Item 4.J. On Item 5.C. Councilmember Zernitskaya and Mayor Pro Tem Zwick recused themselves from the item. The correction to the record is that they both recused “due to a possible conflict of interest under Government Code Section 87100.”
Motion by Councilmember Snell, seconded by Councilmember Raskin, to approve the Consent Calendar except for Items 4.A., 4.H. 4.I., reading resolutions by title only and waiving further reading thereof, including the

4.J
Packet Pg. 321 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 26, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 3 May 26, 2026
correction to Item 4.J. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, Mayor Torosis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Hall

TIP AND TRANSFER

SERVICES

4.B. Authorization to Enter into Agreement No. 11850 (CCS) with the City of Culver City for Recyclable Materials Tip and Transfer Services, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemptions pursuant to Section 15301 and Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute Agreement No. 11850 (CCS) with the City of Culver City for recyclable materials transfer services for the Public Works Department. This recommended contract is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section 2.24.250 (g) and is for a total amount not to exceed $6,334,059 with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

EMPLOYERS’ RETIREE

BENEFIT TRUST

4.C. Approval of California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) Authority Delegation, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding that the resolution is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act; and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 11760 (CCS) of the City of Santa Monica updating the delegating authority to the City Treasurer, the Assistant Finance Director, the Deputy Finance Director, the Financial Operations Manager and the Business And Revenue Operations Manager to authorize distributions from the California Employers’ Retirement Benefit Trust (CERBT) fund.

BOARD & COMMISSION

CHANGES

4.D. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Repealing and Replacing Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.62, Creating Chapters 2.73 and 2.74, and Amending Chapters 2.50, 2.64, and 2.66 to Implement Various Board and Commission Changes Resulting from the City of Santa Monica 2025 Comprehensive Board and Commission Review, was adopted.

Recommended Action

4.J
Packet Pg. 322 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 26, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 4 May 26, 2026
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt attached Ordinance No. 2858 (CCS).

LOCAL HIGHWAY

SAFETY IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM GRANT

4.E. Approval to Accept Local Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant and Award RFP# 11125 to H.W. Lochner for the Systemic Crosswalks Improvements on Ocean Avenue, Colorado Boulevard, and 23rd Street and Hill Street, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff Recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemptions pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Authorize the City Manager to accept a grant awarded to the City in the amount of $1,223,640 from the Local Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) for the Systemic Crosswalk
Improvements on Ocean Avenue, Colorado Avenue, and 23rd Street & Hill Street 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;

4. Award RFP #11125 to H.W. Lochner to provide transportation planning and traffic engineering services for the Systemic Crosswalk Improvements on Ocean Avenue, Colorado Avenue, and 23rd Street & Hill Street for the Public Works Department;

5. Authorize the City Manager to execute Agreement No. 11851 (CCS) with H.W. Lochner in an amount not to exceed $375,000 over a twoyear period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval; and

6. Authorize the budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of the report (requires 5 votes).

LOCAL HIGHWAY

SAFETY IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM GRANT

4.F. Authorization to Accept Two Grants from the California Department of Transportation Local Highway Safety Improvement Program and award RFP No. 11825 to Michael Baker International for the Signal Improvements on Neilson Way and the Lincoln Boulevard & Hill Street Project, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemptions pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Authorize the City Manager to accept two grants awarded in the total amount of $1,152,170 from the Local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) for the Signal Improvements on Neilson Way and Lincoln Boulevard and Hill Street Project in the Public Works Department, and to accept all grant renewals;

4.J
Packet Pg. 323 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 26, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 5 May 26, 2026

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to accept the grants and all grant renewals;

4. Award RFP #11825 to Michael Baker International to provide transportation planning and traffic engineering services for the Signal Improvements on Neilson Way and Lincoln Boulevard and Hill Street Project for the Public Works Department;

5. Authorize the City Manager to execute Agreement No. 11852 (CCS) with Michael Baker International in an amount not to exceed $355,000 over a two-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval; and

6. Authorize the budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of the report (requires 5 votes).

GRANT MANAGEMENT

SERVICES

4.G. Approval of Second Modification to Agreement No. 11245 (CCS) with Engineering Solutions Services for Grant Management Services for the Community Development Department, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of signification effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a second modification to Agreement No. 11245 (CCS) for grant management services for the Community Development Department. This will result in a five-year amended agreement, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

MINUTES 4.J. Minutes of City Council - Regular Meeting - Apr 28, 2026 5:30 PM, were approved, as amended.

MINUTES 4.K. Minutes of City Council - Special Meeting - May 11, 2026 5:30 PM, were approved.

MINUTES 4.L. Minutes of City Council - Special Meeting - May 12, 2026 5:35 PM, were approved.

SANTA MONICA

RENTER AID PROGRAM

4.A. Award RFP #470 to The People Concern for Administration of the Santa Monica Renter Aid Program to Provide Financial Assistance and Case Management to Qualifying Households, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines

4.J
Packet Pg. 324 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 26, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 6 May 26, 2026

2. Award RFP #470 to The People Concern for administration of the Santa Monica Renter Aid Program for the Housing and Human Services Department

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 11849 (CCS) with The People Concern, in an amount not to exceed $2,400,000 for two years, with three additional one-year renewal option(s) in the amount of $1,200,000 per year, on the same terms and conditions, for a total amount not to exceed $6,000,000 over a 5- year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

Mayor Torosis pulled this item to receive additional information.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: with the recruitment process, how many businesses have applied for the program; how long is the application process, and how quickly does the funds get to the participants, and does it go to the participants directly; what percentage is going to participants, and what percentage is going to administration; is there an upto amount; do we have forward facing benchmarks that the community can see, and how the money is being used, as it is being used; did the staff evaluate if this is something that could be done in-house; what happens if this is not successful, and there’s no other organization who can do this type of work; where can people access the applications for assistance; is it correct that there is a $5,000 in one-time emergency assistance per household, per year, $10,000 in ongoing monthly assistance for housing stability, and $20,000 for households in unlawful detainer proceedings; and, are these payments for rent only, or can it be used for other things like utilities.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including but not limited to: if there’s some way to be more flexible with providing direct payment to tenants for what they need; concerned that there is close tracking to notify the tenants when the payments are made to the landlord; concern that monies are misused and taken from those who actually need the subsidy; and, glad to see this program come to fruition.

Motion by Councilmember Snell, seconded by Mayor Torosis, to approve the recommendation. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Negrete, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, Mayor Torosis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Hall

ADVANCING MAJOR
EVENTS

4.H. Advancing Major Events: Authorization to Negotiate and Enter Into License Agreements for Upcoming Major Events, including a

4.J
Packet Pg. 325 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 26, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 7 May 26, 2026
license agreement for the use of the Camera Obscura Building by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs during the LA28 Summer Olympic Games and a license agreement for the use of the Santa Monica Pier Deck and portions of Santa Monica Beach during the 2027 Superbowl Game; Adoption of Resolutions to Facilitate Upcoming Major Events and Community Events, including the hosting of Club France at the Annenberg Beach House and the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs at the Camera Obscura Building, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt findings of categorical exemptions pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1 – Existing Facilities), Section 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), Section 15311 (Class 11 - Accessory Structures), Section 15323 (Normal Operations of Existing Facilities for Public Gathering), and Section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines for approval of the license agreement with the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (“FDFA”) and temporary waiver of certain provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to facilitate the FDFA’s use of the Camera Obscura building, as set forth in the staff report;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute License Agreement No. 11853 (CCS) with the FDFA for use of the Camera Obscura Building during the 2028 Summer Olympic Games and Paralympic Games;

3. Adopt Resolution No. 11761 (CCS) authorizing an exemption from certain provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to facilitate use of the Camera Obscura Building by the FDFA in accordance with the License Agreement during the 2028 Summer Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, from June 14, 2028 – September 21, 2028;

4. Adopt findings of categorical exemptions pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1 – Existing Facilities), Section 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), Section 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land), and Section 15311 (Class 11 - Accessory Structures), Section 15323 (Normal Operations of Existing Facilities for Public Gathering), and Section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines for approval of the license agreement with ESPN Productions, LLC, in connection with the use of the Santa Monica Pier Deck, and portions of the Santa Monica Beach and adjacent parking lots as a temporary interactive broadcast and event space for the 2027 Super Bowl, from January 18 through February 22, 2027;

5. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute License Agreement No. 11854 (CCS) with ESPN Productions, LLC, in

4.J
Packet Pg. 326 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 26, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 8 May 26, 2026
connection with the use of the Santa Monica Pier Deck, and portions of the Santa Monica Beach and adjacent parking lots as a temporary interactive broadcast and event space for the 2027 Super Bowl, from January 18 through February 22, 2027;

6. Adopt findings of categorical exemptions pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1 – Existing Facilities), Section 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), Section 15311 (Class 11 - Accessory Structures), Section 15323 (Normal Operations of Existing Facilities for Public Gathering), and Section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines for approval of a resolution authorizing exemptions from certain code provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to facilitate use of the Annenberg Beach House by the French National Olympic Committee (“CNOSF”) during the 2028 Summer Olympic Games as a temporary interactive broadcast and event space from June 30, 2028 – August 4, 2028, as set forth in the staff report;

7. Adopt Resolution No. 11762 (CCS) authorizing exemptions from certain provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to facilitate use of the Annenberg Beach House by CNOSF during the 2028 Summer Olympic Games as a temporary interactive broadcast and event space from June 30, 2028 – August 4, 2028.

Mayor Torosis pulled this item to get clarification on how the Camera Obscura is going to be renovated.

Questions asked and answered of staff included, whose paying for the upgrades, the city or the Swiss, and could this open before the 2028 Games, so that the concessions could open sooner and be used by the city.

Motion by Councilmember Snell, seconded by Councilmember Negrete, to approve the recommendation. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, Mayor Torosis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Hall

LOCAL COASTAL

PROGRAM UPDATE

4.I. Approval of Memorandum of Understanding Between City of Santa Monica and California Coastal Commission on a Framework to Complete the City's Local Coastal Program Update, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

4.J
Packet Pg. 327 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 26, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 9 May 26, 2026
Mayor Pro Tem Zwick was
excused at 7:05 p.m.

1. Adopt a finding that the recommended actions herein do not constitute a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2. Staff recommends that the City Council receive and provide direction related to the City Manager executing Memorandum of
Understanding No. 11855 (CCS) between the City and the Coastal Commission on a framework to complete the City’s Local Coastal Program.

Mayor Pro Tem Zwick recused himself from this item because of a potential conflict of interest due to his employment with the Housing Action Coalition, which advocates for housing production.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: what the permitting process will look like after we have a Local Coastal Plan (LCP); would the LCP come before the Council before it goes to the Coastal Commission; with this plan will this just open up the development standards from scratch; once we have this certified LCP, projects will go through the local city process, including housing projects; projects will have to comply with the standards in the LCP, unless they want to go through some sort of zone changes; what is the concrete timeframe to get this plan through the process; what happens if the state density laws come in and exceed the Coastal Commission laws; are there any issues that looks like it might take the city longer than December 2027; during this MOU, will the Council be notified if things don’t go through; does this encompass the entire map that was discussed in the last meeting; will there be an opportunity for members of the public to engage in the process; in the MOU when considering public access, is this around employing a more holistic view of public access to the coast and to Santa Monica Beaches when we’re considering public access; are we ensuring that we are considering public access to the beach beyond folks who have autos; explain without an LCP in place, does a residential or business need to apply directly to the coastal commission to get approval; and, is an LCP going to magically allow an increase of development along the coast.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, using every communication opportunity to provide the public with as much information as possible, and Council expressed considerable appreciation for getting this done and moving along so quickly.

Motion by Councilmember Snell, seconded by Mayor Torosis, to approve the recommendation. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Negrete, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya, Mayor Torosis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Hall, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick

4.J
Packet Pg. 328 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 26, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 10 May 26, 2026

CLOSED SESSIONS
Mayor Pro Tem Zwick
returned at 7:32 p.m.

Councilmember Zernitskaya
returned at 8:20 p.m.

On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 7:32 p.m., to consider Closed Sessions and returned at 8:18 p.m., with all members present, except Councilmembers Hall and Zernitskaya, to report the following:

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
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

5.B. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): City v. ICSOP, et al.; OCSC # 30-2022-01261243

4.J
Packet Pg. 329 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 26, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 11 May 26, 2026
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

5.C. Conference with legal counsel - significant exposure to litigation - Government Code § 54956.9(d)(2) – 1 case, was pulled at the request of staff.

5.D. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): Lori Gentles v. City; LASC # 24STCV18968 [report out only], was pulled at the request of staff.

PUBLIC INPUT ON

REMAINING AGENDA
ITEMS:

Members of the public Denise Barton, Steven Johnson, Karen Melick, and Eve Lopez commented on item 7.A.

Members of the public Kiana Achoy, Diana Flores, Brittany de Guzman, Ashley Oelsen, Christine Parra, Freddy Luis, Zoe Muntaner, Samantha Mota, Tara Barauskas, and Ralph Mechur commented on item 16.B.

STUDY SESSION:

FY 2026-27 PROPOSED
BUDGET & FY 2026-28

PROPOSED BIENNIAL

CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENTS

PROGRAM BUDGET

7.A. Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Review and provide direction to staff regarding the FY 2026-27 Proposed Operating Budget Adjustments (Attachment A) and FY 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget (Attachment B);

2. Direct staff to proceed with setting the FY 2026-27 Operating and FY 2026-28 Biennial Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget Adoption hearing on June 23, 2026;

3. Approve the position and classification changes (Attachment C);

4. Review and comment on the recommendations of the Fee Study Report, Fire Fee Study Report, and Cemetery Fee revisions (Attachments D, E and F);

5. Review and comment on the recommended updates to the Fiscal Policies (Attachment G); and

6. 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
Questions asked and answered of staff included: what shifted to make the significant change in the budget; what are we doing differently from what we used to do in the past; is the Michigan Avenue, which is also part of the Santa Monica Neighborhood Greenways, just the final section to the east that

4.J
Packet Pg. 330 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 26, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 12 May 26, 2026
is being addressed; what is the plan to manage traffic volumes on Michigan and Washington; what is being done on monitoring and enforcement for curb space; what is the small amount of money left over from the Lincoln project; how are allocation separated from Measure K funds; is Wilshire Phase 2 rolled out, or is it in the works; what is the justification for increasing the adult aquatics fee; who pays the fees for installing traffic signs and for the engineering; what options do we have other than raising fees on small businesses; why is there a fee for split-lot and small lot fee, and how are they different; who would be responsible to pay the increase of fees for code violation fees; clarify the urban runoff mitigation fees; clarification on replacement of the turf field at the Airport Park is going to be and where staff is in implementing prior Council direction on exploring non-turf alternatives as replacement of existing turf fields; what does streetlight modernization program look like; does this budget reflect short term funds, and how we will fund them in the future; for employee vacancies, is it being reconsidered that some of those positions are no longer necessary; what would the process be, if Council wanted to make an adjustment to a fee; at what point do we start thinking about space limitations, expanding the City Yards, and is an assessment being done; is staffing still 7% below pre-pandemic; is this the first time we’ve expanded the Capital budget in a while; if the city no longer pays the money to the school district, how will that impact our budget; and, if the city does not renew the facilities agreement with the school, will that limit usage of city properties for the schools.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including but not limited to:
consider halting or decreasing the wastewater fees that impact local businesses, and concerns about swim fees and other fees.

Motion by Councilmember Snell, seconded by Councilmember Negrete, to adopt and approve the recommended action. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Negrete, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, Mayor Torosis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Hall
PUBLIC HEARINGS:

EV VEHICLE CHARGING

12.A. Introduction and Adoption of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Establishing Standards and Procedures for Light FleetBased Service with Electric Vehicle Charging, was continued to the June 9, 2026, meeting.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

4.J
Packet Pg. 331 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 26, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 13 May 26, 2026

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. Introduce and Adopt an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica to Establish Standards and Procedures of Approval for Light Fleet-Based Service with Electric Vehicle Charging, and Creation of a Use Classification for LightFleet Based Service with Electric Vehicle Charging.

COUNCIL TRAVEL Council had no reports on travel.

COUNCILMEMBER
DISCUSSION ITEMS:

In accordance with Council Rule 6(y), all Councilmember Discussion items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.

ROUTE 66 CENTENNIAL

CELEBRATION

16.A. Request of Councilmembers Zernitskaya and Negrete to approve an expenditure of up to $5,000 of Council discretionary funds to support the Route 66 Centennial celebration on the Santa Monica Pier on June 4, 2026, was presented.

Motion by Councilmember Zernitskaya, seconded by Councilmember Negrete, to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, Mayor Torosis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Hall

VIRGINIA AVENUE

APARTMENTS

REHABILITATION

PROJECT

16.B. A Request from Councilmember Negrete that the City Council Consider Directing the City Manager to engage with CCSM regarding the rehabilitation project at the Virginia Avenue Apartments as outlined in Attachment A, was presented.

Questions included, because the city is the lender, what is within the scope of what the city is able to do under the loan agreement; what is the city’s process for inspection on rehabilitation projects like this.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including asking staff to create a more transparent process, and better communication for not just this project, but from other projects around the city.

Motion by Councilmember Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Zwick, to adopt the recommendation, and include direction to use this as a basis for a framework for other projects, and return in 90 days with a suggested framework, as well as specifics on this project. The motion was approved

4.J
Packet Pg. 332 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 26, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 14 May 26, 2026
by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, Mayor Torosis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Hall
ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m. in memory of Marvin Zeidler.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Denise Anderson-Warren Caroline Torosis
Interim City Clerk Mayor

4.J
Packet Pg. 333 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 26, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 1 July 14, 2026
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 14, 2026
A special meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Torosis at 5:35 p.m., on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Caroline Torosis
Mayor Pro Tem Jesse Zwick (arrived at 5:38 p.m.)
Councilmember Lana Negrete
Councilmember Dan Hall
Councilmember Ellis Raskin
Councilmember Barry Snell
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya
Also Present: City Manager Oliver Chi
City Attorney Heidi von Tongeln
Interim City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:35 p.m., with all members present except Mayor Pro Tem Zwick. Councilmember Raskin led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

STATEMENT OF

ACCOUNTABILITY
(LAND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT)
Mayor Pro Tem Zwick
arrived at 5:38 p.m.

The City of Santa Monica Statement of Accountability (Land Acknowledgement) was read into the record by Councilmember Hall.

LEVINE ACT

DISCLOSURE
No Councilmembers made disclosures regarding the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308).

STAFF

ADMINISTRATIVE
ITEMS:

TRANSIENT

OCCUPANCY TAX

11.A. Council Direction Regarding Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Ordinance Update to Address TOT Assessments for Corporate Room Block Bookings That Extend Beyond 30 Days, was presented.

Recommended Action

1. Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:

2. Direct the City Manager and City Attorney to prepare ballot measure language to update the City’s TOT regulations in order to ensure that

4.K
Packet Pg. 334 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 14, 2026 5:35 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 July 14, 2026
corporate block hotel bookings which extend beyond 30 days are still required to pay the City’s established TOT rate; and

3. Direct that the City Manager and City Attorney bring the proposed measure back for formal review and consideration at the July 28, 2026, City Council meeting, to allow the City Council the option of placing the item on the November 2026 ballot for voter consideration.

Motion by Mayor Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, Mayor Torosis
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council special meeting adjourned at 10:08 p.m.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Denise Anderson-Warren Caroline Torosis
Interim City Clerk Mayor

4.K
Packet Pg. 335 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 14, 2026 5:35 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 28, 2026
Agenda Item: 5.A
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: 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 # 24STCV08239; 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 (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;

5.A
Packet Pg. 336
2 of 2
John OR Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 25STCV16251; John RD Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 25STCV24158; John Doe 71, et al. v. City of Santa Monica, et al., # 25STCV32120; John Doe 76 v. Roe 1, a public entity; et al., # 25STCV32032; John Doe 77 v. City of Santa Monica, et al., # 26STCV07769
Prepared By: Ivan Larios, Legal Assistant
Approved Forwarded to Council

5.A
Packet Pg. 337
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 28, 2026
Agenda Item: 11.A
1 of 7
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Aileen Reynolds, Director, Housing and Human Services Department Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving Membership in the Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust (WSCAHT) Joint Powers Authority 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. Adopt a resolution approving the City’s membership in the Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust (WSCAHT);

3. Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement establishing the WSCAHT; and

4. Appoint one (1) City Council member to serve as the City’s Director and one (1) City Council member to serve as the City’s Alternate Director on the Board of Directors of the Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust.

Executive Summary
In collaboration with three other cities – West Hollywood, Culver City and Beverly Hills - of the Westside Cities Council of Governments (WSCCOG), staff recommends that the City of Santa Monica join the proposed Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust (“WSCAHT” or “Trust”), a regional Joint Powers Authority (JPA) being considered by the member cities of the Westside Cities Council of Governments (WSCCOG), to expand affordable housing financing opportunities through regional collaboration.

The Trust will provide a dedicated structure for receiving, managing, and deploying affordable housing funding resources, specifically Measure A funding, while preserving local control over land use and development decisions. The Trust is intended to help

11.A
Packet Pg. 338
2 of 7
member cities access additional housing resources, leverage regional funding opportunities, provide technical assistance, and support affordable housing production and preservation activities throughout the region.

Membership in the Trust does not obligate the City to approve any housing development, contribute funding to any housing development, waive local land use authority, or assume liability for the Trust’s obligations. Measure A, by way of the Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency (LACAHSA), will cover administrative costs of the Trust for an initial period. The JPA does anticipate that the member cities would be expected to share administrative costs on an annual basis should Measure A funding be insufficient, however that is not anticipated at this time.

BACKGROUND
The WSCCOG received Regional Early Action Planning (REAP 2.0) funding from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to evaluate the feasibility of creating a regional affordable housing trust.

Since the beginning of 2026, WSCCOG staff, housing finance consultants, a Steering Committee consisting of representatives from the four Westside member cities (West Hollywood, Culver City, Beverly Hills and Santa Monica), and local housing developers have evaluated regional housing needs, reviewed affordable housing trust best practices, assessed potential funding opportunities, conducted community and stakeholder outreach, and developed a Strategic Plan, Joint Powers Agreement, and Bylaws for the proposed Trust.

Following this process, the WSCCOG Board recommended formation of the WSCAHT and directed that the JPA be presented to teach member city for independent consideration and action by its respective City Council.

WESTSIDE CITIES AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST
The WSCAHT would be established as a separate public entity pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (the “JPA”), California Government Code Sections 6500 et seq.

11.A
Packet Pg. 339
3 of 7
The mission of the Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust is to expand affordable housing opportunities through financing, technical assistance, and regional collaboration that support participating cities and housing partners in creating, preserving, and improving housing opportunities throughout the Westside region.

The Trust would have authority to:
• Receive and administer public and private funding sources. • Provide grants and loans for affordable housing activities. • Support acquisition, predevelopment, construction, preservation, and homeownership programs.
• Provide technical assistance and project readiness support. • Pursue additional housing funding opportunities on behalf of member jurisdictions.
• Hire legal counsel and employees.
• Contract for professional services or staffing.

The Trust would operate independently from WSCCOG, maintain separate financial records, comply with the Brown Act, conduct annual independent audits, and provide annual public reporting.

GOVERNANCE
The Trust will be governed by a Board of Directors consisting of:
• One elected official appointed by each member agency. • One alternate director appointed by each member agency. • Housing and homelessness policy experts appointed by the WSCAHT Board.

The number of appointed expert members will be one less than the number of elected officials serving on the Board, with a minimum of two expert members. All Board members will have voting authority.

This governance structure is intended to maintain direct local government oversight while incorporating affordable housing and housing finance expertise into Trust

11.A
Packet Pg. 340
4 of 7
decision-making.

FUNDING CONTRIBUTIONS
The Trust Agreement requires each member agency to make annual contributions to fund the administrative costs of the Trust, though all administrative costs will be funded by Measure A funds for the first twelve (12) months following the formation of Trust, to the extent that such funds are available. If Measure A funding is not available, the member agencies will be required to contribute equally pursuant to a formula approved by the Board of Directors of the Trust.

11.A
Packet Pg. 341
5 of 7

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
The Trust’s Strategic Plan establishes four initial Strategic Priorities:

1. Technical Assistance and Pipeline Development
a. Support member cities in identifying, evaluating, and advancing housing opportunities while building a pipeline of viable housing projects.

2. Capital Funding, Deployment and Growth
b. Deploy available funding resources effectively, support housing production and preservation, and pursue additional funding opportunities.

3. Systems, Data and Communications
c. Strengthen organizational transparency, performance measurement, reporting, and public communication regarding Trust activities and outcomes.

4. Regional Partnerships and Member Engagement
d. Strengthen collaboration among member cities, developers, lenders, nonprofit organizations, funding partners, and other housing stakeholders.

Together, these priorities are intended to support housing production, preservation, financing, and long-term organizational sustainability throughout the Westside region.

BENEFITS OF MEMBERSHIP
Membership in the Trust provides several potential benefits:
• Access to regional housing financing programs and funding opportunities. • Increased competitiveness for State, County, Federal, and philanthropic funding resources.
• Technical assistance and housing finance expertise.
• Access to acquisition, predevelopment, and project financing resources. • Regional collaboration and shared best practices.
• Ability to leverage funding through a revolving capital structure. • Shared administrative infrastructure and economies of scale.

11.A
Packet Pg. 342
6 of 7
Collectively, these benefits strengthen each member city’s ability to finance affordable housing, leverage external funding, and advance locally supported housing priorities through regional collaboration.

LOCAL CONTROL
Membership in the Trust does not alter the City’s authority over land use, zoning, planning, entitlement, environmental review, or project approval decisions.

The JPA expressly prohibits the Trust from regulating land use or requiring cities to approve housing developments. In addition, developments seeking Trust funding must first obtain preliminary written support from the host jurisdiction before being considered for funding.

Participation in the Trust does not obligate the City to approve any development, provide local funding, or modify existing land use policies.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This contract is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The agreement is covered by the common sense exemption, which states that CEQA does not apply, “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The action involves approval of the City’s membership with a JPA and does not entail any physical change to the environment. Therefore, it can be stated with certainty that the action will not result in adverse physical environmental impacts and is consequently exempt from CEQA.

FINANCIAL IMPACTS AND BUDGET ACTIONS
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.

11.A
Packet Pg. 343
7 of 7
Administrative costs are anticipated to be funded primarily through Measure A and other eligible funding sources during the Trust's first year of operation.

The JPA does not require member agencies to contribute capital funding to housing developments. If future administrative contributions become necessary, the Trust Board would establish a cost allocation methodology after accounting for available grants and other eligible administrative revenue sources. Any proposed administrative contribution would require Board approval and advance notice to member agencies, providing each agency an opportunity to consider the proposal through its normal budget and decisionmaking process.

The Trust is a separate legal entity, and its debts, liabilities, and obligations are not debts, liabilities, or obligations of its member agencies.

Prepared By: Natalie Verlinich, Acting Director
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution B. Attachment B - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Joint Power Agreement C. PowerPoint Presentation

11.A
Packet Pg. 344
1 City Council Meeting July 28, 2026 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA APPROVING, AUTHORIZING, AND DIRECTING THE CITY’S

EXECUTION OF THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA)

RELATING TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE

WESTSIDE CITIES AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST (WSCAHT)
WHEREAS, the Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust (WSCAHT) is proposed as a joint powers authority between cities throughout the Westside Cities subregion; and WHEREAS, WSCAHT is proposed for the purpose of funding affordable housing specifically assisting persons and families of extremely low, very low, and low income within the County of Los Angeles; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica (the “City”) has determined through its 6th Cycle Housing Element Update that there is great need for the development of affordable housing in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that there are limited financial resources for affordable housing development and that additional local financing increases the competitiveness of individual projects for the State, County, and Federal funding resources; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is in the public interest and for the public benefit to become a member of the WSCAHT to facilitate the development and financing of affordable housing within the City and throughout the region; and WHEREAS, by joining the WSCAHT, the City will collaborate with other member cities to increase funding resources for affordable housing; and

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) 2 WHEREAS, the Agreement has been filed with the City, and the members of the City Council of the City (the “City Council”), with the assistance of its staff, have reviewed the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the WSCAHT is authorized to issue grants and loans to developers for the purpose, among others, of financing or refinancing the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, and permanent financing of affordable housing in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the City anticipates that there will be affordable housing projects in need of financing located in the City that may benefit from participation in WSCAHT ; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City DOES HEREBY RESOLVE as follows:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City’s membership in the Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust (WSCAHT).

SECTION 3. The City Council has reviewed and approves the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement substantially in the form attached (Exhibit 1).

SECTION 4. The adoption of this Resolution shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to (i) provide any financing to acquire, construct or operate any Project or any refinancing of any Project; (ii) approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, improvement, rehabilitation or operation of any Project; (iii) require any contribution or advance any funds whatsoever to the WSCAHT other than approved membership fees for administrative costs as specified in the JPA; or (iv) except as

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) 3 provided in this Resolution, take any further action with respect to the WSCAHT or its membership therein.

SECTION 5. The Mayor, the City Clerk and all other proper officers and officials of the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and to perform such other acts and deeds, as may be necessary or convenient to affect the purposes of this Resolution and the transactions herein authorized.

SECTION 6. Pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, the City Council hereby appoints the following representatives to serve on the Board of Directors of the Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust:

Director: ______________________________________
Alternate Director: _______________________________
These appointments shall remain in effect until modified by subsequent action of the City Council.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall forward a certified copy of this Resolution and an originally executed Agreement to the WSCAHT:

Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust
Attn: Riley O’Brien
801 S. Grand Ave. Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) EXHIBIT 1

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) 1 | P a g e

JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
of the

WESTSIDE CITIES AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST
THIS JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made this ___ day of __________, 2026 (“Effective Date”), by and between the public agencies listed in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (each a “Party” and collectively the “Parties”).

RECITALS
A. The Parties are authorized to and have a strong interest in promoting the health, safety, and welfare of the residents within their geographic boundaries.

B. The Parties acknowledge that the State of California has declared the existence of an affordable housing crisis in communities and regions across the state due to the high cost of housing.

C. The Parties find it in their mutual interest to increase the availability of affordable housing, workforce housing, and supportive housing and to prevent and reduce homelessness in a coordinated manner on a regional level.

D. An adequate supply of housing throughout the Westside subregion of Los Angeles County will provide social and economic benefits to residents and taxpayers of the Parties.

E. California Government Code section 6500 et seq. (the “Joint Exercise of Powers Act”) permits two or more public agencies to create joint powers authorities to exercise powers common to the contracting parties.

F. In 2023, the Legislature amended the Joint Exercise of Powers Act by adding Government Code section 6539.1, which expressly authorizes the creation of regional housing trusts.

G. The Parties desire to create the Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust (“WSCAHT”) as a regional housing trust pursuant to Government Code section 6539.1 for the purpose of receiving, managing, and deploying funds for the development, preservation, and financing of affordable housing.

H. WSCAHT shall perform governmental functions exclusively for public purposes and shall operate as a public entity separate and apart from the Parties.

I. The Parties intend that WSCAHT shall constitute a governmental entity and an instrumentality of its member public agencies, performing essential governmental functions on behalf of such agencies, and that all funds, assets, and activities of WSCAHT shall be used exclusively for public purposes in furtherance of affordable housing.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) 2 | P a g e
Section 1. Creation and Purpose.
(a) Creation of WSCAHT. Pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, including Government Code sections 6500 et seq. and 6539.1, the Parties hereby create a public entity known as the Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust (“WSCAHT” or “Trust”).

WSCAHT shall be a public entity that is separate and apart from the Parties of this Agreement and is responsible for the administration of this agreement. (b) Purpose. The purpose of WSCAHT is to receive, manage, and deploy public and private funding to finance the development and preservation of affordable housing for persons and families of extremely low-, very low-, and low-income, as defined in Section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code.

The Trust may support, finance, or facilitate housing, including but not limited to:
• Permanent supportive housing
• Affordable rental housing
• Affordable ownership housing
• Workforce housing
• Homeless housing solutions
The Trust may accomplish these purposes by engaging in activities including, but not limited to, the following (with further detail provided under Section 3(b)):
• making loans
• providing grants
• issuing bonds or other debt instruments
• entering into public-private partnerships
• preserving existing affordability restrictions.

WSCAHT is intended to operate as a governmental instrumentality of its member agencies, exercising essential governmental functions on their behalf. All activities, funds, and operations of WSCAHT shall be carried out exclusively for public purposes, and no activities shall be conducted for the benefit of any private individual or entity except as incidental to the accomplishment of such public purposes.

Section 2. Term and Termination
(a) Term. This Agreement shall become effective upon approval by the governing bodies of at least three eligible Parties.

The Agreement shall remain in full force until terminated as provided herein.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) 3 | P a g e
(b) Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by agreement of a majority vote of the Parties. Upon termination of this Agreement, WSCAHT shall be dissolved and, after payment of or provision for payment of all liabilities of WSCAHT, the assets of WSCAHT shall be distributed to the Parties in proportion to the contributions of each Party to WSCAHT and the amounts paid by each Party in connection with WSCAHT’s activities.

Section 3. Powers and Duties of WSCAHT.
(a) General Powers. WSCAHT shall have all the powers common to the Parties to this Agreement which are necessary, convenient, specified, or implied, to accomplish the purpose of WSCAHT as set forth in Section 1 hereof, subject to the restrictions set forth in Section 3, subdivision (c) hereof. Said powers shall be exercised in the manner provided in the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, including without limitation as set forth in Government Code section 6539.1, and, except as expressly set forth herein, shall be subject only to such restrictions upon the manner of exercising such powers as are imposed upon the City of Santa Monica, a charter law city, in the exercise of similar powers provided however, that if the City of Santa Monica shall cease to be a member, then the WSCAHT shall be restricted in the exercise of its power in the same manner as the City of Culver City, a charter law city.
(b) Specific Powers. Without limiting the generality of the powers conferred in subdivision (a) of this Section 3, WSCAHT is hereby authorized, in its own name, to do all of the acts necessary or convenient to the accomplishment of the purposes of this Agreement and the full exercise of the powers conferred in subdivision (a) of this Section 3, including but not limited to the following:

1. to make and enter into contracts;

2. to hire employees or contract for staff assistance, including but not limited to contracting with other public agencies;

3. to sue and be sued in its own name;

4. to apply for, accept, and receive grants, loans, and other aids from any agency of the United States of America, the State of California, Los Angeles County, a Party to this Agreement, or any other agency providing funding related to the purposes of this Agreement;

5. to originate, fund, administer, and hold loans, lines of credit, or other financing instruments for the planning, development, preservation, or rehabilitation of affordable housing, including loans that may be secured or unsecured, and including loans secured by deeds of trust, affordability covenants, ground leases, or other security interests in real or personal property.

6. to invest any money in the treasury pursuant to Section 6505.5 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act that is not required for the immediate necessities of WSCAHT, as

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) 4 | P a g e
WSCAHT determines is advisable, in the same manner and upon the same conditions as local agencies, pursuant to Section 53601 of the California Government Code;

7. to apply for letters of credit or other forms of financial guarantees in order to enter into agreements in connection therewith;

8. to incur and discharge debts, liabilities, and obligations, subject to the limitations set forth in this Agreement and to the extent permitted by law;

9. to assume ownership of and assume enforcement obligations and authority for affordability covenants governing a property from another entity in order to preserve the units as affordable;

10. to engage the services of private consultants to render professional and technical assistance and advice in carrying out the purposes of this Agreement;

11. to employ and compensate legal counsel determined appropriate by WSCAHT in carrying out the purposes of this Agreement;

12. to contract for engineering, construction, architectural, accounting, environmental, land use, or other services determined necessary or convenient by WSCAHT in connection with the accomplishment of the purposes of this Agreement;

13. for the purposes of enforcing affordable housing covenants or holding security interests for loans, to take title to, and transfer, sell by installment sale or otherwise, lands, structures, real or personal property, rights, rights-of-way, franchises, easements, and other interests in real or personal property which WSCAHT determines are necessary or convenient in connection with the accomplishment of the purposes of this Agreement;

14. for the purposes of renting space for WSCAHT to operate, to lease to, and to lease from, a Party or any other person or entity, lands, structures, real or personal property, rights, rights-of-way, franchises, easements, and other interests in real or personal property which WSCAHT determines are necessary or convenient in connection with the accomplishment of the purposes of this Agreement;

15. to solicit, accept, receive, administer, and expend donations, charitable contributions, gifts, endowments, or other voluntary financial support from public or private sources, including, without limitation, foundations, nonprofit organizations, corporations, and individuals, provided that all such funds are used exclusively for public purposes consistent with the mission of WSCAHT.

WSCAHT may accept restricted or project-specific donations, provided that:
(a) such restrictions are consistent with WSCAHT’s public purposes; (b) WSCAHT retains full and independent discretion over the ultimate use and allocation of such funds;
(c) no donation shall be accepted that would result in impermissible private benefit or private control over WSCAHT’s decisions; and

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) 5 | P a g e
(d) all funding decisions shall remain subject to approval by the Board of Directors in accordance with applicable law, including the Ralph M. Brown Act.

16. to acquire, hold, or dispose of property, contributions and donations of property, funds, services, and other forms of assistance from persons, firms, corporations, and government entities;

17. to partner with Parties on funding solicitations and other opportunities for the purposes set forth in this Agreement, including but not limited to jointly exercising powers with a Party pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act;

18. to authorize and issue bonds, certificates of participation, or any other debt instrument repayable from funds and financing received and pledged by the WSCAHT.

19. to propose amendments to this Agreement;

20. to the extent not herein specifically provided for, to exercise any and all other powers as may be provided for WSCAHT in the Joint Exercise of Powers Act or any other applicable law; and

21. to carry out and enforce all the provisions of this Agreement. (c) Limitation on Powers. This Agreement does not authorize WSCAHT to do any of the following:

1. Regulate land use within the jurisdiction of any of the Parties;

2. Levy, or advocate or incentivize the levying of, an exaction, including an impact fee, charge, dedication, reservation, or tax assessment, as a condition of approving the funding for or approval of a development project;

3. Require or incentivize inclusionary zoning requirements;

4. Require the Parties to dedicate or assign funding for any WSCAHT obligations or programs;

5. Fund a housing project or program that is not supported by the city or jurisdiction where the project will be sited. Prior to Trust funding consideration, the applicable city or jurisdiction shall have provided preliminary written support from the City Manager, Community Development Director, or equivalent authorized official acknowledging that the applicant may pursue Trust funding for the proposed project.

Such acknowledgment shall not constitute any land use, entitlement, environmental, or other project approval or any pre-commitment from that city or jurisdiction to approve or fund the project. ;

6. Require the Parties to accept or provide any number of housing units as a prerequisite to joining or remaining a member of WSCAHT; and

7. Affect the individual power of each Party separately to implement affordable housing projects and programs generated within its jurisdictional boundaries.

Section 4. Members

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) 6 | P a g e
The members of WSCAHT shall be the Parties to this Agreement, and such other public agencies as may join WSCAHT after execution of this Agreement. New members may join on the terms and conditions set forth in Section 10 hereof. Only the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, and cities within the jurisdiction of the Westside Cities Council of Governments may be a party to this Agreement and a member of WSCAHT.

Section 5. Board of Directors
(a) Selection of Directors. WSCAHT shall be governed by a Board of Directors selected as follows:
a. The WSCAHT shall be governed by a Board of Directors constituted in accordance with applicable provisions of California law governing regional housing trusts, including Government Code 6539.1.
b. The Board of Directors shall consist of not fewer than five (5) members. The governance and control of WSCAHT shall at all times be vested in public officials or individuals appointed by public agencies in accordance with this Agreement, and no private entity shall have the authority to direct or control the actions or decisions of WSCAHT.
c. The Board of Directors shall consist of one (1) elected official appointed by each Member Agency that is a party to this Agreement. The Board shall at all times consist of not fewer than three (3) directors that are elected officials appointed by the Member Agencies, consistent with the minimum number of Member Agencies required for this Agreement to become effective pursuant to Section 2(a). The governance and control of WSCAHT shall at all times be vested in public officials or individuals appointed by public agencies in accordance with this Agreement, and no private entity shall have the authority to direct or control the actions or decisions of WSCAHT. Each Member Agency shall also appoint one of its elected officials as an Alternate Director, who may serve in the absence of the Party’s appointed Director.
d. All directors appointed directly by a Member Agency pursuant to subsection (c) shall be elected officials of a local agency that is a party to this Agreement. Each Member Agency shall determine its own method of appointment, replacement, and removal of its director.
e. In addition to the directors appointed pursuant to subsection (c), the Board shall include individuals with expertise in homeless or housing policy who are not elected officials of a local agency. The number of these appointed expert directors shall be one (1) less than the total number of elected official directors serving on the Board, but in no event fewer than two (2). These expert directors shall be appointed by a majority vote of the elected official directors serving on the Board. f. Any additional directors shall meet the eligibility requirements described above, provided that a majority of the Board of Directors shall remain elected officials from the member agencies.
g. Each Director shall have one (1) vote on matters before the Board.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) 7 | P a g e
h. All Directors must represent a city or county that is a party to the Joint Powers Agreement, unless serving as a housing or homelessness policy expert appointed pursuant to this section.
(b) Board Powers. Subject to the limitations of this Agreement and the laws of the State of California, the powers of WSCAHT shall be vested in and exercised by, and its property and its affairs administered by, the Board of Directors. (c) Advisory Bodies. The Board of Directors may appoint advisory bodies that may include such persons as are designated by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall adopt bylaws that govern the appointment of advisory bodies, should it determine in its discretion to appoint such advisory bodies.
(d) Compensation. Members of the Board shall serve without compensation but shall be entitled to reimbursement for any expenses actually incurred in connection with serving as Director; provided such expenses have been approved by the Board of Directors before they are incurred, and incurred in accordance with any WSCAHT policies or procedures governing the same.
(e) Term. The Parties shall appoint the Directors for the WSCAHT Board of Directors no later than the Effective Date, or at such other time as the Board may determine. Any appointment made prior to the Effective Date shall become effective upon the Effective Date of this Agreement. Each Director shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing Party and may be removed or replaced at any time by that Party. Directors who are elected officials may not continue serving as Directors after ceasing to hold the elected office that qualified them for appointment.

In the event of a vacancy on the Board of Directors, the Party holding the appointment for that Director seat shall select a replacement Director within sixty (60) days of the vacancy. The Board of Directors shall thereafter ratify the appointment of the replacement Director, who shall serve the remainder of the applicable term, if any, unless otherwise determined by the appointing Party.

Each Party shall determine its own procedures for appointment, reappointment, replacement, and removal of its Director consistent with Government Code Section 6539.1 and this Agreement.
(f) Meetings of the Board of Directors.

1. Call, Notice and Conduct of Meetings. All meetings of the Board of Directors, including, without limitation, regular, adjourned regular, special meetings, and adjourned special meetings, shall be called, noticed, held, and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code sections 54950 et seq.

2. Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held at such dates and times as the Board may fix by resolution from time to time. If any day so

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) 8 | P a g e
fixed for a regular meeting shall fall upon a legal holiday, then such regular meeting shall be held on the next succeeding business day at the same hour, unless otherwise determined by the Board. No notice of any regular meeting of the Board of Directors need be given to the individual Directors.

3. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held whenever called by the Chairperson of the Board or by a majority of the Directors. Notice of special meetings shall be provided to all Parties.

4. Quorum. A majority of the Board of Directors shall constitute a quorum at any meeting of the Board, except that less than a quorum may adjourn a meeting to another time and place. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or required by applicable law, actions and decisions of the Board of Directors may be taken by a majority of the quorum present at any meeting.

5. Minutes. The Board of Directors shall cause minutes of all regular, adjourned regular, and special meetings to be kept and presented to the Board for approval at a subsequent meeting.

6. Officers. The Board of Directors shall elect a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson from among its Directors at the first meeting held in each calendar year. In the event that the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson so elected ceases to be a Director, the resulting vacancy shall be filled at the next regular meeting of the Board of Directors held after such vacancy occurs or at a special meeting called for that purpose. In the absence or inability of the Chairperson to act, the Vice Chairperson shall act as Chairperson. The Chairperson, or in the Chairperson’s absence, the Vice Chairperson, shall preside at and conduct all Board of Directors’ meetings.

7. Rules and Regulations. The Board of Directors may adopt, from time to time, by resolution, such rules, regulations, and bylaws for the conduct of its meetings and affairs as the Board determines are necessary or convenient.

Section 6. Staff and Treasurer
(a) Staff

1. WSCAHT may contract with a Party or the WSCCOG for staff services pursuant to Section 6(d), hire its own employees, or retain independent contractors, agents, or volunteers as the Board of Directors may deem necessary to carry out any of WSCAHT’s powers, upon such terms and conditions as the Board may require, including without limitation the retaining of professional and technical assistance, provided that adequate funds are available in WSCAHT’s budget and are appropriated by WSCAHT therefor.

2. None of the officers, agents, or staff, if any, directly contracted by WSCAHT shall be deemed, by reason of their roles or duties or contracted status, to be employed by the Parties.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) 9 | P a g e
(b) Treasurer and Auditor/Controller. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 6505.5 and 6505.6, the Board of Directors shall appoint either one person to serve in both capacities, or separate persons, to serve as Treasurer and Auditor/Controller of WSCAHT. Such appointee or appointees may be officers or employees of WSCAHT, officers or employees of a Party, or certified public accountants, as authorized by the Government Code.

This provision is intended to be consistent with and implement the requirements of Government Code Sections 6505, 6505.1, 6505.5, and 6505.6, including any subsequent amendments thereto. The Treasurer and Auditor/Controller shall perform the duties required by applicable law, including maintaining strict accountability over WSCAHT funds and reporting all receipts and disbursements.

The Treasurer and Auditor/Controller shall file any bond required by the Board of Directors in the amount established by the Board. Any premiums attributable to such bond shall constitute an expense of WSCAHT.
(c) Attorney. The Board of Directors shall have the power to appoint one or more legal advisors to WSCAHT who shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by the Board. (d) Administrative Services and Reimbursement of Costs.

1. The Board of Directors may contract with a Party to provide necessary administrative services to WSCAHT, including the services described in Section 6(a), (b) and (c). The amount charged by the Party to provide such services to WSCAHT shall be fixed by agreement between the Board of Directors and the governing body of the Party providing such services. In the absence of an agreement on costs, the Party providing services to WSCAHT under this Section 6 may charge WSCAHT the amounts necessary to recover all direct and indirect costs of such services.

2. If WSCAHT contracts with a Party to provide WSCAHT with administrative services through persons who are employees and officers of the Party, then any retirement liabilities associated with that Party’s employees and officers shall not constitute a liability of WSCAHT or any other Party. This Section 6(d)(2) shall not preclude a Party providing administrative services to WSCAHT pursuant to a contract with WSCAHT from accounting for such salary and benefit costs when negotiating the rates that the Party will charge WSCAHT for providing such services.

Section 7. Financial Provisions
(a) Fiscal Year. The Fiscal Year of WSCAHT shall, unless and until changed by the Board of Directors, commence on the 1st day of July of each year and shall end on the 30th day of June of the succeeding year except that the initial Fiscal Year of WSCAHT shall commence on the Effective Date and end on the immediately following 30th day of June. (b) Budget.

1. General Budget. Within one hundred and twenty days (120) after the first meeting of the Board of Directors, a general budget for the first fiscal year shall be adopted by the vote

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) 10 | P a g e
of a majority of the total membership of the Board of Directors. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and in order to align with the fiscal year schedule described in 7(a), the initial budget period may cover less than a full fiscal year or may be combined with the subsequent fiscal year, at the discretion of the Board. The budget shall distinguish between administrative costs (i.e., the cost of operating WSCAHT) and Program costs (i.e., the financing of the programs funded or sponsored by WSCAHT). Thereafter, at or prior to the last meeting of the Board of Directors for each fiscal year, a general budget shall be adopted for the ensuing fiscal year or years by a vote of at least a majority of the total membership of the Board.

2. Expenditures for the Approved Budget. The payment of all WSCAHT obligations is limited to the amount of appropriations allowed in WSCAHT’s approved budget, except as it may be revised with the approval of a majority of the total membership of the Board of Directors.
(c) Contributions by the Parties.

1. Administrative Cost Contributions. In consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Parties agree to make annual contributions (each a “Fee” and collectively, the “Fees”) toward the budgeted administrative costs of WSCAHT as set forth in a duly adopted resolution of the Board of Directors.

Initial Funding Period. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for the first twelve (12) months following the formation of WSCAHT, all administrative costs shall be funded entirely from Measure A funds, to the extent such funds are available and eligible for such use, as determined by the Board of Directors.

Ongoing Cost Allocation. Thereafter, to the extent the Board of Directors determines that additional funding is necessary to support the administrative operation of the WSCAHT, the Parties shall share the administrative costs of WSCAHT remaining after accounting for all eligible administrative revenue, including but not limited to grants and other external funding sources available to WSCAHT. Such remaining costs shall be allocated among the Parties pursuant to a formula approved by the Board of Directors.

Annual Assessment. Fees and assessments, if any, shall be determined and assessed on an annual basis. The Board of Directors shall establish the amount and allocation of such Fees each fiscal year as it deems financially prudent and consistent with the adopted budget. WSCAHT shall provide member agencies with reasonable advance notice of any proposed Fees or assessments in order to allow sufficient time for consideration and incorporation into each member agency’s budget process. The Board of Directors may establish additional policies and procedures regarding the timing, calculation, adoption, and payment of Fees and assessments.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) 11 | P a g e
Payment Terms. Payment of the Fees shall be due within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice from WSCAHT. Each invoice shall indicate the basis upon which the Fees were calculated.

2. Form of Contribution. A Party’s contribution shall be in the form of money unless the Board of Directors approves another form of contribution, including services, personal property, use of real or personal property, or other in-kind contributions. The acceptance and valuation of any non-monetary contribution, and the extent to which it offsets a Party’s Fee obligation, shall be determined in the sole and absolute discretion of the Board of Directors.

3. Program Cost Contribution. The particular programs and program budget, funded, sponsored, or operated by WSCAHT, as well as the level of and mechanisms for the involvement of WSCAHT and each Party, in such programs and program budget, shall be determined and approved by the Board of Directors.
(d) Accounts and Reports.

1. Books and Records. There shall be strict accountability of all WSCAHT funds and accounts, and a report of all WSCAHT receipts and disbursements. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, WSCAHT shall establish and maintain such funds and accounts as may be required by good government accounting practice. The books and records of WSCAHT shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by each Party and its duly authorized representatives.

2. Annual Audit. The person appointed by the Board of Directors to perform the auditor function for WSCAHT shall cause an annual independent audit of the accounts and records of WSCAHT and records to be made by a certified public accountant or firm of certified public accountants in accordance with Government Code section 6505. Such audits shall be delivered to each Party and shall be made available to the public. Any material audit findings or significant accounting deficiencies identified through the annual audit shall be presented to the Board of Directors and addressed in accordance with applicable law and generally accepted public agency financial and auditing practices.

3. Annual Financial Report. Pursuant to section 6539.9(d) of the Government Code, WSCAHT shall publish an Annual Financial Report that shall describe the funds received by WSCAHT and the use of such funds by WSCAHT. The Annual Financial Report shall describe how the funds received by WSCAHT have furthered the purposes of WSCAHT.
(e) Funds. Subject to the applicable provisions of any instrument or agreement which WSCAHT may enter into, which may provide for a trustee or other fiscal agent to receive, have custody of and disburse WSCAHT funds, the person appointed by the Board of Directors to perform the Treasurer function for WSCAHT shall receive, have the custody of and disburse WSCAHT funds in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, shall make the

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) 12 | P a g e
disbursements required by this Agreement in order to carry out any of the provisions or purposes of this Agreement.

Section 8. Amendments.
(a) This Agreement may be amended or modified with the approval of a majority of all the Parties through formal action approving such an amendment by the Parties’ respective governing bodies.
(b) No addition to, or alteration of, the terms of this Agreement, whether by written or oral understanding of the Parties, their officers, employees, or agents, shall be valid or effective unless made in the form of a written amendment which is formally adopted and executed by the Parties as provided in subparagraph (a) of this Section.

Section 9. Non-Liability for Obligations of WSCAHT.
(a) The debts, liabilities, and obligations of WSCAHT shall not be considered the debts, liabilities, and obligations of any of the Parties or their respective officers, employees, agents, or volunteers, or the personal debts, liabilities, and obligations or the Directors, officers or employees of WSCAHT.

1. Indemnification. The WSCAHT shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless each Party, and its respective officers, elected officials, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (the “Indemnitees”) from and against any loss, injury, claim, lawsuit, liability, expense, or damages of any kind or nature (collectively, “Claims”) brought by a third party which arises out of or in connection with WSCAHT’s administration of or performance under this Agreement, including such third party claims arising out of or in connection with any Indemnitees acting within their authorized capacity as an officer, elected official, agent, employee, representative or volunteer of WSCAHT. The WSCAHT’s duty to defend and indemnify under this Section shall not extend to Claims otherwise arising out of the Indemnitees’ own gross negligence, or willful misconduct, whether in whole or in part. The WSCAHT shall maintain adequate liability protection, as determined by the Board of Directors through one or more of the following: (i) a liability reserve fund, (ii) purchasing commercial insurance, or (iii) by joining a joint powers insurance authority (JPIA). In the event the WSCAHT’s financial obligations to indemnify, defend and hold harmless, pursuant to this Subsection, exceed the liability reserve fund and/or the proceeds from any applicable insurance and/or JPIA coverage maintained by the WSCAHT (hereinafter “Unfunded Liability”), a Party or Parties may meet and confer with WSCAHT in good faith to negotiate alternative means or mechanisms by which WSCAHT may fund such Unfunded Liability; however, in no event shall the event of an Unfunded Liability relieve, limit or waive WSCAHT’s obligations of indemnity or defense to each Party as first set forth above in this Section.

Nothing herein shall obligate any Party to indemnify or hold harmless WSCAHT for any Unfunded Liability.

2. Assignment. Each Party shall assign to the WSCAHT its rights, title, and interest to recover damages from any third party for Claims arising out of this Agreement, to the

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) 13 | P a g e
extent that the WSCAHT has met its obligations to defend and indemnify such Party pursuant to this Section.

3. Survival. WSCAHT’s duty to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall survive and continue in full force and effect after withdrawal of any Party from this Agreement, including as to the withdrawing Party, or termination of this Agreement for any reason with respect to any Claims that occurred before the date of such withdrawal or termination.

Section 10. Admission and Withdrawal of Parties.
(a) Admission of New Parties. An eligible public agency may become a Party to the Trust upon approval by its governing body and adoption of the JPA.

If an eligible public agency joins more than one (1) year after the Effective Date, it shall be required to pay a late joining fee. The late joining fee shall be equal to the total amount of annual administrative contributions the entity would have paid had it been a Party since the Effective Date, in alignment with Section 7(c); provided, however, that such fee shall not exceed four (4) years' worth of cumulative administrative cost contributions.

For a period of twelve (12) months following admission of a late joining public agency, the Board of Directors may prioritize projects, programs, or funding allocations located within or benefiting existing Parties over projects, programs, or funding allocations located within or benefiting the late joining public agency. After such twelve (12) month period, the late joining public agency shall be eligible for participation in WSCAHT programs and funding opportunities on the same basis as all other Parties.

Payment shall be due within 30 days of receipt of an invoice from WSCAHT. (b) Withdrawal from WSCAHT. A Party may withdraw from WSCAHT at any time upon its governing body’s adoption of a resolution stating the Party’s intent to withdraw from WSCAHT and written notice of withdrawal accompanied by an executed copy of the resolution of intent to the WSCAHT. The withdrawal of any Party, unless otherwise provided by the Board of Directors, shall be subject to the following prerequisites and conditions:

1. The withdrawal shall be effective immediately upon receipt by the WSCAHT of the written notice of withdrawal, subject to subsection (2) below.

2. If the withdrawal notice is received by the WSCAHT less than ninety (90) days before the start of a fiscal year or after the commencement of a fiscal year but before payment of that year’s Section 7(c) Fee, the withdrawal shall not be effective unless and until the withdrawing Party has fully paid that fiscal year’s contribution; otherwise, the notice of withdrawal shall be null and void.

3. Unless otherwise provided by a unanimous vote of the Board of Directors, withdrawal shall result in the forfeiture of that Party’s rights and claims relating to distribution of

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) 14 | P a g e
property and funds upon termination of WSCAHT as set forth in Section 2 above.

Withdrawn members shall not be entitled to any reimbursement of Fees.

4. Withdrawal of a Party will not relieve that Party of prior financial obligations of liabilities unless otherwise approved by the Board.

Section 11. Notices.
(a) Notices required or permitted hereunder shall be sufficiently given if made in writing and delivered either personally or by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to the persons and entities listed at the addresses set forth in Exhibit A, or to such other address as may be designated in writing to WSCAHT for formal notice.

Section 12. Miscellaneous.
(a) Section Headings. The section headings herein are for convenience only and are not to be construed as modifying or governing or in any manner affecting the scope, meaning or intent of the provisions or language of this Agreement. (b) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all together shall constitute but one and the same Agreement.
(c) Laws Governing. This Agreement is made in the State of California under the Constitution and laws of such State and shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of California.
(d) Severability. Should any part, term, portion or provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, be held to be illegal or in conflict with any law of the State of California, or otherwise be rendered unenforceable or ineffectual it shall be deemed severable, and the reminder of this Agreement or the application thereof to other persons or circumstances shall continue to constitute the Agreement the Parties intended to enter into in the first instance.
(e) Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors of the respective Parties. No Party may assign any right or obligation hereunder without the written consent of a majority of the other Parties.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed and attested by their duly authorized officers as follows:

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) 15 | P a g e
(NAME OF CITY)
______________________________
BY: (NAME/TITLE OF CITY OFFICER)
Dated: ___________________________
ATTEST:
___________________________________________
(NAME) City Clerk Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: __________________________________________
(NAME) City Attorney Date

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) 16 | P a g e

EXHIBIT A
Parties to this Agreement and their Addresses for notice pursuant to Section 11 are as follows:

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Attachment A - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Resolution [Revision 2] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) 1 | P a g e

JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
of the

RECITALS
A. The Parties are authorized to and have a strong interest in promoting the health, safety, and welfare of the residents within their geographic boundaries.

B. The Parties acknowledge that the State of California has declared the existence of an affordable housing crisis in communities and regions across the state due to the high cost of housing.

D. An adequate supply of housing throughout the Westside subregion of Los Angeles County will provide social and economic benefits to residents and taxpayers of the Parties.

F. In 2023, the Legislature amended the Joint Exercise of Powers Act by adding Government Code section 6539.1, which expressly authorizes the creation of regional housing trusts.

H. WSCAHT shall perform governmental functions exclusively for public purposes and shall operate as a public entity separate and apart from the Parties.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Attachment B - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Joint Power Agreement [Revision 1] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing 2 | P a g e
Section 1. Creation and Purpose.
(a) Creation of WSCAHT. Pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, including Government Code sections 6500 et seq. and 6539.1, the Parties hereby create a public entity known as the Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust (“WSCAHT” or “Trust”).

Section 2. Term and Termination
(a) Term. This Agreement shall become effective upon approval by the governing bodies of at least three eligible Parties.

The Agreement shall remain in full force until terminated as provided herein.

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Attachment B - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Joint Power Agreement [Revision 1] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing 3 | P a g e
(b) Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by agreement of a majority vote of the Parties. Upon termination of this Agreement, WSCAHT shall be dissolved and, after payment of or provision for payment of all liabilities of WSCAHT, the assets of WSCAHT shall be distributed to the Parties in proportion to the contributions of each Party to WSCAHT and the amounts paid by each Party in connection with WSCAHT’s activities.

1. to make and enter into contracts;

2. to hire employees or contract for staff assistance, including but not limited to contracting with other public agencies;

3. to sue and be sued in its own name;

6. to invest any money in the treasury pursuant to Section 6505.5 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act that is not required for the immediate necessities of WSCAHT, as

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Attachment B - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Joint Power Agreement [Revision 1] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing 4 | P a g e
WSCAHT determines is advisable, in the same manner and upon the same conditions as local agencies, pursuant to Section 53601 of the California Government Code;

7. to apply for letters of credit or other forms of financial guarantees in order to enter into agreements in connection therewith;

8. to incur and discharge debts, liabilities, and obligations, subject to the limitations set forth in this Agreement and to the extent permitted by law;

9. to assume ownership of and assume enforcement obligations and authority for affordability covenants governing a property from another entity in order to preserve the units as affordable;

10. to engage the services of private consultants to render professional and technical assistance and advice in carrying out the purposes of this Agreement;

11. to employ and compensate legal counsel determined appropriate by WSCAHT in carrying out the purposes of this Agreement;

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Attachment B - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Joint Power Agreement [Revision 1] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing 5 | P a g e
(d) all funding decisions shall remain subject to approval by the Board of Directors in accordance with applicable law, including the Ralph M. Brown Act.

16. to acquire, hold, or dispose of property, contributions and donations of property, funds, services, and other forms of assistance from persons, firms, corporations, and government entities;

18. to authorize and issue bonds, certificates of participation, or any other debt instrument repayable from funds and financing received and pledged by the WSCAHT.

19. to propose amendments to this Agreement;

20. to the extent not herein specifically provided for, to exercise any and all other powers as may be provided for WSCAHT in the Joint Exercise of Powers Act or any other applicable law; and

21. to carry out and enforce all the provisions of this Agreement. (c) Limitation on Powers. This Agreement does not authorize WSCAHT to do any of the following:

1. Regulate land use within the jurisdiction of any of the Parties;

3. Require or incentivize inclusionary zoning requirements;

4. Require the Parties to dedicate or assign funding for any WSCAHT obligations or programs;

Such acknowledgment shall not constitute any land use, entitlement, environmental, or other project approval or any pre-commitment from that city or jurisdiction to approve or fund the project. ;

6. Require the Parties to accept or provide any number of housing units as a prerequisite to joining or remaining a member of WSCAHT; and

7. Affect the individual power of each Party separately to implement affordable housing projects and programs generated within its jurisdictional boundaries.

Section 4. Members

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Attachment B - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Joint Power Agreement [Revision 1] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing 6 | P a g e
The members of WSCAHT shall be the Parties to this Agreement, and such other public agencies as may join WSCAHT after execution of this Agreement. New members may join on the terms and conditions set forth in Section 10 hereof. Only the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, and cities within the jurisdiction of the Westside Cities Council of Governments may be a party to this Agreement and a member of WSCAHT.

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Attachment B - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Joint Power Agreement [Revision 1] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing 7 | P a g e
h. All Directors must represent a city or county that is a party to the Joint Powers Agreement, unless serving as a housing or homelessness policy expert appointed pursuant to this section.
(b) Board Powers. Subject to the limitations of this Agreement and the laws of the State of California, the powers of WSCAHT shall be vested in and exercised by, and its property and its affairs administered by, the Board of Directors. (c) Advisory Bodies. The Board of Directors may appoint advisory bodies that may include such persons as are designated by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall adopt bylaws that govern the appointment of advisory bodies, should it determine in its discretion to appoint such advisory bodies.
(d) Compensation. Members of the Board shall serve without compensation but shall be entitled to reimbursement for any expenses actually incurred in connection with serving as Director; provided such expenses have been approved by the Board of Directors before they are incurred, and incurred in accordance with any WSCAHT policies or procedures governing the same.
(e) Term. The Parties shall appoint the Directors for the WSCAHT Board of Directors no later than the Effective Date, or at such other time as the Board may determine. Any appointment made prior to the Effective Date shall become effective upon the Effective Date of this Agreement. Each Director shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing Party and may be removed or replaced at any time by that Party. Directors who are elected officials may not continue serving as Directors after ceasing to hold the elected office that qualified them for appointment.

2. Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held at such dates and times as the Board may fix by resolution from time to time. If any day so

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Attachment B - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Joint Power Agreement [Revision 1] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing 8 | P a g e
fixed for a regular meeting shall fall upon a legal holiday, then such regular meeting shall be held on the next succeeding business day at the same hour, unless otherwise determined by the Board. No notice of any regular meeting of the Board of Directors need be given to the individual Directors.

5. Minutes. The Board of Directors shall cause minutes of all regular, adjourned regular, and special meetings to be kept and presented to the Board for approval at a subsequent meeting.

Section 6. Staff and Treasurer
(a) Staff

2. None of the officers, agents, or staff, if any, directly contracted by WSCAHT shall be deemed, by reason of their roles or duties or contracted status, to be employed by the Parties.

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Attachment B - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Joint Power Agreement [Revision 1] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing 9 | P a g e
(b) Treasurer and Auditor/Controller. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 6505.5 and 6505.6, the Board of Directors shall appoint either one person to serve in both capacities, or separate persons, to serve as Treasurer and Auditor/Controller of WSCAHT. Such appointee or appointees may be officers or employees of WSCAHT, officers or employees of a Party, or certified public accountants, as authorized by the Government Code.

1. General Budget. Within one hundred and twenty days (120) after the first meeting of the Board of Directors, a general budget for the first fiscal year shall be adopted by the vote

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Attachment B - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Joint Power Agreement [Revision 1] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing 10 | P a g e
of a majority of the total membership of the Board of Directors. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and in order to align with the fiscal year schedule described in 7(a), the initial budget period may cover less than a full fiscal year or may be combined with the subsequent fiscal year, at the discretion of the Board. The budget shall distinguish between administrative costs (i.e., the cost of operating WSCAHT) and Program costs (i.e., the financing of the programs funded or sponsored by WSCAHT). Thereafter, at or prior to the last meeting of the Board of Directors for each fiscal year, a general budget shall be adopted for the ensuing fiscal year or years by a vote of at least a majority of the total membership of the Board.

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Attachment B - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Joint Power Agreement [Revision 1] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing 11 | P a g e
Payment Terms. Payment of the Fees shall be due within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice from WSCAHT. Each invoice shall indicate the basis upon which the Fees were calculated.

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Attachment B - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Joint Power Agreement [Revision 1] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing 12 | P a g e
disbursements required by this Agreement in order to carry out any of the provisions or purposes of this Agreement.

Nothing herein shall obligate any Party to indemnify or hold harmless WSCAHT for any Unfunded Liability.

2. Assignment. Each Party shall assign to the WSCAHT its rights, title, and interest to recover damages from any third party for Claims arising out of this Agreement, to the

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Attachment B - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Joint Power Agreement [Revision 1] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing 13 | P a g e
extent that the WSCAHT has met its obligations to defend and indemnify such Party pursuant to this Section.

Section 10. Admission and Withdrawal of Parties.
(a) Admission of New Parties. An eligible public agency may become a Party to the Trust upon approval by its governing body and adoption of the JPA.

1. The withdrawal shall be effective immediately upon receipt by the WSCAHT of the written notice of withdrawal, subject to subsection (2) below.

3. Unless otherwise provided by a unanimous vote of the Board of Directors, withdrawal shall result in the forfeiture of that Party’s rights and claims relating to distribution of

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Attachment B - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Joint Power Agreement [Revision 1] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing 14 | P a g e
property and funds upon termination of WSCAHT as set forth in Section 2 above.

Withdrawn members shall not be entitled to any reimbursement of Fees.

4. Withdrawal of a Party will not relieve that Party of prior financial obligations of liabilities unless otherwise approved by the Board.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed and attested by their duly authorized officers as follows:

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Attachment B - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Joint Power Agreement [Revision 1] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing 15 | P a g e
(NAME OF CITY)
______________________________
BY: (NAME/TITLE OF CITY OFFICER)
Dated: ___________________________
ATTEST:
___________________________________________
(NAME) City Clerk Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: __________________________________________
(NAME) City Attorney Date

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Attachment B - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Joint Power Agreement [Revision 1] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing 16 | P a g e

EXHIBIT A
Parties to this Agreement and their Addresses for notice pursuant to Section 11 are as follows:

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Attachment B - Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust Joint Power Agreement [Revision 1] (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing

SANTA MONICA COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 28, 2026 - 5:30 PM
This Project is funded and managed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) with Regional Early Action Program 2021 grant funding from the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust
Task 10.4 – City Informational Meetings
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust)

PROPOSED TRUST MEMBER CITIES
Trust Member Cities
could include:
- Beverly Hills
- Culver City
- Santa Monica
- West Hollywood
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust)

FORMATION

PROCESS
Resolution
Staff Report
& Resolution
• COG
Recommendation
• Cities Approval
JPA
Joint Powers
Agreement
• Purpose
• Term &
Termination
• Powers & Duties
• Members,
Admission, &
Withdrawal
• Board of
Directors
• Financial
Provisions
Bylaws
Trust Bylaws
• Board structure
• Terms &
vacancies
• Duties
• Meetings, Voting
• Code of
Conduct
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust)

TRUST BOARD
SB 20 requires Trust board
include least three (3) elected
members from the Trust
member cities, and at least
two (2) technical board
member.

Trust Board planned to have
seven (7) total members, with
one director per member city
and three (3) technical
members.

Technical board members
have voting rights per the JPA
Technical members will be
appointed to the Trust Board
by the City-representative
Trust Board members.

Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust)

AFFORDABLE

HOUSING TRUST
Member Cities will not pay to join the Trust. Funding to support general administrative expenses are anticipated to come from Measure A & other sources being explored.

Will not create higher/additional taxes. Trust will utilize existing funding sources for its programs.

Trust will more effectively & quickly deploy funding in amounts that are impactful to affordable housing projects while balancing geographic equity.

By pooling resources while maintain local decision-making authority, Trust Member Cities can advance housing solutions that reflect community priorities and unlock housing opportunities on public and private land.

Trust programs will source/deploy expertise in RFPs, Site Evaluations, Affordable Housing services, etc. without increases to City costs and needed Staff time.

Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust)

TRUST STRATEGIC PLAN
Create Deals: Technical Assistance & Pipeline
Development
Finance Deals: Capital Funding, Deployment & Growth
Track & Communicate
Deals: Systems, Data & Communications
Build Relationships to
Enable Deals:

Regional Partnerships & Member
Engagement
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) PROJECTED FY 26-27 TRUST FUNDING
Funding Source Annual Funding Amount
Proposed Operating Budget $470,492
PPO – Admin $264,992
Technical Assistance (TA) $205,500
Est. NOFA Amount Up to $7,976,194
LACAHSA PPO FY 25-26 $3,667,435
LACAHSA PPO FY 26-27 $4,308,759
• LACAHSA Funding Amounts are dependent on sales tax revenue generation. • Funding amounts are contingent on all four cities joining the Trust. COG action is needed if one of the four cities does not join the Trust.

Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust)

TRUST FORMATION TIMELINE
7/21
Beverly Hills
City Council
Study Session
7/28
Santa Monica
Council Meeting
8/13
WSCCOG
Regular Board
Meeting
8/17
West Hollywood
Council Meeting
Aug/Sept
Culver City
Council Meeting
Aug/Sept
Beverly Hills
City Council
Meeting
~Sept
Trust Board Mtg:

Issue NOFA &
Admin
~Oct
Trust Board Mtg:

Admin Policies
~Nov
Trust Board Mtg:

Project Funding
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) OPEN

DISCUSSION
+
Q&A
Contact Information:

Dima Galkin
Email: [email protected]
Zaire Marin
Email: [email protected]
Thank you!
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7625 : 11A. WSCCOG Housing Trust) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 28, 2026
Agenda Item: 11.B
1 of 15
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Aileen Reynolds, Director, Housing and Human Services Department Subject: Authorization to Enter into Certain Agreements and Provide Further Direction to Staff Related to a Housing Focused System of Care
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council consider and take the following actions:

1. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with the owner of The Palm Motel for the provision of rooms to operate interim stabilization housing for individuals and households who meet the Santa Monica Program Participant (SMPP) definition;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with The People Concern for on-site operations and supportive services at The Palm Motel;

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with The Salvation Army to fund the activation of shelter beds and supportive services at the Bell Shelter;

4. Approve exceptions to competitive bidding ECB #496, #498498, and #500500 pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.24.240(i), as further described in this report;

5. Direct staff to complete the Request for Expression of Interest (RFEI) process to identify additional non-congregate interim housing locations in and around Santa Monica, and transition away from SaMoShel’s congregate style sheltering facility concurrent with the RFEI process;

6. Adopt a finding of statutory exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.10(c);

7. Authorize budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts and Budget Actions section. (Requires five votes)
Executive Summary
The homeless response system in Los Angeles County is undergoing its most significant restructuring in a generation. Over the past fifteen months, LA County has

11.B
Packet Pg. 390
2 of 15
voted to withdraw its funding from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA); established a new County Department of Homeless Services & Housing to take over that work; and approved deep funding reductions to regional homeless services in the face of a structural budget shortfall. Further, as of June 2026, the region’s homeless response system has had to absorb the federal government’s suspension of funding to LAHSA and the Los Angeles Continuum of Care. Against that backdrop, LA County has also been explicit that it is consolidating and redirecting its homeless response efforts.

For Santa Monica, the implication of these LA County / LAHSA related program changes is direct. If we simply maintain the status quo while the regional system is reordered and defunded, our local outcomes will suffer, both in how we support the unhoused population in our community, and in our efforts to reduce disorder in our neighborhoods and commercial districts.

The City is prepared for this moment. Through work undertaken over the past several years – including the 2022 Moss Adams assessment, the 2025 Homelessness Strategic Plan, and the Realignment Plan – we have identified the need to transition away from a crisis response model and towards a redesigned housing outcomes model.

Our current circumstances make the need to transition towards a new plan more urgent.

For more than three decades, the City’s only dedicated sheltering resource has been SaMoShel, a 60-bed congregate facility Downtown with no direct links to interim or permanent housing options. Today, any progress an individual makes through the rehousing system depends on the service provider navigating a fragmented system of facilities and waitlists controlled by a variety of jurisdictions.

Staff has synthesized and assessed the available options, and we are recommending that the City build a new local continuum, which we have called the Housing Focused System of Care. The proposed system creates an interconnected model, controlled by the City, through which individuals experiencing homelessness in Santa Monica can stabilize, heal, and ultimately achieve permanent self-sufficiency.

11.B
Packet Pg. 391
3 of 15
Realizing that model requires three linked housing typologies, including stabilization housing, interim housing, and permanent housing. Further, the proper support services will need to be built into each step, and the City will need to be able to control access into each type of housing, so that people can move through the overarching system effectively.

The system has also been intentionally designed so that accountability for results rests with the City. Per the proposed plan, Santa Monica would decide who is placed into the system and where, and Santa Monica would direct the support services, on-site security, and good neighbor commitments instituted at every location. Paired with our intervention and outreach teams and law enforcement efforts, the system is built to advance the Realignment Plan priorities of Achieving Safe Neighborhoods & Clean Streets; Activating Economic Opportunity & Growth; and Developing Affordable, Livable, & Secure Housing For All.

In late March 2026, as part of the Realignment Plan Update, the City Council directed staff to conduct comprehensive community engagement on the proposed system and to use that outreach to identify an implementation pathway. That engagement, which has included fourteen community meetings held between April and July 2026, is now complete, and staff is returning to Council with a proposed pathway comprised of three separate but coordinated actions:
• First, preserve The Palm Motel as interim stabilization housing. LA County is planning to defund the program currently operating at the site, and rather than lose that resource, staff proposes bringing the facility under City control as part of the Housing Focused System of Care, in order to serve Santa Monica Program Participants (SMPP) only, with the City (and not LA County) determining placements, services, security, and good neighbor policies.

11.B
Packet Pg. 392
4 of 15
• Second, invest in the regional response by funding The Salvation Army to activate currently unfunded shelter beds at the Bell Shelter. Homelessness is not confined to any single jurisdiction, and this investment would allow any jurisdiction in Los Angeles County that works with The Salvation Army to access the newly activated beds.
• Third, issue an RFEI to identify additional non-congregate interim housing options in and around Santa Monica. Those facilities, once identified, will replace SaMoShel’s congregate model, add capacity to our system, and complete the local continuum.

Ultimately, the Housing Focused System of Care seeks to pair local ownership of housing resources with investment into regional assets, in order to build the system Santa Monica needs while also supporting the regional response effort upon which every community ultimately depends.

Background
A Regional System in Transition
The development of a new local system of care responds in significant part to the ongoing restructuring of the regional homeless response system. In April 2025, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to withdraw hundreds of millions of dollars in Measure A funding from LAHSA (the joint city-county authority that has coordinated regional homeless services for more than three decades), and to establish a new County Department of Homeless Services and Housing. However, in July 2025, facing a substantial budgetary shortfall, LA County approved nearly $200 million in reductions to homeless services, including cuts to outreach and navigation programs.

Compounding the situation, in June 2026, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced the suspension of federal funding to LAHSA and the Los Angeles Continuum of Care, placing further strain on the regional system.

11.B
Packet Pg. 393
5 of 15
The practical effect of these shifts is being felt in local jurisdictions across the County.

There have been service level disruptions, uncertainty about which regional programs will continue, and a service delivery model deployed in local communities without local control over placements, standards, or operations. Programs that the City has depended upon, including the County’s Pathway Home interim housing program operating at The Palm Motel in Santa Monica, are set to end as County resources are redirected.

For Santa Monica, one of the key lessons that we have identified from this period of transition is that the City must own the system of care that operates within our borders.

Santa Monica’s Path to This Proposal
The plan before Council is rooted in analysis conducted over the past several years. In 2022, the City commissioned a homelessness study from Moss Adams, which evaluated Santa Monica’s homelessness intervention and prevention efforts. To implement the recommendations contained in that study, in 2023 Council authorized the development of a citywide homelessness strategic plan. The City partnered with BerryDunn to develop that plan in an effort to set clear policy direction, promote alignment across City stakeholders, and support regional efforts.

The Homelessness Strategic Plan (HSP) was developed and brought to Council, with the document ultimately being published in March 2025 (Attachment A).

More recently, in October 2025, the City adopted the Realignment Plan (Attachment B).

That plan identified the impacts of homelessness on Santa Monica and specifically called for implementing the HSP in a way that reimagined the City’s existing sheltering service delivery model. In place of SaMoShel, the Realignment Plan called for establishing a new system that prioritizes a healing center model, in which initial sheltering options are paired with addiction treatment and mental health services, and a direct link is created that allows those recovering from homelessness to move from sheltering into transitional and permanent housing options.

11.B
Packet Pg. 394
6 of 15
In late March 2026, staff returned to Council with an update on progress made on the Realignment Plan. The update included a staff recommendation regarding development of a Housing Focused System of Care, in order to implement the new interconnected healing center model. Per that update, the City Council directed that staff coordinate a comprehensive community engagement process, and to use that outreach to identify an implementation pathway before finalizing any agreements or operational changes to the City’s existing homeless response operating model. That outreach effort began in April 2026 and continued through early July 2026. This report presents the results of that engagement and the implementation pathway staff recommends.

Discussion
Why Santa Monica Needs a Local Continuum
The City’s current model, while having served the community ably for many years, provides the City with access to shelter capacity only at SaMoShel, without direct links to any City-controlled interim housing pathways. When an individual is ready to take the next step out of a shelter bed, the City today has no interim housing facility of its own to move them into. Any progress through the system depends on facilities and waitlists the City does not control. Permanent housing exits are reliant on competition across service providers and regional resources. While the City has prioritized SMPP placements into permanent supportive housing within the City, there is no streamlined pathway to ensure shelter residents have direct access to these resources.

Further, SaMoShel’s congregate setting, in which individuals sleep in an assigned area of a large room with many other people, is not an ideal model if the goal is to create pathways toward permanent stabilization. Conditions in and around SaMoShel have also materially shifted since the model was established, including Metro end-of-line proximity effects, increased behavioral health acuity among the population being served, and increased calls for service and public disorder concentrated in the City’s primary Downtown commercial core.

11.B
Packet Pg. 395
7 of 15
Staff also researched best practices in emergency sheltering to ensure this proposal improves on the current system. First observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, when congregate shelters became a public health concern,1 alternative sheltering models have become more prevalent. Research shows that sheltering options providing private living spaces that support the autonomy and safety of individuals can lead to better outcomes.2 For these reasons, the system proposed shifts the City away from the congregate model and toward non-congregate settings at every step of the continuum.

What the Data Shows
Staff considered both the need to offer resources for households with connections to Santa Monica and the need to contribute to a regional solution for individuals experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles County who find themselves in the City.

The most recent Point-in-Time count, in 2025, identified 812 individuals experiencing homelessness in Santa Monica.3 Understanding the limitations of the point-in-time methodology, which isolates the census to a single night each year and does not collect demographic information from the individuals counted, staff also compared this information to the census at SaMoShel. Based on current census counts, of the 60 beds at SaMoShel, only about 10% are occupied by individuals who meet the Santa Monica Program Participant (SMPP) definition.4
Those figures point to a need to develop a two-part strategy, which includes 1) investing in a local system of care that serves households meeting the SMPP definition, while 2) contributing to the regional intervention system that serves everyone else.

The Housing Focused System of Care
1 From Shelters to Hotels: An Enduring Solution to Ending Homelessness for Thousands of Americans | Psychiatric Services (https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ps.202100170) 2 Alternative Shelter Evaluation Report, Portland State University Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative (https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=hrac_pub) 3 santamonica.gov – Point-in-Time Count data for Santa Monica shows more unhoused people moving indoors (https://www.santamonica.gov/press/2025/07/23/point-in-time-count-data-for-santa-monica-shows-more-unhoused-peoplemoving-indoors) 4 SMPP: someone who became homeless in the City (evidenced by proof of last permanent address), has been homeless in the City for 3 or more years, or is a frequent user of Santa Monica services as verified by City staff.

11.B
Packet Pg. 396
8 of 15
The strategy embedded in the proposed Housing Focused System of Care involves building out an interconnected local continuum with three linked types of housing, each paired with the support services appropriate to that stage. Those types of housing include:
• Stabilization Housing – the entry point to the system, where individuals referred by the City’s first responder and outreach teams come indoors into a noncongregate setting. During this process, referred individuals would complete intake, develop a care plan, and begin to stabilize with access to food, health services, behavioral health care, and addiction treatment resources. • Interim Housing – this next step involves building out non-congregate, stepdown settings where individuals continue healing, build stability, and work with on-site case management toward a permanent housing plan. • Permanent housing – this constitutes the final destination of the system, where durable exits from homelessness end up reducing long-term shelter demand and break the cycle of individuals returning to the streets.

A key feature that allows this model to work is City control at each step of the system.

Because the City would hold the contracts and direct access to every facility in the continuum, individuals can move through the system as they progress rather than stalling at any one stage. And because Los Angeles County would no longer be in charge of the system locally, accountability consolidates with the City, as Santa Monica would decide who is placed into the system and where. The City would also set the standards for support services, and direct the on-site security and good neighbor policies to be implemented at every location. Of note, every agreement recommended in this report is structured to carry those requirements.

What We Heard from the Community

11.B
Packet Pg. 397
9 of 15
Staff conducted a series of 14 presentations to community stakeholder groups on the proposed Housing Focused System of Care between April and July 2026, to ensure transparency and provide the opportunity to answer questions and hear concerns.

From those meetings, staff generally heard support for the City pursuing new solutions to address unsheltered homelessness in Santa Monica. Community concerns centered on the safety and security of any proposed location; a desire to better understand how the City will measure success in these programs; and ensuring that facilities would not be concentrated in any one part of the City.

In response, staff has developed the Housing Focused System of Care to ensure that on-site security and good neighbor policies are included in all service contracts. Staff is also committed to ensuring that performance measures and public reporting will be integrated into the system if Council directs that the proposed continuum be established. Further, a proposed Request for Interest / Request for Proposal process that is being engaged to identify additional facilities will include assessments to ensure that we do not overconcentrate services in any one particular neighborhood within Santa Monica.

The Implementation Pathway
The Realignment Plan Update directed staff to use community outreach to identify an implementation pathway for the new system. That outreach is complete, and staff recommends beginning the buildout of the local continuum with three coordinated actions.

Step One: Preserve The Palm Motel Under City Control
The Palm Motel has operated an interim housing program funded by LA County and operated by The People Concern for the past two years. That program is ending this summer as the County redirects its resources, and upon its closure, The Palm Motel’s future use would be uncertain.

Rather than allow an operating interim housing resource in Santa Monica to be lost, staff recommends the City step in and assume responsibility for the facility, and to add

11.B
Packet Pg. 398
10 of 15
the facility into the City’s overarching Housing Focused System of Care. The City would enter into two agreements if it is determined that The Palm Motel should come under City control. First, we would look to enter into an agreement with the property owner to secure site control. In addition, a contract with The People Concern is proposed for that entity to serve as the service provider for wrap-around, on-site services. The Palm has 34 rooms and can accommodate up to 48 occupants, with variation depending on whether individuals can safely share rooms.

Under City direction, the site would operate differently than it has under the County model in the ways the community has asked about most. Placements would be limited to individuals and households who meet the SMPP definition, referred exclusively by the City’s first responder and outreach teams. In that way, the City, not LA County, would decide who is placed at the site.

In addition, upon referral, the on-site service provider would conduct intake and create a care plan to help the individual or household stabilize, connect to necessary resources such as food and health services, and ultimately develop a housing plan that guides them to a housing resource beyond interim stabilization placement. The City would direct the support services and on-site security at the facility, and good neighbor policies would be written into both agreements.

It also is important to emphasize that this action, if taken, would serve to preserve an existing resource already operating in Santa Monica. It would not create a new facility, it does not expand the site’s use, and The Palm Motel would not serve as a replacement for SaMoShel.

Step Two: Support the Regional Response – The Salvation Army Bell Shelter.

Homelessness moves across city boundaries, and no local system succeeds if the regional system around it collapses. At a moment when LA County and LAHSA resources are contracting, staff has identified a way for Santa Monica to strengthen the regional response rather than step back from it. The Salvation Army’s Bell Shelter, an established emergency and interim housing operation in the City of Bell, currently has

11.B
Packet Pg. 399
11 of 15
the physical capacity to serve more participants, but lacks the funding to activate those beds.

Staff recommends that the City fund such an activation. Because the enhanced capacity would be available to any jurisdiction in Los Angeles County, this investment directly supports the regional service model, with ancillary benefits for Santa Monica and the Westside as regional capacity comes online. The partnership also provides the City’s first responder and outreach teams with a resourced referral option for individuals they encounter who do not meet the SMPP definition, ensuring the City can continue addressing the impacts of unsheltered homelessness for everyone in our community while investing locally in the SMPP population.

Step Three: Build Out the Local Continuum by Issuing an RFEI for NonCongregate Facilities in our Region.

To complete the local continuum, and to replace the sheltering capacity now provided by SaMoShel’s congregate model, staff will issue an RFEI an RFEIinviting property owners of motels, hotels, residential facilities, and similar non-congregate housing options in and around Santa Monica to offer locations for the City’s inventory of housing-focused facilities.

Interim housing of this kind is temporary housing that bridges people experiencing homelessness from the street into permanent housing, typically in private or noncongregate settings paired with on-site supportive services. The City originally explored partnering with The Manor, a state-licensed adult residential facility on Pico Boulevard, but has halted those plans in favor of this competitive process, due in part to how negotiations with the property owner have evolved.

Of note, the facilities identified through the RFEI will not be congregate in nature.

Further, once new facilities are identified and operational, they will be used to replace SaMoShel, and the City’s transition away from the congregate model will be sequenced so that shelter capacity is maintained throughout. The City will subsequently release a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to build a bench of service providers who can be

11.B
Packet Pg. 400
12 of 15
paired with these new facilities to ensure proper services are offered for stabilization and support. Staff will return to Council with specific recommendations as the RFEI / RFQ process unfolds.

Permanent Housing: The System’s Destination
The system of care described above addresses how the City delivers homeless services. But shelter and interim housing alone do not end homelessness, as permanent housing is ultimately what provides durable exits, reduces long-term shelter demand, and breaks the cycle of individuals returning to the streets. As described in the March 24, 2026 staff report on the Realignment Plan Update, staff continues to explore additional pathways to create permanent, affordable housing in Santa Monica, so that the continuum proposed here connects to the housing outcomes it is designed to produce.

Vendor Selection
Exception to Competitive Bidding
Staff recommends The Palm Motel to provide interim stabilization housing, The People Concern to provide operations and support services, and The Salvation Army to provide shelter for non-SMPP individuals, per ECBs #496, #498, and #500, as exceptions to competitive bidding pursuant to the City’s Procurement Policy.498, and #500, as exceptions to competitive bidding pursuant to the City’s Procurement Policy.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
03/11/2025
(Attachment A)
Staff Report on: Receive Homelessness Strategic Plan and Renters’ Protections Program, Approval of Human Services Division Reorganization Plan and Adoption of Classification and Salary Resolution
10/28/2025
(Attachment B)
Staff Report on: Santa Monica Realignment Plan
03/24/2026 Staff Report on: Santa Monica Realignment Plan Update

11.B
Packet Pg. 401
13 of 15
Environmental Review
The proposed agreements are statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 21080.10(c) of the Public Resources Code, which states that CEQA does not apply to “actions taken by a local agency to approve a contract for providing services for people experience homelessness”. The agreements would provide interim housing and supportive services to persons experiencing homelessness and would not result in adverse physical environmental impacts. Therefore, the agreements are exempt from CEQA and no further environmental review is required.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve available funding from the General Fund, Miscellaneous Grants Fund, and Special Revenue Source Fund to execute agreements with The Palm Motel, The People Concern, and Salvation Army. General Funds and Miscellaneous Grant Funds for the first year are available in the FY 2026-27 HHS budget. To provide the remainder, staff recommends that Council appropriate funds from the Providence Saint John’s Development Agreement (PSJ-DA) fund balance account 10.366634 to existing expenditure account 10420001.556100.

FY 2026-27 Budget Amendment
Release Funds Appropriate Funds
Account # Amount Account # Amount

10.366634 $3,458,150 10420001.556100 $3,458,150
TOTAL $3,458,150 $3,458,150
Agreement Request
Agreement Funding
Source Department Account #
FY 2026-27
Request
Amount
(Sept 1
Start)
Future Year
Modified
Request
Amount
Total
Agreement
Amount
The Palm
Motel
General
Fund 01420006.556000.91932 - $554,423 $2,236,000

11.B
Packet Pg. 402
14 of 15
General
Fund 01420007.552010 - $14,089
General
Fund 01420007.552016 $500,000 $500,000
Misc
Grant
Fund
20420001.556750 $306,523 $167,488
Special
Revenue
Source
Fund

10.366634/10420001.5561
00 $193,477 -
The People
Concern
General
Fund 01420006.556000.91932 - $758,048
$2,905,803
General
Fund 01420007.556000.98984 - $600,000
Special
Revenue
Source
Fund

10.366634/
10420001.556100 $1,299,554 $248,201
Salvation
Army
(Bell
Shelter)
Special
Revenue
Source
Fund

10.366634/
10420001.556100 $1,965,119 $2,428,887 $4,394,006
TOTAL $4,264,673 $5,271,136 $9,535,809
Budget authority for subsequent budget years will be requested in each budget for Council approval. While General Fund amounts identified above provide an ongoing source of annual funding, other sources must be identified to bridge the gap beginning in Year 3, once PSJ-DA funds are fully expended. Staff has submitted a $5M+ grant application to the California Housing & Community Development Encampment Resolution Program (ERF) that could provide a portion of future funding. Other alternative funding sources currently under consideration include Measure GS and Measure GSH. Future year funding is contingent on Council budget approval.

11.B
Packet Pg. 403
15 of 15
Prepared By: Aileen Reynolds, Director
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Attachment A: Homelessness Strategic Plan (March 11, 2025 Staff Report) - Web Link
B. Attachment B: Santa Monica Realignment Plan (October 28, 2025 Staff Report) - Web Link
C. Attachment C: OAKS Initiative - Palm Motel
D. Attachment D: Levine Act - Palm Motel
E. Attachment E: Levine Act - The People Concern
F. Attachment F: Levine Act - Salvation Army
G. Written comments
H. PowerPoint Presentation

11.B
Packet Pg. 404

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Attachment C: OAKS Initiative - Palm Motel (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care)

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Attachment C: OAKS Initiative - Palm Motel (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care)

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Attachment D: Levine Act - Palm Motel (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care)

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Attachment D: Levine Act - Palm Motel (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care)

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Attachment D: Levine Act - Palm Motel (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care)

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Attachment D: Levine Act - Palm Motel (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care)

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Attachment D: Levine Act - Palm Motel (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care)

!

"

# "$% $&
"

'#$
()

*)+,
*
*
-

.

/

/
*/

),

.
* -

+

-)
0122
3)
)*3
)/
.3
)3
-).
.

/
* *
*
)*
.
-/) -
4

567258 9869)

.

:,
: 3;<,
=

.
**
.

-

/

. **
.

-

4()<,
=).
.> 4
.?-4

@56754@/3)
) ;

-

.
)*
3) A/*
*
A
-/

3 *)
*

.

)

/*/

*
.
-/3)B
)+.-

)
-

3) ./
.;
8@9

.*
/

.
-

**
.

.*
.

.+
)
3 )

.. )*
C
8>9 + + .

C
879 )
)B
-

/

/
.

A
.C
869D .

A
- )3)*
)*
.
-

-

/
*/)

.

..
.
) +

..

)@>
)*)*
.
-4

E
.,

.++ .
.

+
.
)3
-
A4()* A
-)

*
+.

-3))

*
*

+
,
*
*
-)4
)*;FF3334-4
F.*
F

F
)*;FF3334

4-F.*
F
G

)*;FF3334-4
F+ .F

HIJKLMNOLMNPQMRSITLOMPITLIUKTVMTWKXIYZMZLMNMPLMNPQMRSITLORI[KITL SMY\V\QIYQMTVP\WNV\MT]MZRMPKVXIT^_``VMITL\VL
ZZ\QKP\TVXKVaKYJKRMTVX]SPKQK[\TU
VXK[IVKMZVXK]NWR\]]\MTMZLMNPISSY\QIV\MTMPSPMSM]IYb
ccccdefccccgh i

+,
;ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
i
+;ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc 89
+
89;cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

89cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc j *
+3
.F .. ..
)89.
..

+
,
3)
.F -
.
* -

+
4

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Attachment E: Levine Act - The People Concern [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care)

!"

#$

#
&'()*+)+*,-./01'/23-45)6''/27.(/7*4--5/8)(3./(-5/59-:)5'7+'62524- 3/+54),25)/+(;78-5/:/2+3).;-;,-4(/4/59-4:)5'<66)3-4(,''/2/4'/247*-+5=(> 765-459-875-/6()*+)+*59)(8)(3./(24-6/4;17+80)59)+?@;/+59(6/../0)+*59- 7AA4/B7.14-+-07.1/4-C5-+()/+/659-4-D2-(5-83/+547351.)3-+(-1A-4;)51/4 -+5)5.-;-+5E
$FGHGI$JKGLK
I%LGMJGJKGIF
N%IFII%

$%GK$IFIIF%GO%$KO$IGJK%GGI#

PQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ PQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ L
K PQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQIPQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ

PQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ

P
RSTUVTWXYTYZ[V\X]^[VU_`aS[b]TbX]cUWcV`adTbYYXUeUS[\X]W[UR`aS[bfTbX]cVgbY]Th`TVYi jklmnlmjmo
pqrstuvwxy
zrw{wq|}w~qsvwxs

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Attachment E: Levine Act - The People Concern [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care)

!"
#$%%"
& '"(!"

)$$ " *
+"'"(!"

,-(" !*"!
."/012/3$44% !4454*".4
6 "("!
!7864

64
96 4
"$
6 +
!764
"$:64
64!
$:4!.
+" 47"!
$!46 "".!7
!((!74"!$":6" *
:
+" "!

"*"!
% *!

!7* "
+4!;<22
4!
%%" %
+"

. !74=>?*!
+6" .@+"6 +
!466"$
4!
=>?*!
+
6" .5+"
+"6 "".!7$6"!.!74!.% =>*!
+$%5!7
+".4
"4%!4
."$!$ "!." ".!
+"6 "".!7@

A
4 "45 "B "$464

46 "".!7
.$$"4!
!

!$"C"".!74!
477 "74
";<22
+4

+"64

4!.
+" 47"!
$+4("*4."
4!%%" %
+"

5
+!

+"6 "".!7=>*!
+$@+")$$ " *$!
"!.".
4$$$

%%4$5
+
"7!D!75+"!
+"
+4("4!74
!
.$$"4!. "$"
+"*$"("$:4!.
4.
64 "$5
+
+" .$$ "74
!$@

EFGHIJKLGMKGNOMGPQQRSTULSLKIQRSLPVGLWMQNGMXJOOVSPJYVQZ

+"'"(!"

466"$
4.$ "
!4
"!

"*"!
$4!.!
4
$:5
+
+""C"6
!
%4 !
4
$:6" $!4"*6
*"!
!
4
$:4!.!
4
$
+4
*$
"454 .".

+"5"$
"$6!$("[ "$6!$".." @\
."$!
466

*!$
" 4466 (4$@
!$
4!":
+"'"(!"

466"$

+"%5!7
]^.!74!.."("6*"!
6" *
$
]!.
!4$"6" *
$
]!
4
$7"!" 4
,!"$$4!"C"6
!466"$3
_"46 6"

!
4
$% 6 +4$":$4":"4$"
_!
4
4*"!.*"!
$
_A"

"*"!
47 ""*"!
$
_!
4
$% 7.$:$" ("$:6 %"$$!4$" ("$
+4
4 "!
454 .".
6 $4!

4*6"

("6 "$$
]$
""
44!.!*"!
$
] (4
"."("6*"!
64!$
] %"$$!4"!$" "(4
!$
]"D!!7%$6"% "4"$
4 "64 "$
]&("!
6" *
$
]"*4`!76 ". "$4%%"
!7464
4 !.$

5+" "!
4$*4!*"
%$!"$$"$4 "4%%"
".
]A6"4.$

% *4
!6 "".!7$!((!7
+" "4
!%4$6"4$"
"!"%

+"6" $!!
+".$

]"!
4 ("$.($!4!.64 "*46$

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Attachment E: Levine Act - The People Concern [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care)

$
%

&

'())))

*

*
*

#-

.

$
/

0

1

34 56789:;<=8:;>?7>89@A79;B

CDE:?FG

H%

*

**

+

*

+

H

+

CEI;J?G

* #K$

#$

*

N
HO

*

*

H

P4 56E?Q=9?R;>89@A79;>B

'())

*

H

C@7J?:8R=?87JG

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Attachment E: Levine Act - The People Concern [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care)

!
" #$%$#&"
''!$%
'(
$)(*+

,
-
''!$%.
/
/

/0

/1

2

2

3/
4

/
0

2

0

51

6
7

8

9:#(
$# !:
9%$
!!9%+

1 6
7
2
;<=2/

/

3/;

/>
=

/2

?@

0

3/

3/ 0

A
;B=2/

/

2
3/

/;

=2

3/1

/;

=
2

/
/

2

2

2

1

/;

=
/

0/2

/

2

/

1 3

7

3
;73= 2/

0
C0
,D

/

2
/

@

2

2
/

/

E

0

0

/

@

1

/

/

C0
,
73?
0

0

?

02
73>2

FGG

G
/HH
/HH
H

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Attachment E: Levine Act - The People Concern [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care)

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Attachment F: Levine Act - Salvation Army (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care)

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Attachment F: Levine Act - Salvation Army (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: Janee Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2026 6:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Keep Samoshell Where It Is; NO HOMELESS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS

EXTERNAL
Please do not move Samoshell to our residential neighborhoods in South Santa Monica! Samoshell is a shelter on a freeway away from families/kids/elderly/citizens. Keep it that way Do NOT move these people into our neighborhoods.

This should be criminal. Every single "supportive" housing project has trash surrounding the building, people lounging around drinking, doing drugs, committing crimes, fighting, cussing, assaulting passerbys, and horrible noise and SMPD/SMFD complaints.

Now you want to expose children, students, elderly, families, and residents to this chaos? This is horrific. And when North Santa Monica objected - you complied; why is South Santa Monica treated differently? Equal protection? Bias because that's where YOU live? Stop targeting Pico and South Santa Monica for punishment! The homeless in Santa Monica are NOT from Santa Monica. Other states and the County ship drug addicts and homeless to our neighborhoods because we supposedly have the "resources" and "money" to address the issue. We do NOT.

We pay MILLIONS of dollars to live here and then have to have our entire lives destroyed by your idiodic decisions. Homeless people and drug addicts do not belong next to kids and families.

If you love these people so much ----- INVITE THEM TO YOUR HOME TO LIVE. HELP THEM WITH YOUR MONEY. Do not put this burden on us, the citizens of Santa Monica.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 2 David Yakobson
From: Lauren de la Fuente <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 6:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Council Mailbox; Oliver Chi; Planning Commission Comments; [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 7/28/2026 item 11-B -- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor, Members of the Santa Monica City Council, and City Manager, I am writing in strong opposition to the continued placement of homeless service facilities in Santa Monica’s residential neighborhoods. For years, residents have watched the City repeat the same policies while expecting a different outcome. The result has not been a healthier city, safer neighborhoods, or a stronger local economy. Instead, Santa Monica continues to face a financial crisis, declining retail activity, dwindling tourism, vacant storefronts, and growing frustration among residents and business owners.

That’s why I urge you to oppose Item 11-B at the Santa Monica City Council Meeting on July 28, 2026.

Many residents feel that City Hall is no longer listening to the people who live here, pay taxes here, support local businesses, and care deeply about this community. The impacts of the City’s homelessness policies have been concentrated in the same neighborhoods while residents are repeatedly asked to accept more disruption, more public disorder, and growing safety concerns with little evidence that these approaches are solving the underlying problems.

The City needs to take an honest look at whether its current homelessness strategy is working.

Housing and services are important, but a successful strategy must also address the complex realities of chronic homelessness, including mental health challenges, addiction, public safety concerns, and the need for long-term stability. Simply expanding programs without measurable outcomes does not represent progress.

Residents should not have to choose between compassion and feeling safe in their own neighborhoods. The City has a responsibility to help those in need while also protecting the safety, security, and quality of life of the residents who call Santa Monica home.

Across the country, communities and policymakers are increasingly questioning homelessness strategies that have not delivered the results promised. These concerns are no longer limited to local residents; they are part of a national conversation about accountability, effectiveness, public safety, and whether current approaches are truly helping the people they are intended to serve.

Santa Monica has increasingly become responsible for providing homeless services for a regional problem, while neighboring communities contribute far less. Homelessness is not a challenge that one city can solve alone, and it is not sustainable to continue concentrating services and impacts within Santa Monica’s neighborhoods.

Residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services, especially at a time when the City is facing significant budget challenges. Families, seniors, Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 3 children, and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there.

I urge the Council to:
 Stop placing homeless service facilities in residential neighborhoods.  Require measurable outcomes and independent evaluation of homelessness programs before expanding them.
 Prioritize public safety as a core component of any homelessness strategy.  Pursue regional solutions rather than concentrating responsibility in Santa Monica.  Support policies that improve safety, strengthen local businesses, and restore confidence in City leadership.

Compassion and accountability must go together. Santa Monica can help people in need while also protecting the residents and businesses that make this city a vibrant place to live.

Continuing to repeat the same policies while expecting different results is not leadership. It is time for the Council to acknowledge what is not working and pursue a more effective, smarter approach.

Please do not approve Item 11-B!
Sincerely,
Lauren de la Fuente
Lauren de la Fuente
2110 Pearl Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405
[email protected]
310-283-8488
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 4 David Yakobson
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:50 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE APPROVAL of SaMoShel Relocation to Palms Motel - Agenda Item: 11.B in the 2026-07-28 SM Council Agenda

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor, Council Members, and City Manager Chi,
Overview
Incompatible use
The proposed relocation of a subset of the existing SaMoShel shelter to the 34-room Palms Motel in a quiet Sunset Park residential neighborhood being a shockingly incompatible land use proposal. Moreover, it serves absolutely no purpose in addressing the massive scale of homeless migration impacting the city.

There is absolutely no justification for introducing such a facility, comprised entirely of demonstrably high-riskbehavior individuals, into a quiet school-adjacent residential neighborhood. This recklessly imposes significant burdens of disruption and safety on the neighborhood families and children.

Moreover, this overall policy is exacerbating, not mitigating, the city’s massive and destructive migratory homeless crisis by incentivizing use of Santa Monica as a homeless destination though the promise of SM taxpayer-funded free housing.

Proven destructive disruption
As a component of the economic Realignment Plan, it is the unacceptable behavioral risk profile of this facility that’s required it’s removal from downtown in the first place, due to its significant contribution to the cratering of the city’s visitor economy.

Reliant on a knowingly false premise and misapplied data This policy proposal is agenda-based, not data-based. It relies on a deliberately false premise and misuse of Point-In-Time (PIT) counts that drastically understates the scale of the city’s migratory homeless crisis. The actual scale of the homeless migration through this city renders both this proposal and the entire City shelter strategy completely ineffective as a means of addressing the out-of-control homeless migration crisis through our city. It is this migratory scale that is by far the largest contributor to the collapse of both the city’s visitor economy and City finances.

Adds new legal and financial exposure to the already eviscerated City finances Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 5 The Staff Report inexplicably recommends that Santa Monica “…must own the system of care that operates within our borders.” Why would the City EVER open itself up to yet more lawsuits from damage emanating from owning and operating such high-risk facilities?
This proposal marks a new low for the Council’s management of the city and treatment of its residents.

The False Premise
The false premise underlying the justification for not only this proposed placement but of the City’s entire homeless shelter policy is the assertion that the entire scale of the issue is limited to the Point-In-Time (PIT) count. The false premise also requires the deliberate disregarding of abundant relevant City and third-party data on the actual massive scale of the crisis in Santa Monica. This is a deliberate misuse of the PIT data in both this Staff report and in other City reports going back years, and it contradicts the City’s own recent characterizations of the issue. In the 10-28-2025 Realignment Plan, City Manager Chi admitted that “Homelessness grew in both scale and acuity”. In the July 16 Town Hall, he noted that that the Santa Monica homeless issue was driven by the larger LA County homeless migration flows. These statements completely negating the PIT narrative. Taking all these facts together, relying on this premise can only be described as dishonest and inexcusable.

Within the actual data context, the Santa Monica shelter strategy is completely irrelevant in mitigating this growing issue, eliminating any justification for this shelter strategy, let alone one implemented in residential areas.

Disregarded City data
At the July 16 Town Hall, City Manager Chi admitted that Santa Monica’s homeless crisis was driven by a huge regional migratory issue, contradicting the established City narrative. Despite this admission, he also had no idea what the relevant stats were surrounding the actual scale of the city’s massive migratory homeless crisis, despite his staff admitting knowledge of the highly-relevant Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) that includes the data (currently unavailable to the public):
 6,000+ annual arrivals during 2017-2019 with a lack of complete HMIS reporting thereafter  2,000 homeless-related arrests per year (70% of total arrests) since at least 2019*  14,388 YTD 2025 Homeless-related dispositions: Annual run rate of 28,800 (06-20-2026 Blue Book)  14,196 YTD 2026 Homeless-related dispositions: Annual run rate of 28,400 (06-20-2026 Blue Book) Clearly, 812 PIT-counted individuals cannot be responsible for 2,000 homeless-related arrests and 28,800 annual SMPD dispositions.

Disregarded third party annual throughput data
Disregarded third party data indicates that the Metro Light Rail End-of-Line policy disembarked at 58 per evening in 2023** with anecdotal evidence suggesting it has more than doubled today. That is an annual migratory run rate of over 20,000 individuals, at a minimum. In the July 16 Town Hall, City Manager Chi disavowed any knowledge of these stats as well.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 6 What these stats show is that the failed outcomes of LA City’s homeless policies are being transported into Santa Monica though LA County’s disastrously mismanaged Light Rail and Metro Bus system, wreaking uncontrolled havoc on our city and its economy. The endless migratory homeless waves are kryptonite to a visitor economy, which is the origin of this relocation proposal. *SMCC 2024-10-22 Item 5.I. - Resolution Receipt of California Prop 47 Grant Funds - $8M SaMo Bridge - Full Program (Att. B) **LA Metro survey - About 600 homeless riders exit nightly when train service ends - LA Daily News 04-29-2023 Relationship of PIT data to the Annual Throughput Data
Combining the PIT data to the total throughput data provides the average length of time that the average homeless person remains in the city. At an annual throughput of between 10,000 and 20,000, the average length of stay in the city is between two weeks and one month. The scale of the throughput amplifies the disorder, damage and destruction created by those stays, which comports with its role in the destruction of the city’s tourist economy. That destruction could not have been achieved if the city hosted only 812 homeless individuals.

Deteriorating trend data of the homeless demographic compounds the destructive impact of the true scale
The unhoused component of the PIT counts indicates how the total throughput is distributed in the city. The unhoused component increased from 41% in 2012 to 78% in 2024. 2012 represented the peak Downtown share of total Sales Tax Revenue for the period 2003-2024.

Meanwhile, the City first declared “A Local Emergency On Homelessness” on 02-14-2023 which has been renewed annually since then. The declaration noted that the homeless demographic had changed from what the city had historically experienced, with “…78% had mental health conditions, and 75% had substance abuse conditions”. Since the “Realignment Plan” acknowledged that “Homelessness grew in both scale and acuity”, it is no wonder that as substance abuse requires funding, heightened shoplifting in the city’s commercial core was one outcome.

Entirely Inappropriate Proposed SaMoShel Location
In addition to the lack of any credibility for this shelter policy in general and the Palms Motel specifically, the choice of location for the SaMoShel replacement at the Palms Motel is an extremely unsuitable location. In the July 16 Town Hall, City Manager Chi noted that sobriety is not a gating factor in the acceptance of individuals to this facility. That is despite the fact that the adjacent Chevron gas has recently obtained a liquor license.

In addition, this facility is placing yet another huge behavioral risk burden on a neighborhood that also hosts The Manor, a deeply troubled adult mental health facility only five blocks away on Pico that experienced a murder on Saturday, July 25th.

Conclusion
Given the massive scale of this migratory homeless crisis, the assertion in the Staff Report that “…staff continues to explore additional pathways to create permanent, affordable housing in Santa Monica, so that Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 7 the continuum proposed here connects to the housing outcomes it is designed to produce.” is based entirely on a self-serving, irrelevant, and imagined reality.

Given the completely discredited rationale for this SaMoShel relocation proposal (and the entire City shelter initiative in general), pursuit of a demonstrably ineffective and destructive “Housing Focused System of Care” only serves to socialize the massive costs of this completely ineffective policy to the neighborhood residents and children.

Moreover, this overall policy is exacerbating, not mitigating, the city’s massive migratory homeless crisis by incentivizing use of Santa Monica as a homeless destination though the promise of SM taxpayer-funded free housing.

If this is approved, it represents a completely irresponsible Council action.

Respectfully,
Marc Verville
Former Chair, Santa Monica Audit Subcommittee
Sunset Park
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 8 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 11:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Keep Samoshell Where It Is; NO HOMELESS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS Thanks,
Amy Larkin
Administrative Staff Assistant- City Council Office
From: Janee Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2026 6:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Keep Samoshell Where It Is; NO HOMELESS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS

We pay MILLIONS of dollars to live here and then have to have our entire lives destroyed by your idiodic decisions. Homeless people and drug addicts do not belong next to kids and families.

If you love these people so much ----- INVITE THEM TO YOUR HOME TO LIVE. HELP THEM WITH YOUR MONEY. Do not put this burden on us, the citizens of Santa Monica.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 11:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: HFSC - Santa Monica Chamber Letter of Support Attachments: Housing Focused System of Care.pdf
Thanks,
Amy Larkin
Administrative Staff Assistant- City Council Office
From: Alex Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 8:45 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]> Cc: Clerk Mailbox <[email protected]>; Oliver Chi <[email protected]>; Genevieve Morrill <[email protected]>
Subject: HFSC - Santa Monica Chamber Letter of Support

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
Please see attached for the Chamber of Commerce's letter regarding our strong support of City Staff's recommendations on the Housing First System of Care initiative.

Respectfully,
Alex Brown
Director of Government Affairs & Director of Rebuild
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce
(c): 510-402-9767
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) July 23, 2026
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Letter of Support – Staff Recommendation on a Housing Focused System of Care (Agenda Item 11.B, City Council Meeting of July 28, 2026) Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
On behalf of the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce, I am writing to express our strong support for Staff's recommendation to establish a Housing Focused System of Care, including the proposed agreements with The Palm Motel, The People Concern, and The Salvation Army, and the direction to transition away from SaMoShel's congregate shelter model.

The closure of the temporary SaMoShel facility is something our members, residents, and the broader business community have been asking for, and we believe it is also the right thing to do for the people the facility serves.

SaMoShel is not the standard of care that reflects the dignity our unhoused neighbors deserve, and it has left people cycling through the same beds for years without ever moving toward stability. The facility has also contributed to a disproportionate share of disorder in the Downtown core, affecting the livelihoods of nearby business owners and the safety of public transit users and employees at surrounding properties.

SaMoShel has proven to be a bandaid rather than a solution. We are encouraged that Staff's recommendation offers a long-term, housing-focused alternative that treats every person with the dignity they deserve.

We also support preserving The Palm Motel as interim stabilization housing. For the past two years, it has been used successfully as safe, clean interim housing for Santa Monica's unhoused community. Rather than let LA County's withdrawal of funding put that resource at risk, bringing the facility under City control, with the City determining placements, services, and security, will allow it to continue serving our most vulnerable residents as they transition into long-term housing.

More broadly, the Chamber is in full support of building a system of care that is efficient, tested, and adaptive to the current needs of our community. We believe Staff's recommendations are a strong push toward that goal.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge the City Council to adopt Staff's recommendations at the July 28, 2026 meeting. Thank you for your continued leadership on this issue and for the extensive community engagement that has shaped this proposal.

Sincerely,
Genevieve Morrill
Interim CEO
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce
2525 Main St, Santa Monica, CA 90405 · www.smchamber.com Board Executives
Addie VanGessel
Tavern on Main
Chair
Paula Larmore
Harding, Larmore, Kutcher &
Kozal LLP
Past Chair
Kara Block
DFH Architects
Treasurer
Vee Gomez
Beach Yoga SoCal
Vice-Chair
Melissa Cohen
Boston Properties (BXP)
Vice-Chair
Jeremy Rawitch
RAND
Vice-Chair
Elias Garcia
Kaiser Permanente
Vice-Chair
Directors
Elnie Vannatim
Cedars Sinai
Gina Gribow
EKA Public Relations
Lilit Avagyan
US Bank
Ben Marcus
UP Partners
Michael Altschule
UCLA Health
Directors cont.

Shari Davis
Santa Monica College
Wesly Hernandez
SNAP Inc.

Berta Negari
XYZ Rent
Garrett Childers
SM Fire 1109
Carlos Madrid

SMPD POA
Jared Amerson
Providence Saint John's
Simone Acciani
Dolcenero Gelato
Graham Fandrei
Broad Stage
Cambria Mendez
Fairmont Miramar
Adora Manalo
Regent Santa Monica Beach
Andre Jackson
Jonathan Club
Christophe Baraton
Shutters on the Beach
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: Alex Novakovich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

The July 25, 2026 beating death of a woman living at The Manor at 1905 Pico Blvd., which provides room, board, and supervision for adults with mental illness, reinforces concern over agenda item 11-B.

Sincerely,
Alex Novakovich
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 2 David Yakobson
From: Lina Ara <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Lina Ara
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 3 David Yakobson
From: Maureen Forman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!!!!!!!

Sincerely,
Maureen Forman
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 4 David Yakobson
From: David Abramis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
David Abramis & Iris Souza
2642 33rd St.

Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 5 David Yakobson
From: Estelle G. Mednick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
(Estelle Mednick
)
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 6 David Yakobson
From: Jacquelyn Lawson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Jacquelyn Lawson
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 7 David Yakobson
From: Betty Mednick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Betty Mednick
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 8 David Yakobson
From: Toby Berlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Toby Berlin
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 9 David Yakobson
From: LUCY F STONE <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME) Lucy Frances Stone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 10 David Yakobson
From: David DeCrane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council members,
Why does this city think neighborhoods close to the beach or other prime spots should be used for homeless housing? Why not prioritize nicer neighborhoods for more housing to raise the tax base of our city, and to provide funds for homeless housing in less expensive parts of Santa Monica? In agenda item 11-B, the city proposes spending $9 million to bring homeless housing to the Sunset Park neighborhood. Residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services. Families, seniors, children, and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there.

Sincerely,
David DeCrane
2231 20th St, 1
Santa Monica, CA
90405
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 11 David Yakobson
From: Lynn Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Lynn Murdock
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: Daniel Register <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:01 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Members of the Council, and City Manager Chi, I am writing regarding Item 11-B on today's agenda, July 28.

The proposed relocation of a portion of the SaMoShel shelter population to the Palm Motel, in a quiet residential neighborhood, is an incompatible land use. It places a facility serving a high-need population directly against family homes and a school-adjacent street, without a plan for how the neighborhood will be protected.

The City's own numbers make the scale of this hard to ignore. SMPD's own Blue Notebook data shows roughly 14,200-14,400 homeless-related dispositions year-to-date, in each of the last two years, a run rate far larger than the City's Point-in-Time count of the unhoused population alone would suggest.

Whatever the right way to reconcile those two numbers is, the City owes residents a real answer, not a repeated reference to a single count.

I am also concerned about the location itself: sobriety is not a condition of admission, by the City's own description, and this facility would sit near an adjacent gas station now licensed to sell alcohol. This same neighborhood already hosts The Manor, an adult residential care facility five blocks away that experienced a homicide on Saturday, July 25. Adding another high-acuity facility here, without first addressing what already isn't working, asks residents to absorb a second burden before the first has been resolved.

Before this item is approved, I am asking the Council to:
- Commit, in writing, that no future site identified through the RFEI process will be placed in a residential neighborhood.
- Require competitive bidding rather than exceptions, given the scale of the funds involved. - Provide a real, enforceable removal and eviction process for violent or disruptive tenants, with a defined timeline.
- Reorder housing placement priorities to put families, children, and youth aging out of foster care first. - Publish resident-impact data, police calls, school safety, neighborhood quality of life, alongside the homeless-outcome data the City already tracks.

The Laurel is our own evidence of what happens without these safeguards: a documented 444-450% increase in police calls since it opened. I am asking the Council not to repeat that outcome in another neighborhood before first fixing what went wrong there.

Respectfully,
Daniel Register
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 2 Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 12 David Yakobson
From: Chad Mountain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
In agenda item 11-B, the city proposes spending $9 million to bring homeless housing to the Sunset Park neighborhood. Residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services. Families, seniors, children, and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there.

Sincerely,
Chad Mountain
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 13 David Yakobson
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Just because the County ran an “interim” housing shelter, does not mean the Palm Motel cannot return to being a working motel. You have been broadcasting the great renaissance of “cool” Santa Monica. Certainly the Palm Motel is an excellent choice for tourists. Your plan is not an “interim” shelter, so the argument that there is a shelter there already is irrelevant. You are proposing a first stage emergency shelter in a residential neighborhood by 2 schools. Is the safety and security of the neighborhood worth the 9 million dollars? We know that without serious medical addiction services, numerous case workers, sobriety requirements, those struggling with addiction will have little chance of success, and as our most vulnerable residents, will easily become targets of drug dealers in the alleys around Palm Motel. We’ve seen this happen elsewhere.

C’mon, find a terrific secure building, providing excellent mental health and addiction services, and do the very best for these people who are truly struggling. The Palm Motel is a badly thought out plan. I’m actually stunned that you would consider putting an emergency shelter into a residential neighborhood when ALL OF YOU promised not to.

Tell us exactly how that 9 million dollars will be divided up. How much does PC take? How much for security? How much for the city?
In any case, do the right thing, don’t sell out for a sub-par shelter in our neighborhood. I am a SHIMBY. Safe, secure and smart housing in my neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Karen Croner
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 14 David Yakobson
From: Hilary Galanoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item11-B

The July 25, 2026 beating death of a woman living at The Manor at 1905 Pico Blvd., which provides room, board, and supervision for adults with mental illness, reinforces serious concern over agenda item 11-B.

Sincerely,
Hilary Galanoy
2636 32nd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 15 David Yakobson
From: Joseph Lilli <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers, In agenda item 11-B, the city proposes spending $9 million to bring homeless housing to the Sunset Park neighborhood. Residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services. Families, seniors, children, and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there. Before the City Council approves $9 million to lease the Palm Motel at 2020 14th Street, and to contract with the People Concern to manage a homeless program there, the City and the People Concern should sign a Good Neighborhood Agreement, plus a detailed Management Agreement that includes rigorous screening for mental illness and drug addiction. The July 25, 2026 beating death of a woman living at The Manor at 1905 Pico Blvd., which provides room, board, and supervision for adults with mental illness, reinforces concern over agenda item 11-B.

Sincerely,
Joe Lilli
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 16 David Yakobson
From: Amanda O'Brien <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Amanda OBrien
Owner 1744 Bryn Mawr Ave
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 17 David Yakobson
From: Dan Halperin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
In agenda item 11-B, the city proposes spending $9 million to bring homeless housing to the Sunset Park neighborhood. Residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services. Families, seniors, children, and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there. Before the City Council approves $9 million to lease the Palm Motel at 2020 14th Street, and to contract with the People Concern to manage a homeless program there, the City and the People Concern should sign a Good Neighborhood Agreement, plus a detailed Management Agreement that includes rigorous screening for mental illness and drug addiction.

Sincerely,
Dan Halperin
1030 Cedar St., Santa Monica, CA 90405
(33 year resident of Santa Monica, 28 years at this location) Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 18 David Yakobson
From: Lisa Test, OTD, OTR/L <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 11B

Sincerely,
Lisa A Test
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 19 David Yakobson
From: Gail Gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Gail Gordon
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 20 David Yakobson
From: Shane Murphy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Shane Murphy
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: Michael Ishler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Mike Ishler
2314 Pearl Street
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 2 David Yakobson
From: Tina <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:43 PM
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 11-B Oppose

Sincerely,
Tina Cox
Tina
"Time spent with cats is never wasted"
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 3 David Yakobson
From: Dennis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Dennis Granelli
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 4 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; Aileen Reynolds; Allyson Crosby Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: FOSP: City Council 7/28 item 11-B -- OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
July 27, 2026

To: Mayor Caroline Torosis and City Council members

From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park

RE: July 28 agenda item 11-B -- OPPOSE

Before the City Council approves $9 million for the owner of the Palm Motel and the People Concern to run a homeless program at 2020 14th Street, the FOSP Board wants to see a signed Good Neighborhood Agreement that guarantees regular meetings between nearby residents, People Concern staff, the property owner, and city staff to address any problems, as well as a detailed Management Agreement that specifies screening procedures that will prevent people with mental illness and drug addiction from being housed at the Palm Motel. Until then, the FOSP Board opposes item 11-B.

To quote an FOSP member, “Residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services…Families, seniors, children, and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there.” The 34-room, 48-occupant Palm Motel on 14th Street just south of Pico Blvd. has been operated as a countyfunded interim housing program for the past two years. When rigorous screening of motel occupants unfortunately ended, nearby residents began complaining about people screaming at night, excrement on the sidewalks, a climate of fear, and other problems such as People Concern staff refusing to call 9-1-1 to help a man in distress lying on the sidewalk in front of the motel because “he wasn’t on the motel property.” The Palm Motel is also on the walking path for TK-5 students in the Pico neighborhood who attend Will Rogers, and students in grades 6-8 who attend JAMS. If a mentally ill motel occupant harasses them as they walk by, will the People Concern staff refuse to help because “they’re not on the motel property”? It’s not enough for city staff to refer to “Good Neighbor policies” and the ability of residents to complain at City Council meetings.

Before the City Council approves $9 million for the motel owner and the People Concern, the FOSP Board wants to see a signed Good Neighborhood Agreement and a detailed Management Agreement that includes screening for mental illness and drug addiction.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 5 The July 25, 2026 beating death of a woman living at The Manor at 1905 Pico Blvd., which provides room, board, and supervision for adults with mental illness, reinforces the strength of our opposition to agenda item 11-B.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 6 David Yakobson
From: CHERI DICKINSON <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Cheri Dickinson
2268 22nd Street
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 7 David Yakobson
From: Dalila Fuentes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Dalila Fuentes
36 years resident in Sunset Park
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 8 David Yakobson
From: Laura M. Gallant <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: STRONG OPPOSITION to Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
Agenda Item 11-B asks the City to spend $9 million to establish homeless housing at the Palm Motel, 2020 14th Street, in the heart of the Sunset Park neighborhood. Residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services. Families, seniors, children, and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there.

The proposed site is only a few blocks from John Adams Middle School (JAMS) and the Santa Monica Swim Center, where children gather daily. Before the City commits public funds or enters into any agreement with The People Concern, residents deserve a meaningful opportunity to review the proposal, ask questions, and be heard through a transparent public process.

Research consistently shows that untreated serious mental illness combined with active substance use can increase the risk of unpredictable behavioral crises. Santa Monica residents must regularly deal with the effects of mentally ill individuals roaming our streets, including unprovoked attacks, public defecation and urination, and sleeping in public spaces. Residents do not need to be strained further by the potential consequences of housing individuals with complex behavioral health needs.

The City should not move forward with this project until the community has had an opportunity to provide meaningful input and the Council has fully evaluated whether this location is appropriate for a facility of this nature.

Sincerely,
Laura Gallant
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 9 David Yakobson
From: Jerry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Jerry Nodiff
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 10 David Yakobson
From: Jodi Strock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
Before I send the copy and paste that you’re receiving for most of the residents I want to state that I completely support us having housing for our unhoused neighbors. And I think it’s hypocritical in many of our cases for that housing to be anywhere other than our neighborhoods. That said, it is imperative that any housing provided has strict policy, standards, and requirements around screening and safety. Further, I suggest a clear, well defined, Restorative justice model around anyone who does not abide by the said policies, standards and requirements. I think this might mean having to make some kind of amendment to rent agreements so that safety, accountability and community care can be a shared responsibility of the city, law enforcement, housing departments, the person being housed and the collective community.

The place that housing being considered is where most children that go to the public schools walk to and from school. Most walk by themselves. Their safety needs to be top priority.

There is an incredible opportunity here to change the way people view, relate to and interact with our unhoused neighbors. And also a huge opportunity for how our unhoused neighbors interact with us. I have a great fear that our progressive agendas, while really well intended, put the cart before the horse.

For this to be a success and for other cities to look to us as a model, we have to slow down and do this in a way that is sustainable, effective, protective and safe.

That said, here is the copy and paste that you’re receiving for most of the neighbors.

Thank you for taking the time to read my email. And thank you for your consideration.

In agenda item 11-B, the city proposes spending $9 million to bring homeless housing to the Sunset Park neighborhood. Residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services. Families, seniors, children, and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 11 **** I also STRONGLY recommend the entire council reads the books “The Four Pivots” by Shawn A.

Ginwright, PhD. And “Fierce Vulnerability”by Kazu Haga.

Warmly,
Jodi Strock, LMFT
Relational Mindfulness Facilitator
(she/her/hers)
#MFC47652
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 12 David Yakobson
From: Jonathan Mooney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Jonathan Mooney
20 year Santa Monica resident
Sun set part resident
Father of three
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 13 David Yakobson
From: Christine Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Christine Thomas
A 76 year resident of Sunset Park
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 14 David Yakobson
From: Brad Segal <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
In agenda item 11-B, residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services. Families, seniors, children, and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there.

Plus, I thought that the people who owned the Palm Hotel are bad owners and that they were supposed to be induced to sell their property. What happened with that? Sincerely,
Brad
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 15 David Yakobson
From: Judy Kramer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 11B Stop 11B

EXTERNAL
This should not be allowed. As it is now the Palm Motel frequently has Police/Police cars visible. It will only get worse if there are no requirements/rules for sobriety. To make maƩers worse this Motel is located within blocks of 3 schools Will Rogers, John Adams and Santa Monica College. It is also located next to a gas staƟon with a convenience store that sells alcohol. Not where people struggling with addicƟon should be housed .

Please don’t let this happen.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 16 David Yakobson
From: janet rt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Janet Tunick
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 17 David Yakobson
From: MELISSA FEINBERG <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME)
Sent from my iPhone
Melissa Feinberg

PROPERTY MASTER
[email protected]
(818) 612-1654
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 18 David Yakobson
From: MELISSA FEINBERG <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Melissa Feinberg
Sent from my iPhone
Melissa Feinberg

PROPERTY MASTER
[email protected]
(818) 612-1654
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 19 David Yakobson
From: Carolyn Hanlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Carolyn Hanlin
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 20 David Yakobson
From: Carolyn Hanlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Carolyn Hanlin
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 21 David Yakobson
From: Vivian Geffen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Families, seniors, children, and longtime residents choose neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there.

If the City Council approves $9 million to lease the Palm Motel at 2020 14th Street, and contracts with the People Concern to manage a homeless program there, the City and the People Concern should sign a Good Neighborhood Agreement, plus a detailed Management Agreement that includes rigorous screening for mental illness and drug addiction.

The July 25, 2026 beating death of a woman living at The Manor at 1905 Pico Blvd., which provides room, board, and supervision for adults with mental illness, exemplifies the reason for concern over agenda item 11-B. Please protect your homeowners first and foremost.

Sincerely,
Vivian Geffen
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 22 David Yakobson
From: Jeanette Schachtner <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
In agenda item 11-B, the city proposes spending $9 million to bring homeless housing to the Sunset Park neighborhood.

Residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services.

Families, seniors, children, and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there.

Sincerely,
Jeanette Schachtner
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 23 David Yakobson
From: Mindi Shank <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

This is also an extraordinarily inefficient way to spend precious resources in an equitable per capita manner.

Housing 48 to potentially 70 or so individuals, who may it may not be SM residents, is not a sensible use of Santa Monica’s taxpayer money at a time when this city is bankrupt. It is simply inexcusable to move forward with this amount of money and so very little in data provided, case studies reviewed, and known facts about the people you are aiming to serve and those who will serve them. I’m sure many do not want or choose to be housed. There is no information provided as to how the people on our payroll can achieve these results. This amount of taxpayer funds could serve ALL residents of our city by funding three more fire trucks that are equipped with ladders tall enough to reach the top of the ever-increasing 8 story buildings this Council has chosen to erect. Again, it is completely irresponsible to plow ahead with plans to build 8 story units all over our neighborhoods without proper safety measures for your CONSTITUENTS. Make it make sense.

Before the City Council approves $9 million to lease the Palm Motel at 2020 14th Street, and to contract with the People Concern to manage a homeless program there, the City and the People Concern should sign a Good Neighborhood Agreement, plus a detailed Management Agreement that includes rigorous screening for mental illness and drug addiction and sobriety tests!
The July 25, 2026 beating death of a woman living at The Manor at 1905 Pico Blvd., which provides room, board, and supervision for adults with mental illness, reinforces concern over agenda item 11-B.

Please rethink and reimagine this poorly vetted plan and return to the citizens with a better, more thoughtful and reasonable expenditure for greater public gain.

Sincerely,
Mindi Shank
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 24 David Yakobson
From: Victoria Morrow <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: SUBJECT: Agenda Item11-B

EXTERNAL
Re: SUBJECT: Agenda Item11-B
Dear City Councilmembers,
In agenda item 11-B, the city proposes spending $9 million to bring homeless housing to the Sunset Park neighborhood. Residential neighborhoods in Pico should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services.

Dozens of children walk right past the Palm Motel every day to go to Will Rogers Elementary School, which is 2 1/2 blocks away. John Adams Middle School is 3 1/2 blocks. It is not a good location.

Please go and see on any school day morning the amount of foot traffic and bicycles crossing Pico then walking down 14th. 14th right now is considered safe for children and in no way will it remain safe if a homeless facility is put there.

Before the City Council approves $9 million to lease the Palm Motel at 2020 14th Street, I would like the Council to reconsider this location. The Montana Avenue section of city appears to be immune to these kinds of projects. Perhaps we should begin to consider the Montana neighborhood rather than the lower-income sections of Pico bearing the brunt.

Sincerely,
Victoria Morrow
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 25 David Yakobson
From: Merle Newman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Merle Newman
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 26 David Yakobson
From: David Rock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:39 PM
To: Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Natalya Zernitskaya Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
David W Rock
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 27 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Item 11-B: Oppose!
FYI.

Sarah Almendarez (she/her)
O: (310) 458-8303
From: David Rock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:39 PM
To: Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
David W Rock
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 28 David Yakobson
From: Chris Rowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Chris Rowe
2442 22nd St
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 29 David Yakobson
From: Bronwyn Barkan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; [email protected]; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
In agenda item 11-B, the city proposes spending $9 million to bring homeless housing to the Sunset Park neighborhood.

Residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services. Families, seniors, children, and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there. Before the City Council approves $9 million to lease the Palm Motel at 2020 14th Street, and to contract with the People Concern to manage a homeless program there, the City and the People Concern should sign a Good Neighborhood Agreement, plus a detailed Management Agreement that includes rigorous screening for mental illness and drug addiction. The July 25, 2026 beating death of a woman living at The Manor at 1905 Pico Blvd., which provides room, board, and supervision for adults with mental illness, reinforces concern over agenda item 11-B.

Sincerely,
Bronwyn Barkan
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 30 David Yakobson
From: oesr <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: RE Agenda item 11B

Sincerely,
Jane Dempsey
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 31 David Yakobson
From: Maureen Forman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I oppose Agenda item 11B ! It won't work and it is dangerous.

EXTERNAL
1) It Doesn't Work : As a retired Clinical Social Worker and former CEO of Jewish Family Service of the Desert in Palm Springs, I have been on task forces and steering committees re: the homeless population for over 40 years . Now I live in the Pico District on Michigan and am seeing the same lack of consequences , lack of police response and the subsequent recidivism problems we saw in the desert. I just had to call SMPD on July 26 because an aggressive, delusional man was shouting at my husband and me as we tried to get into our car Sunday morning !.

Housing programs and mental health outreach only work for people who really want to be off the streets ( the newly homeless, women trying to keep custody of their children , the ill and elderly. ) The pattern with most solitary male, later stage addicts is as follows:They may accept "3 hots and a cot" until their next disability check gets deposited , but then they'll leave to score their next hit . They tend not to remain and progress through structured programs and rarely agree to have their disability checks used to pay for any form of supportive housing, preferring to cycle in and out of the system and use their checks for drugs.

Amazingly, the city is proposing using the same old illogical criteria used in other unsuccessful stabilization programs (over 3 years without housing or 4 incidents in 2 years etc) This criteria actually rewards recidivism. It is designed to serve those least likely to benefit from it. It selects for Clients who have already proven that they do cannot /do not access or remain in structured programs This defies basic critical thinking and has been proven to not work over and over again. Stabilization should be given to those who are newly at risk, medically fragile or have children ... in other words, to those who are willing and able to utilize it!
It is Dangerous: Most importantly,the placement of a 48 bed facility at the corner of 14th and Pico is dangerous for families and children in the area . The apartment complex is just west of Santa Monica College , just east of Samohi and just north of Will Rogers Elementary and John Adams Middle School .

Drug addicts do not stay put; they wander around our neighborhoods and call their dealers who then come into our neighborhoods to deliver the drugs. They often come with guns .

Addicts also need medical coverage for withdrawal and will leave any facility that is unable to keep them medicated and comfortable as withdrawal sets in Then they are homeless again ... but now they are near our homes..

After years of seeing rapid and supportive housing failures, may I suggest adding some real consequences for and real enforcement of loitering and public disturbance laws, with perhaps coordination with SSDI for repeated refusal to utilize SSDI funds on housing .

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 32 I am a liberal Democrat with a Masters in Social Work from UC Berkeley . My specialization was community mental health . I fully understand the complexity of the homeless population. BUT I no longer believe that their right for shelter supplants our needs for safety and serenity in the neighborhoods we pay to live in.

Lets come up with better idea ! NO on 11B!!!
Maureen Forman, LCSW
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 33 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
The city proposes spending $9 million to bring homeless housing to the Sunset Park neighborhood. Residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services. Families, seniors, children, and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there.

Before the City Council approves $9 million to lease the Palm Motel at 2020 14th Street, and contracts with the People Concern to manage a homeless program there, the City and the People Concern should sign a binding Good Neighborhood Agreement, plus a detailed Management Agreement that includes rigorous screening for mental illness and drug addiction.

The July 25, 2026 beating death of a woman living at The Manor at 1905 Pico Blvd, which provides room, board, and supervision for adults with mental illness, reinforces concern over agenda item 11- B.

Sincerely,
Clare Thomas
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: Rita Ravindra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item11-B

Sincerely,
Rita
--
Rita Ravindra
[email protected]
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 2 David Yakobson
From: Elaine Becker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 3 David Yakobson
From: Karrie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Karrie Dvorchak
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 4 David Yakobson
From: Karen Fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
•••••
Karen M. Fisher
Mobile: 310-600-1040
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 5 David Yakobson
From: Ruth Greene <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE 11B

EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern:

My name is Mary Ruth Greene and I own a condo in the building on the corner of Pico Blvd. and 12th Street in Santa Monica.

It has come to my attention that there is a proposal to turn the Palms Motel at Pico and 14th into a drug shelter where there will be no drug testing and few people overseeing the residents.

This is a terrible plan mainly because of the elementary and pre-schools on 14th and Ocean Park and JAMS is also very close.

I take my dog out late in the evening and often pass the Palms Motel. One time I saw a man with a gun out on the table at the entrance. It is already a bad scene at the motel and turning it into a dedicated drug shelter will make it even worse. We are already dealing with the motel on the corner of 11th and Pico as well. In addition, my neighbors and I have already had to call the police numerous times because drug addicts have been sleeping and defecating in our bushes. We have found needles and drug containers strewn across the area outside our building’s front door.

Opening a dedicated drug shelter will attract more of these bad actors to our neighborhood. In the 13 years since I purchased my condo, the terrible drug addict situation has become much worse. How would you like to find soiled napkins where addicts are using your yard as a latrine? In addition, the porch pirate situation has worsened. My neighbors and I have had numerous packages stolen.

So - inviting drug addicts into a residential neighborhood with schools in close proximity is a terrible idea.

Mary Ruth Greene, homeowner
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 6 David Yakobson
From: Mary <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Mary Hubbell
Sent from my iPad
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Danielle Charney
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: Linda Mansolillo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Linda
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: MICHAEL OSMENT <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Michael Osment

MICHAEL OSMENT
Osment Productions & Photography
[email protected]
310-291-1272
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 2 David Yakobson
From: Holly Silvers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Cc: Dennis Granelli
Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose

Sincerely,
Holly Silvers-Granelli
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 3 David Yakobson
From: Leslee Mickshaw <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Leslee Mickshaw
(YOUR NAME)
Leslee Mickshaw
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 4 David Yakobson
From: Roni Crichton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
In agenda item 11-B, the city proposes spending $9 million to bring homeless housing to the Sunset Park neighborhood. Residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services. Families, seniors, children, and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there. Please consider the proximity of the elementary school and middle school to the proposed site. Many of the middle schoolers walk to and from school regularly in small groups without adults. Depending upon the location of their homes, they may be in close proximity to/walking by this facility. The potential liability to the city in not considering the danger created to them, particularly without the safeguards in the next paragraph, must be considered. The city is already in financial straits - please take the time to ensure that haste to do this does not create irresponsible additional risk.

Before the City Council approves $9 million to lease the Palm Motel at 2020 14th Street, and to contract with the People Concern to manage a homeless program there, the City and the People Concern should sign a Good Neighborhood Agreement, plus a detailed Management Agreement that includes rigorous screening for mental illness and drug addiction. The Agreement should also premit city monitoring of performance of these obligations.

Sincerely,
Roni Crichton
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 5 David Yakobson
From: KENNY GRANT <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Kenny Grant
Sunset Park resident since 1986

K E N N Y G R A N T
[email protected]
310.422.9393
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 6 David Yakobson
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 11-B Oppose!

Sincerely,
Phyllis Chavez
Sunset Park
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 7 David Yakobson
From: Ann Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Cc: Brendan Kelly
Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Ann Kelly
Resident of Santa Monica
Parent of 3 school-aged children attending Grant Elementary & JAMS --
Ann Kelly | [email protected]
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 8 David Yakobson
From: Peggy Lee Kennedy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:20 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; Perkins, Amy Subject: Opposition to Agenda #11B, July 28,2026 NO TO CLOSING SAMOSHEL

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident and strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter. I also oppose the new Homeless Strategic Plan.

SAMOSHEL has been a vital 60 bed shelter, providing life essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing, for 32 years.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people, who the city decides do not belong in Santa Monica, to Bell is displacement and opens Santa Monica up to forms of discrimination.

The Palms Motel is not a fair replacement due to limited capacity and the fact that it's already always full.

Is the plan to displace the residents there also?
The Manor is not a shelter and can not be a replacement for SAMOSHEL. The Manor is one of the very few remaining Adult Residential Facilities (ARFs) in Los Angeles County. ARFs are permanent housing for disabled people living with mental health issues.

I strongly recommend going back to the drawing board, by including alternative human rights advocates and experts with lived street knowledge, and using a model based on equity and fair housing principles-- as opposed to one based on limiting unhoused numbers and selective population controls.

Peggy Kennedy
Hill Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 9 David Yakobson
From: Marc Sniderman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members.

I am very concerned about the proposal to spend $9million to provide Homeless Shelter at Pico & 14th. That is immediately adjacent to Santa Monica College, and close to John Adams Middle School.

The city is broke, and cannot afford it. If it funded by a grant, turn it down.

Just because someone gives you money, doesn’t mean you have to spend it if it doesn’t benefit the community.

Sincerely,
Marc Sniderman
Marc Sniderman
1757 Sunset Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-650-5107
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 10 David Yakobson
From: Mayra Herrera <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
It is imperative that you stop tomorrow’s agenda item 11-B, the city proposes spending $9 million to bring homeless housing to the Sunset Park neighborhood.

I for one, I’m sick of you all thinking that Sunset Park is a dump ground for un house people. We already have the Manor, the shelter for women by the freeway, the LA E Line and the list goes on and on.

Sincerely,
Mayra Herrera
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 11 David Yakobson
From: Geraldine Kennedy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Geraldine Kennedy
More than 50 year Sunset Park Homeowner
Former Planning Commissioner
Sent from my iPad
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 12 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B: Opposition to Skid Row on Pico Blvd

EXTERNAL
Hello Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing, as a resident of the Sunset Park neighborhood, to voice my opposition to the use of the Palm Motel as interim housing.

While my heart goes out to the homeless community facing crisis, we must consider the residents, workers, and students in the Pico corridor.

There are already a number of supportive housing communities in the area including the Clare Matrix and The Manor, as well as Holiday Motel, which has been a focal point of community concern regarding sanitation, homelessness and crime. Please do not burden us further.

My block has seen a number of incidents of trespassing, attempted break-ins, package theft, encampments in our alley ways, human defecation on our sidewalks and far too many carjackings.

Knowing the conditions around the current Shelter in Santa Monica and around Los Angeles, allowing a homeless shelter in our backyards would be a hostile act. It jeopardizes the safety of the neighborhood, impacts walkability, and worsens street sanitation.

I love my neighborhood, I love my neighbors, I love the few but incredible local businesses we get to enjoy. Please protect the safety and vitality of this community, do not allow it to be debased. Interim housing in our residential areas is not the solution. We should continue to focus on stable, long term solutions: building quality housing and mixed use developments to support economic activity in this immediate neighborhood and the greater Santa Monica area.

Thank you for your consideration,
Emily Etienne
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 13 David Yakobson
From: Lea LeBlanc <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Lea LeBlanc
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 14 David Yakobson
From: pierre-yves delaunay <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Pierre-Yves Delaunay
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 15 David Yakobson
From: Lynn Karz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Lynn Karz
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 16 David Yakobson
From: Kathy Kane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 7:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose! Please PLEASE do not make Palms Motel a Homeless Housing facility!!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
I am emailing to voice my objection to having Palm Motel become a Homeless Housing facility. In agenda item 11-B, the city proposes spending $9 million to bring homeless housing to the Sunset Park neighborhood. Residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services.

Please do not make Palms Motel a solution to the greater problem of homeless our city if facing. We already are having an 8 story building erected just a block away. The increase in the population in this immediate area is a concern and the choice to have a Homeless Housing facility here is of grave concern to the community.

This proposes putting a homeless housing facility across the street from Santa Monica College’s new facility, will students want to attend SMC or decide they don’t feel safe in this area anymore? Most importantly there is an elementary school just a few blocks away in addition to a middle school. All morning and afternoon families are walking their children to and from school right past this proposed facility. Is this where we want homeless people congregating, blocks from elementary schools? Is that the safest idea and the best solution for our communities? And one block away is the Santa Monica Community pool on 16th. Families come and go, children are out and about walking to and from cars… will people feel safe using this public facility ? Just around the corner on Pico across from the college someone was brutally beaten to death over the weekend in a housing facility. What are the assurances that these instances of people with prolonged or relapsed drug use and mental illness won’t happen? No there isn’t because it’s just not physically possible. So why would the city choose to create a homeless facility down the street from the elementary and middle schools and across the street from the college? That is why we as a family are writing to you, the Councilmembers of Santa Monica asking you to please reconsider this idea and don’t locate a homeless facility in Sunset Park in the middle of a vibrate student community.

I live on Bay Street. The entrance to my street is across from Palms Motel. We have many young families on our street and already we feel quite uncomfortable with whatever activities are going on at Palms Motel that require a round the clock security guard. Police visit regularly, ambulances… Why am I paying tens of thousands of dollars in property taxes to live across the street from a homeless facility? Families, seniors, children, and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there. I see the families, joggers, dog walkers and all the beautiful children in the neighborhood feeling safe and comfortable around the streets. I would hate for that to end.

If you truly already have your minds made up and are not interested in community opposition, despite the lively discussions that have been held… and City Council approves $9 million to lease the Palm Motel at 2020 14th Street, and to contract with the People Concern to manage a homeless program there, the City and the People Concern should sign a Good Neighborhood Agreement, plus a detailed Management Agreement that includes rigorous Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 17 screening for mental illness and drug addiction. And include a an ability for the community to require their departure if there has been a pre determined number of community disturbances. That should be non negotiable.

As stated above, the July 25, 2026 beating death of a woman living at The Manor at 1905 Pico Blvd., which provides room, board, and supervision for adults with mental illness, reinforces concern over agenda item 11-B.

With deep concern and hopes community tax paying individuals will be heard, respected and honored for their concern, The Cody Family - Kathy, Phil, Cameron and Spencer Bay Street Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 18 David Yakobson
From: Shuilan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 7:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item11-B

Sincerely,
Mariani May
Sent from Proton Mail for iOS.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 19 David Yakobson
From: Angela D. Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 7:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Subject: Item 11B - Housing Focused System of Care

EXTERNAL
Good evening Mayor Torosis, Councilmembers, and City Manager Chi.

As a former Pico resident who frequents many of the neighborhood businesses, I've witnessed concerning behavior from both unhoused individuals and some residents living in nearby transitional housing. Those experiences have shaped my perspective, particularly because these facilities are located near schools, parks, neighborhoods, and a high concentration of liquor stores. It's understandable why residents are concerned about expanding services without stronger safeguards.

I support providing the "Housing Focused " model with great reservation when addressing housing and services for people experiencing homelessness. Compassion without accountability does not serve residents or those seeking stability.

As the City transitions from Samoshel to a housing-focused model, I urge you to require comprehensive screening and individualized assessments before placement, 24/7 on-site security, licensed behavioral health professionals, and strong Good Neighbor Agreements with measurable performance standards and regular public reporting.

Public safety must remain a high priority. Placement decisions should carefully consider an individual's history of violent offenses, sex offenses, or active, unmanaged substance use that could jeopardize the safety of residents, neighboring families, or schoolchildren. The right level of housing and services should match each person's needs, while protecting the surrounding community.

Finally, please ensure these facilities are distributed equitably throughout Santa Monica rather than concentrated in one neighborhood. We can lead with compassion while also delivering accountability, transparency, and safe communities.

Thank you.

Angela
Angela D. Scott (she/her), MBA/V, Certified ScrumMaster® Candidate, Doctor of Education, Ed.D.

Organizational Change and Leadership
"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas." - Shirley Chisholm
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 20 I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 21 David Yakobson
From: Teri D Bernstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 7:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose! $9Million up from $2Million with a sketchy plan

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
I attended the town hall last week that presented the Proposed Housing Plan. It seems to be a lot of smoke and mirrors. Santa Monica's Staff Plan will help some of the unhoused--but NOT those that are most problematic to Santa Monica's residents and businesses.

As I see it, there are 4 types of unhoused folks (some Santa Monica residents, some not):

1. Accidental homeless, where one bad event finds working middle class persons or families unhoused, but with the willingness to, with help get themselves back on track. The tiered Plan with goals is geared to help these folks.

2. Seriously, chronically mentally ill homeless, who may have unsettling interactions with neighbors and businesses, and who are ill-equipped to be self supporting in a foreseeable time frame. These folks would fail at the City's plan and may be "selected out" by the City. And remain on our streets.

3. Drug-addicted homeless, for which there is a criminal subset to support the drug habit. These folks are often the ones who neighbors and businesses think of first when they think of "homeless" or "unhoused" individuals. A small percentage of these folks may progress within the City's tiers of progress, but most likely not without backtracking and a long timeline. And many are housing resistant...

4. Folks for whom a lifetime of part time or marginal employment which may not produce a living wage is their life's reality. They find themselves unhoused, and may be willing to participate in a program...but will need continuous support...

Groups 1 and 4 may be used to make the statistics look good, and to buoy the reputations of staff at regional housing conferences, but THIS PLAN WILL NOT HELP OUR MOST NEEDY UNHOUSED, AND WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM FOR RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES.

In agenda item 11-B, the city proposes spending $9 million to bring homeless housing to the Sunset Park neighborhood. What kind of housing is this really going to be? What categories of unhoused people will get support? Residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services. Families, seniors, children, Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 22 and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there.

Before the City Council approves $9 million to lease the Palm Motel at 2020 14th Street, and to contract with the People Concern to manage a homeless program there, the City and the People Concern should:
 sign a Good Neighborhood Agreement,
 sign a detailed Management Agreement that delineates boundaries and expectations, and  Set up rigorous screening for mental illness and drug addiction to ensure people are getting the services they need.

PLEASE VOTE NO on this item.

Sincerely,
Teri Davis Bernstein
Santa Monica resident, 1982-1985; 1993-present
[email protected]
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 23 David Yakobson
From: Bobby Swerdlow <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 7:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Please oppose Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
In agenda item 11-B, the city proposes spending $9 million to bring homeless housing to the Sunset Park neighborhood. Residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services. Families, seniors, children, and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there.

Sincerely,
Robert Swerdlow

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 24 David Yakobson
From: BARRIE LEVY <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 7:48 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose Agenda #11B, July 28,2026 DO NOT CLOSE SAMOSHEL

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident and I strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter (SAMOSHEL), and I oppose the new Homeless Strategic Plan.

SAMOSHEL has been an incredible 60 bed shelter, providing essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing for 32 years. I have spoken with many housed and some unhoused neighbors in our area who really value having a resource for people to allow them to shelter indoors rather than living on our streets.

There are so few such resources that it is impossible to understand why the City wants to eliminate a shelter that is working very well. It would make more sense to add more, additional shelter beds to address one of the major crises of our time.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people, who the City decides do not belong in Santa Monica, to Bell is incomprehensible! This is displacement, and opens Santa Monica up charges of racial and disability discrimination.

It should be so obvious to all City Council members that The Palms Motel is not a fair replacement! It already has a very limited capacity and it is already always full. It is clearly not a replacement for SAMOSHEL! The Manor is not a shelter and therefore also can't be a replacement for SAMOSHEL. The Manor is one of the few remaining Adult Residential Facilities (ARF) in Los Angeles County. This is a form of permanent housing for disabled people living with mental health issues.

You must go back to the drawing board and use a model based on sensible responses to the housing crisis, the reality of the needs of our unhoused neighbors, and based on equity and fair housing principles, rather than making a decision based on making access to shelter impossible for local people who need it, and using unfair selective population choices.

Please do the right thing - do not close SAMOSHEL!!
Thank you,
Barrie Levy
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 25 David Yakobson
From: Darlene Vogel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 7:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
darlene vogel
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 26 David Yakobson
From: Aaron Speiser <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 8:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
My neighbors and I have been living in the Sunset Park area for 40 years now. We love it. But we all have noticed that Pico Blvd has been the dumping ground for homeless, mental, and emotionalIy disturbed people. We discuss it all the time. We feel the CLARE program is very special and doing a good job. We are not against having low cost housing for them or anyone. HOWEVER… Over the last 5 to 10 years Pico Blvd has become the go to area to house most of them. I often walk from 28th St to the beach. It’s bad. Really bad. The students at SMCC don’t complain because they are transient. I see them being harassed. I’m harassed!!! I suggest you stop putting more homeless housing on Pico Blvd or anywhere near it. We are full up. How about putting the housing on Wilshire, or north of Wilshire, or around the hospitals. If you push us too far we will speak as one on Election Day. I believe you are doing a great job in general with limited options but as a city we must share in helping those in need and I don’t see any sharing going on in north Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Aaron Speiser
Aaron Speiser
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.thescreenacting.studio__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!rbzLrGEa4sz9xg3iFbBJs iNLmMfzAVtEk32BRKIj1h7ENawoyvdARgDKRL10EV7KiXRKd3Y2AO3B1gl1YB1f4bL6sLY7j7qcOg$ When you’re ready to do what you came here for...

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 27 David Yakobson
From: Alisa Bunting <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 8:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Alisa Bunting
Alisa Bunting
[email protected]
310-569-5499 Cell
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 28 David Yakobson
From: Chris Chang <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 8:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME)
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 29 David Yakobson
From: Adam Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 8:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Agenda Item11-B - Homeless Housing at the Palm Motel

EXTERNAL
To our Santa Monica City Council,
As a longtime resident and a nearby neighbor of the Palm Motel, I’m very disturbed the Council thinks it might be OK to place a permanent shelter so close to our schools, to our Santa Monica children.

We’re not opposed to shelters. But we need to be smart and protect our children.

Will Rogers elementary school is just a short walk down 14th St. from the Palm Motel. Lots of kids walk to school some old enough to be unattended by an adult. It’s not fair to the community to ask them to walk past the homeless shelter. That’s twice a day every day Monday through Friday most of the year. That’s too much for our kids. I know for example that Bay St., which is directly across from the Palm Motel currently has 15 children living in various residences. And that’s just one block.

Also, the Santa Monica swim center a traditional gathering spot for kids of all ages to learn to swim, FreePlay, swim team, water polo and other related water sports all goes on year-round just a short hundred yards down Bay St. from the Palm Motel/shelter. Little kids in their swimsuits frequently passing by the front of the motel … Does it sound like a good location for a permanent shelter? Santa Monica College is about to open their new arts building across from the Palm Motel which invariably will have a steady pedestrian flow of young college age students heading to and from class inside the new building. They will most definitely be directly exposed to the shelter. That’s all hours of the day and night. This sounds like the makings of some unthinkable results. Questions remain such as do shelters restrict people who are registered sex offenders? Isn’t there a legal buffer zone? 18 to 22 year-old girls coming in and out of the new arts building can’t be more than 100 feet away! That’s dangerously close and a powder keg for trouble. This is a warning we shouldn’t have to make for you. You should know better.

Let’s be smart. Let’s not do something that will be sorry for sooner if not later.

Vote no to permanent shelters right next to our residences with families and local elementary schools.

We will not allow this,

Adam Davis, resident Santa Monica
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 30 David Yakobson
From: Alison Godin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 8:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Alison Godin
424-387-7397
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 31 David Yakobson
From: Cydney Kirschbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 8:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
cydney and kenneth Kirschbaum
Cydney Kirschbaum
[email protected]
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 32 David Yakobson
From: Adam Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 9:06 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 11B on July 28, 2026 - Do Not Close SAMOSHEL

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident and strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter and the new Homeless Strategic Plan.

SAMOSHEL has been an incredible 60-bed shelter, providing essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing for 32 years.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people whom the city decides do not belong in Santa Monica to Bell is displacement and raises serious racial and disability discrimination concerns.

The Palms Motel is not a fair replacement due to its limited capacity and the fact that it is already consistently full. Is the plan to displace the residents there as well? The Manor is not a shelter and cannot replace SAMOSHEL. The Manor is one of the few remaining Adult Residential Facilities in Los Angeles County, providing permanent housing for disabled people living with mental health conditions.

I strongly urge the City Council to go back to the drawing board and develop a model based on equity and fair housing principles, rather than limiting unhoused residents and selectively determining who belongs in Santa Monica.

Please oppose Agenda Item 11B and keep SAMOSHEL open.

Adam Smith, Human Rights Organizer
Los Angeles Community Action Network
(213) 228-0024 | Direct: (213) 863-4039 | www.cangress.org | [email protected] 838 E 6th St, Los Angeles, CA 90021
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 33 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 9:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Megan FitzGerald
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 34 David Yakobson
From: Janis Flax <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 9:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Janis Flax
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 35 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 9:35 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 11B on July 28, 2026 - Do Not Close SAMOSHEL

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident and strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter and the new Homeless Strategic Plan.

SAMOSHEL has been an incredible 60-bed shelter, providing essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing for 32 years.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people whom the city decides do not belong in Santa Monica to Bell is displacement and raises serious racial and disability discrimination concerns.

The Palms Motel is not a fair replacement due to its limited capacity and the fact that it is already consistently full. Is the plan to displace the residents there as well?
The Manor is not a shelter and cannot replace SAMOSHEL. The Manor is one of the few remaining Adult Residential Facilities in Los Angeles County, providing permanent housing for disabled people living with mental health conditions.

Please oppose Agenda Item 11B and keep SAMOSHEL open.

Carter Moon
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 36 David Yakobson
From: Sarah Rademacher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 9:36 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 11B on July 28, 2026 - Do Not Close SAMOSHEL

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident and strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter and the new Homeless Strategic Plan.

SAMOSHEL has been an incredible 60-bed shelter, providing essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing for 32 years.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people whom the city decides do not belong in Santa Monica to Bell is displacement and raises serious racial and disability discrimination concerns.

The Palms Motel is not a fair replacement due to its limited capacity and the fact that it is already consistently full. Is the plan to displace the residents there as well?
The Manor is not a shelter and cannot replace SAMOSHEL. The Manor is one of the few remaining Adult Residential Facilities in Los Angeles County, providing permanent housing for disabled people living with mental health conditions.

Please oppose Agenda Item 11B and keep SAMOSHEL open.

Thanks,
Sarah Rademacher
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 37 David Yakobson
From: Francisco Espinosa <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 9:41 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 11B on July 28, 2026 - Do Not Close SAMOSHEL

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident and strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter and the new Homeless Strategic Plan.

SAMOSHEL has been an incredible 60-bed shelter, providing essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing for 32 years.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people whom the city decides do not belong in Santa Monica to Bell is displacement and raises serious racial and disability discrimination concerns.

Please oppose Agenda Item 11B and keep SAMOSHEL open.

Francisco Espinosa
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 38 David Yakobson
From: Peter Davidson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 9:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: PETER DAVIDSON
Subject: SUBJECT: Agenda Item11-B

EXTERNAL
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], ellis.raskin@santamon ica.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], jesse. [email protected], [email protected],
SUBJECT: Agenda Item11-B
Dear City Councilmembers,
In agenda item 11-B, the city proposes spending $9 million to bring homeless housing to the Sunset Park neighborhood.

Residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services.

Families, seniors, children, and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there.

The very recent July 25, 2026 beating death of a woman living at The Manor at 1905 Pico Blvd., which provides room, board, and supervision for adults with mental illness, reinforces concern over agenda item 11-B.

Sincerely,
Peter Davidson
Residential Property Owner
3011 Linda Ln
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 39 David Yakobson
From: Ellyn Lerner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 9:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 11-B

Sincerely,
Ellyn Lerner
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 40 David Yakobson
From: Lauren Marie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

The July 25, 2026 beating death of a woman living at The Manor at 1905 Pico Blvd. for only 2 weeks which provides room, board, and supervision for adults with mental illness, reinforces concern over agenda item 11-B.

People need actual mental heath and behavioral change which is not the local neighborhoods duty to shepard and maintain. Sunset Park, Pico Blvd. We have enough of it already, more than our share.

Moving unhoused into housing is super complex. It’s obvious when people don’t work or have to work to be part of society, no skin in the game means they stay the same and keep hanging with the same crew and now no incentive to do much. Boredom turns to same old patterns. Equals no change and now permanent neighborhood residents who don’t add to the social community fabric of Santa Monica.

I like the idea of foster kids center there, or for women who can live and go to school for free and set them up for better lives.

Or for SMC Students who need this to again, go to school for free and make something of themselves by getting the support they need and have a better life.

Sincerely,
Lauren Wyka
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 41 David Yakobson
From: Kaylee Barnes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:32 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 11B on July 28, 2026 - Do Not Close SAMOSHEL

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident and strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter and the new Homeless Strategic Plan.

SAMOSHEL has been an incredible 60-bed shelter, providing essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing for 32 years.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people whom the city decides do not belong in Santa Monica to Bell is displacement and raises serious racial and disability discrimination concerns.

Please oppose Agenda Item 11B and keep SAMOSHEL open.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 42 David Yakobson
From: Aaron Hahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
- Aaron Sent via phone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 43 David Yakobson
From: Chelsey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:45 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 11B on July 28, 2026 - Do Not Close SAMOSHEL

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident and strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter and the new Homeless Strategic Plan.

SAMOSHEL has been an incredible 60-bed shelter, providing essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing for 32 years.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people whom the city decides do not belong in Santa Monica to Bell is displacement and raises serious racial and disability discrimination concerns.

The Palms Motel is not a fair replacement due to its limited capacity and the fact that it is already consistently full. Is the plan to displace the residents there as well?
The Manor is not a shelter and cannot replace SAMOSHEL. The Manor is one of the few remaining Adult Residential Facilities in Los Angeles County, providing permanent housing for disabled people living with mental health conditions.

Please oppose Agenda Item 11B and keep SAMOSHEL open.

Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 44 David Yakobson
From: christopher burdick <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:48 PM
To: Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell Cc: Maria Loya; [email protected]; John Reynolds; PNA; Oliver Chi; William Selby; Aileen Reynolds; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item11-B - Homeless Housing at the Palm Motel. The Palm Motel mistake you are being asked to vote on
Importance: High

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council,
You are going to be asked on July 28 to vote to have the City take over managing the Palm Motel as a homeless housing facility.

Please do not approve this.

The Palm Motel has been being used as a homeless housing facility for the last two years by Los Angeles. This transition from motel to homeless housing was done with no notice to the local community or to the City of Santa Monica. The last two years of homeless housing at the Palm Motel has been a disaster. While they have a “security guard” at the front of the Motel, that does not protect the local neighborhood or community once the Palm “residents" walk off the property. We have borne the challenge of the "Palm homeless" dispersing through our community when they want to behave contrary to the guidelines at the Palm. Drugs. Defecation. Disruption. Thefts. Crime. Violence.

In an example of “too little, too late” the Pico and Sunset Park Neighborhood associations and residents were invited to a meeting on July 16 in a lecture hall at Santa Monica College to “discuss” the plan. Our City Manager presented a plan that since Los Angeles already perpetrated their ill considered homeless plan on our neighborhood, it is the path of least resistance to perpetuate the mistake. The hall was full for the meeting. City Manager Oliver Chi admitted that there was no other plan considered than to keep using the Palm as a homeless shelter. The audience full of neighborhood association members and long time residents was unanimous in asking to not have the Palm Motel continue as a homeless housing facility.

Our community on the south side of Santa Monica has disproportionately shouldered the burden of the City’s most challenging problems. The other residential communities in Santa Monica have not. We have the Manor, with its days ago murder. We have the Laurel with its litany of problems including crime and needles littering the surrounding area.

We have the Claire Foundation’s fleet of drug rehab sites along Pico between Lincoln and 14th. And we have the Palm.

This is a chance to move one step forward with change and find a better plan.

At the SMC meeting I publicly asked everyone there to vote against any and all City Council members who vote to keep the Palm as a homeless facility. The response from the packed hall was enthusiastic about doing so.

Please vote no.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 45 Thank you,
chris
Christopher Burdick
Email [email protected]
Cell 310-741-8768
41 year resident half a block from the Palm motel
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 46 David Yakobson
From: Chuck Abbott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Charles Abbott
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 47 David Yakobson
From: Megan Graney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 11:09 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 11B on July 28, 2026 - Do Not Close SAMOSHEL

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident and strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter and the new Homeless Strategic Plan.

SAMOSHEL has been an incredible 60-bed shelter, providing essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing for 32 years.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people whom the city decides do not belong in Santa Monica to Bell is displacement and raises serious racial and disability discrimination concerns.

Please oppose Agenda Item 11B and keep SAMOSHEL open.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 48 David Yakobson
From: Magan Wiles <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 11:17 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 11B on July 28, 2026 - Do Not Close SAMOSHEL

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident and strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter and the new Homeless Strategic Plan.

SAMOSHEL has been an incredible 60-bed shelter, providing essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing for 32 years.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people whom the city decides do not belong in Santa Monica to Bell is displacement and raises serious racial and disability discrimination concerns.

Please oppose Agenda Item 11B and keep SAMOSHEL open.
magan (she/her)
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 49 David Yakobson
From: Judy Branfman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 11:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose agenda item 11B on 7/28/26

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica Councilmembers,
I am wriƟng to express my strong opposiƟon to the closure of SaMoShel, as well as your Homeless Strategic Plan in general – and I hope you will vote no on item 11B.

Every piece of your plan has serious problems:
 Using your strict rules to seriously limit who can get “priority” care in Santa Monica is inhumane;  Sending others 23 miles away to Bell, far from the support and community they count on for survival, is discriminatory and cruel, and a reminder of so many episodes in our history when poor people have been forced out of their communiƟes. We know that people return to the places they feel most comfortable, even from 23 miles away. Will there be police at the borders?
 Both The Palms Motel and The Manor already have residents;  EliminaƟng SaMoShel, the only shelter on the westside, should never happen without making sure equal numbers or more of subsƟtute housing and a new drop-in center are ready for occupancy and use nearby in Santa Monica.

Santa Monica does not exist off on its own despite your desires. Santa Monica is part of a large regional system where the cost of housing is driven ever higher, increasing numbers of people cannot afford to live inside, and ciƟes refuse to address the problems - and sadly oŌen exacerbate them.

Please halt this speedy and poorly-thought out plan - and rethink how we can thoughƞully address the needs of our most vulnerable residents.

Judy Branfman
Santa Monica, CA
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 50 David Yakobson
From: Ruben Huizar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 11:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; [email protected]; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]; Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B-Homeless Housing at the Palm Motel

EXTERNAL
As a long-time and concerned resident of the Pico neighborhood of the City of Santa Monica, I have seen and have had my fair share of the problems that unhoused people have brought into my neighborhood. Our fellow neighbors and I had to band together to report loud and mentally ill unhoused people in our neighborhood. The Palm Hotel used to be bustling with tourists and business patrons, but the unawareness of the changes it has undergone in recent years has me concerned. The Palms Hotel is now being used for housing the unhoused people behind my back. The City of Santa Monica should have been more transparent with our neighbors about this decision. I am against this amendment or provision of agenda item 11-B being implemented in our neighborhood.

Ruben Huizar, resident of the City of Santa Monica.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 51 David Yakobson
From: Peter A Donald <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!
Attachments: PastedGraphic-5.tiff

Sincerely,
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 52 David Yakobson
From: Bills Costello <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 2:23 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 11B on July 28, 2026 - Do Not Close SAMOSHEL

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident and strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter and the new Homeless Strategic Plan.

SAMOSHEL has been an incredible 60-bed shelter, providing essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing for 32 years.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people whom the city decides do not belong in Santa Monica to Bell is displacement and raises serious racial and disability discrimination concerns.

The Palms Motel is not a fair replacement due to its limited capacity and the fact that it is already consistently full. Is the plan to displace the residents there as well?
The Manor is not a shelter and cannot replace SAMOSHEL. The Manor is one of the few remaining Adult Residential Facilities in Los Angeles County, providing permanent housing for disabled people living with mental health conditions.

Please oppose Agenda Item 11B and keep SAMOSHEL open.

Enviado desde mi iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 53 David Yakobson
From: Jessica Rothstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 5:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing as a resident who lives off 14th Street to respectfully ask that you reconsider the proposal to convert the Palm Motel into an emergency shelter.

I support compassionate solutions for people experiencing homelessness and believe our city should continue investing in housing, mental health care, addiction treatment, and long-term supportive services.

My concern is not with helping those in need, but with whether this location is appropriate for this type of facility.

Over the past several years, my family has noticed a significant increase in homelessness along Pico Boulevard, particularly between 17th and 20th Streets. As a result, we no longer feel comfortable walking along Pico and have changed our daily routines to avoid the area.

I am concerned that placing an emergency shelter in the middle of this residential neighborhood will further concentrate homelessness in the area and negatively impact the safety and quality of life for nearby families. The Palm Motel is only a few blocks from a public elementary school, and our neighborhood is home to many children who walk to school, ride their bikes, and play outside every day.

My family chose this neighborhood because it is safe, quiet, and walkable. I respectfully ask that you vote against this proposal as currently presented or postpone approval until the City can demonstrate a comprehensive plan that protects both the individuals the shelter is intended to serve and the families who already call this neighborhood home.

Thank you for your time, and your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
Jessica Rothstein
Jessica Rothstein
310.220.9050
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 54 David Yakobson
From: Holly Mosher <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 6:32 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose Agenda #11B, July 28,2026 DO NOT CLOSE SAMOSHEL

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident and strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter and oppose the new Homeless Strategic Plan.

SAMOSHEL has been an incredible 60 bed shelter, providing essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing for 32 years.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people, who the city decides do not belong in Santa Monica, to Bell is displacement and opens Santa Monica up to racial and disability forms of discrimination.

The Palms Motel is not a fair replacement due to limited capacity and the fact that it's already always full. Is the plan to displace the residents there also?

The Manor is not a shelter and can not be a replacement for SAMOSHEL. The Manor is one of the few remaining Adult Residential Facilities (ARF) in Los Angeles County. This is a form of permanent housing for disabled people living with mental health issues.

I strongly recommend going back to the drawing board and using a model based on equity and fair housing principles as opposed to one based on limiting unhoused numbers and selective population choices.

Holly Mosher
Santa Monica, CA
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 55 David Yakobson
From: Faith Myhra <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 6:45 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 11B on July 28, 2026 - Do Not Close SAMOSHEL

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident and strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter and the new Homeless Strategic Plan.

SAMOSHEL has been an incredible 60-bed shelter, providing essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing for 32 years.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people whom the city decides do not belong in Santa Monica to Bell is displacement and raises serious racial and disability discrimination concerns.

Please oppose Agenda Item 11B and keep SAMOSHEL open.

Thank you,
Faith Myhra
90066
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 56 David Yakobson
From: terri williamson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 6:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Teresa Williamson
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 57 David Yakobson
From: Katy McGee <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 6:50 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 11B on July 28, 2026 - Do Not Close SAMOSHEL

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident and strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter and the new Homeless Strategic Plan.

SAMOSHEL has been an incredible 60-bed shelter, providing essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing for 32 years.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people whom the city decides do not belong in Santa Monica to Bell is displacement and raises serious racial and disability discrimination concerns.

Please oppose Agenda Item 11B and keep SAMOSHEL open.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 58 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 6:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 11B

EXTERNAL
Hello!
NO HOMELESS SHELTER at Palms Motel
As a community member and a neighbor to the Palm Motel, I am AGAINST turning the Palms Motel into any type of drug rehab, temporary housing for drug users and homeless peoople, Our neighborhood is full of children walking to and from school, riding bikes and playing. This is an unacceptable loc ation in a major residential neighborhood surrounded by schools.

Our community already deals with enough issues that have not been solved with addicts buying drugs, leaving nee dles and trash on the streets and very unsafe conditions.

This Motel should be turned back into a hotel for visitors to bring more money into our city and economy, this is wha t we need.

Thank you,
Kristin Nugent
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 59 David Yakobson
From: Tilly, Chris <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 6:53 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Please oppose Agenda Item 11B on July 28, 2026 - Keep SAMOSHEL open

EXTERNAL
Good morning Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident, as well as a Professor Emeritus of Urban Planning at UCLA, and strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter and the new Homeless Strategic Plan.

SAMOSHEL has been an incredible 60-bed shelter, providing essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing for 32 years. Its role is fundamental.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people whom the city decides do not belong in Santa Monica to Bell is displacement and raises serious racial and disability discrimination concerns.

Please oppose Agenda Item 11B and keep SAMOSHEL open.

Sincerely,
Chris Tilly
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 60 David Yakobson
From: Karen Pinto <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 6:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME) Karen M Pinto
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 61 David Yakobson
From: colette herbstman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Colette Herbstman
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 62 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Opposition to Agenda Item 11B – Palm Motel Shelter Proposal

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing to urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11B, the proposal to establish an emergency shelter at the Palm Motel in Sunset Park.

I have lived in Santa Monica for the past eight years and have called Sunset Park home for nearly six of those years. I care deeply about the safety and quality of life in our neighborhood. I understand homelessness is a difficult regional issue, but I do not believeplacing this type of facility in the middle of a residential neighborhood is the right solution.

I previously lived near a People's Concern facility, and my firsthand experience changed myperspective. It became common to encounterpeople who appeared to be under the influence of drugs, yelling, blocking sidewalks, and creating an environment where I no longer felt safe walking in my own neighborhood. Those experiences had a real impact on my daily life.

I do not want to see Sunset Park experience the same problems I witnessed where I previously lived.

Many families, seniors, and longtimeresidents live here because it is a safe, quietresidential neighborhood. This is simplynot the right place for this type of facility.

Santa Monica cannot solve homelessness onits own. This is a regional problem that requiresregional solutions. Continuing to expand sheltersand services in our city while neighboringcommunities do less places an increasingburden on Santa Monica and its residents.

Please prioritize the safety and quality of life ofthe people who already live in Santa Monica, workhere, raise families here, and pay taxes here. I respectfully ask you to vote NO on Item 11B and protect the character and safety of Sunset Park.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Tali Ekstein
Sunset Park Resident
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 63 David Yakobson
From: Joseph Kulman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:51 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 11B on July 28, 2026 - Do Not Close SAMOSHEL

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident and strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter and the new Homeless Strategic Plan.

SAMOSHEL has been an incredible 60-bed shelter, providing essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing for 32 years.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people whom the city decides do not belong in Santa Monica to Bell is displacement and raises serious racial and disability discrimination concerns.

The Palms Motel is not a fair replacement due to its limited capacity and the fact that it is already consistently full. Is the plan to displace the residents there as well?
The Manor is not a shelter and cannot replace SAMOSHEL. The Manor is one of the few remaining Adult Residential Facilities in Los Angeles County, providing permanent housing for disabled people living with mental health conditions.

Please oppose Agenda Item 11B and keep SAMOSHEL open.

Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 64 David Yakobson
From: Ramesh Ramalingam <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Ramesh Ramalingam
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 65 David Yakobson
From: Kevin McCarthy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

I am a 30 year resident of Sunset Park. I love our neighborhood and the community. Over the last four years, we have experienced excessive disturbance and dangerous activity at the Palm Motel property while it has been leased for a homeless program. It was never meant to be and should cease to be a location for unsafe homeless activity. I oppose this proposal and ask that the council look for alternative solutions.

Sincerely,
Kevin McCarthy
1206 Grant Street
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 66 David Yakobson
From: Ido Gruberger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Ido Gruberger
Sent from my phone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 67 David Yakobson
From: Richard Daum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
I trust the evaluation of the Friends of Sunset Park and Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow.

Some of my own thoughts.

Re-purpose the The People Concern facility at 5th Street into a Triage Center.

Neighborhoods are not a proper location for treatment of Mental Health issues that involve disruptive or violent behavior.

This is a national issue and Santa Monica could lead.

Homelessness – Another View At Providing Shelter and Services

HOMELESSNESS IS A NATIONAL EMBARRASSMENT

The following is not a comprehensive program, but some concepts to consider in future planning.

There is little disagreement that unsheltered people living on the streets and alleys is both a State and National embarrassment exasperated by 40 years of neglect of individuals and families suffering from mental illness and addiction to drugs and alcohol.

This neglect is similar to the mistreatment of the mentally ill who were warehoused in State hospitals before the 1970’s.

Shelter without treatment, training and supportive services is destined to fail. We will not build ourselves out of the problems in the short term.
 IMMEDIATELY BUILD FIELD HOSPITALS & TRIAGE CENTERS
 The response to natural disasters has taught us that temporary shelters can be created for 50,000+ people in days. See Red Cross’s Katrina response (1,400 shelters in 27 states within days) and “Mobile Disaster Field Hospitals” set up by FEMA in 48-72 hours).  Each Triage site will evaluate and refer persons to Program sites.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 68  Each person must sign on to and participate in a treatment or placement program.  Allow the use of individual tents for those who prefer tents. Augment tents with adverse weather “warming” or “cooling” shelters.
 Dedicate Program Sites by age and/or need for services attempting to maintain friendship groups and communities previously developed.

 IMMEDIATELY ENFORCE CAMPING LAWS
 Camping, including vehicles and RVs, is allowed only in designated areas which provide toilet, showering, food, medical and safety services. It’s a zoning issue.  SET UP TRIAGE TEAMS
 Immediately set up triage teams to develop treatment plans that are tracked in a statewide database so each jurisdiction knows what was done previously. Plan for mobility.  All Outreach workers are reassigned to centralized triage and program centers except for a small group to direct people to triage centers.
 Appoint California State Homeless Czar with sufficient administrative flexibility to quickly change rules and programs if they prove to be unsuccessful and to remove legal obstacles to solving the many problems of the homeless.

 SET UP PROGRAM SITES WITHIN ALL 50 STATES WITH FEDERAL SUPPORT  In conjunction with Federal Government locate excess capacity for social services, jobs and housing from other States.
 Recognize acute vs chronic problems and establish long term care for some.  Each Program Center will provide shelter, clothing, self-care facilities, nutrition, medical & psychological & spiritual services, educational and life skills training, assistance with government financial programs, retrieval and centralized saving of important documents, storage facilities, and for RV parks, sewage disposal.
 Set up program for young adults transitioning from Foster Care.  Continue support after program graduation for each level of independence, as necessary.

 EXPAND HOUSING OPTIONS TO ALL 50 STATES WITH FEDERAL SUPPORT Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 69  Those with jobs or with a good prospect of finding a job get priority access to permanent and transitional housing (including car parks) in city centers near transportation & jobs.  Current homeless non-profits should concentrate on transitional housing and skills.  Expand concept of housing:
 Include boarding houses with common kitchens and bathroom, independent living with roommates, mobile home parks, RV Parks, etc.
 Seek 50 State solution by expanding the search for placement of clients in supportive services, housing and and/or jobs within the entire United States, including moving expenses, especially if there is no current familial or cultural attachment to LA.  LA is an expensive housing option. There are lower cost areas throughout the United States with large vacancy rates and/or are looking for workers.  Match placement location to person’s current income or family resources.  Attempt to keep current friendship groups together.
 For people who want or need to live in a tent or RV, provide a safe place with services as long as they are participating in a program.
 Make a commitment to local neighborhoods that any placement in a community setting will not involve a known or active safety risk or disruptive person.  SET PRIORITIES IN PROVIDING RESOURCES AND SERVICES
 Funding should recognize the 80/20 Rule with a Triage model that identifies and gives priority to those that can be helped quickly and successfully through existing systems.  80% of people will succeed with 20% of budget and 20% will require 80% of budget.

 CONSIDER DAILY FEES AS ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCE
 Every program should lead with compassion with expectation that each homeless person has a corresponding responsibility to be an active partner in the solution.  In exchange for shelter, food and medical services all clients with a steady income, including SSI, Social Security, Insurance, VA Benefits, work, etc., will pay a sliding-scale daily fee.  After 90 days, if a person receives any source of income, set up a Direct Deposit Conservatorship for those funds while a person is in Triage, hospital, or a program.  In exchange, provide moving expenses and costs of new clothes and housing set-up.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 70  Maintain limited Conservatorship to pay housing and utilities post transitional housing.  Refund a small stipend to a debit card for attending program classes re life skills.  Establish work training opportunities that provide services to program centers.  PROVIDE SAFETY
 The safety of staff and residents is a top priority. To insure safety, there needs to be a strong security and medical and social services present at each program site.  Use National Guard, if necessary until sites can be properly staffed.  Establish special on-site conservatorship courts to quickly and compassionately decide least restrictive environment for disruptive persons with jail as a last resort.  Alcohol and illegal drugs are not allowed while on the premise of any facility.

 PROVIDE LIABILITY PROTECTION TO SERVICE PROVIDERS
 Provide liability protection to all governmental agencies and homeless organizations, including employees and volunteers, unless the harm is caused by an affirmative action that is intentional or grossly negligent with no liability for self-harm.

I trust the evaluation of the Friends of Sunset Park and Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow.

Dear City Councilmembers, In agenda item 11-B, the city proposes spending $9 million to bring homeless housing to the Sunset Park neighborhood. Residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services. Families, seniors, children, and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there. Before the City Council approves $9 million to lease the Palm Motel at 2020 14th Street, and to contract with the People Concern to manage a homeless program there, the City and the People Concern should sign a Good Neighborhood Agreement, plus a detailed Management Agreement that includes rigorous screening for mental illness and drug addiction. The July 25, 2026 beating death of a woman living at The Manor at 1905 Pico Blvd., which provides room, board, and supervision for adults with mental illness, reinforces concern over agenda item 11-B.

Sincerely,
Richard Daum
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 71 David Yakobson
From: susan millmann <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:53 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 11B on July 28, 2026 - Do Not Close SAMOSHEL

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident and strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter and the new Homeless Strategic Plan. As rents surge, homelessness is at an all time high.

SAMOSHEL has been an incredible 60-bed shelter, providing essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing for 32 years.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people whom the city decides do not belong in Santa Monica to Bell is displacement and raises serious racial and disability discrimination concerns.

The Palms Motel is not a fair replacement due to its limited capacity and the fact that it is already consistently full. Is the plan to displace the residents there as well?
The Manor is not a shelter and cannot replace SAMOSHEL. The Manor is one of the few remaining Adult Residential Facilities in Los Angeles County, providing permanent housing for disabled people living with mental health conditions.

Please oppose Agenda Item 11B and keep SAMOSHEL open.

Sincerely,
Susan Millmann
Former Attorney for Santa Monica Legal Aid
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 72 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: 11-B
FYI.

Sarah Almendarez (she/her)
O: (310) 458-8303
From: s. g. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:39 PM
To: Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]> Subject: 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
In agenda item 11-B, the city proposes spending $9 million to bring homeless housing to the Sunset Park neighborhood. Residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services. Families, seniors, children, and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there. Before the City Council approves $9 million to lease the Palm Motel at 2020 14th Street, and to contract with the People Concern to manage a homeless program there, the City and the People Concern should sign a Good Neighborhood Agreement, plus a detailed Management Agreement that includes rigorous screening for mental illness and drug addiction.

Sincerely,
Susan Grant
1030 Cedar St., Santa Monica, CA 90405
(33 year resident of Santa Monica, 28 years at this location) Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 73 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Agenda Item11-B - Homeless Housing at the Palm Motel FYI.

Sarah Almendarez (she/her)
O: (310) 458-8303
From: Adam Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 8:31 PM
To: Dan Hall <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]> Cc: Marisa Davis <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item11-B - Homeless Housing at the Palm Motel

We’re not opposed to shelters. But we need to be smart and protect our children.

Questions remain such as do shelters restrict people who are registered sex offenders? Isn’t there a legal buffer zone? 18 to 22 year-old girls coming in and out of the new arts building can’t be more than 100 feet away! That’s dangerously close and a powder keg for trouble. This is a warning we shouldn’t have to make for you. You should know better.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 74 Let’s be smart. Let’s not do something that will be sorry for sooner if not later. Vote no to permanent shelters right next to our residences with families and local elementary schools.

We will not allow this,

Adam Davis, resident Santa Monica
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 75 David Yakobson
From: Thea Cappiccille <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 11B-In support of The Palm Motel program

EXTERNAL
Subject: In support of The Palm Motel program
Dear City Council members,
My name is Thea Cappiccille and my family and I own and operate The Palm Motel. I felt it was necessary to email you after seeing a lot of articles and social media posts about the city of Santa Monica taking over the program currently being operated at The Palm Motel.

I want to highlight and discuss some of the positive things that are going on.

I was born and raised in Santa Monica, attended local SMMUSD schools and now my husband and I are raising our kids here and they attend SMMUSD schools. We are highly involved in our community through youth sports, volunteer work and community work. I reached out to many of my Sunset Park and Pico neighborhood friends this past weekend to see how they felt about the program continuing at The Palm Motel. The most interesting thing that I learned is that most of them did not even know the Motel was operating as anything besides a Motel. What that means is that this has not been disruptive to the neighborhood. There is an overwhelming consensus that Santa Monica needs to continue to assist our unhoused. Not all unhoused are suffering from mental illness or drug addiction, and sometimes people forget that. Through the program at The Palm Motel we have helped house single parent domestic violent victims with children. They were so thankful that there was help and a location for them to stay in Santa Monica that allowed their children to continue at the local school and keep up a routine. We have had elderly people come through that got the help they needed and got off the streets. These are the types of situations people do not think about. I know you and the city staff know all this but I just want to reiterate that continuing this program with the city taking over, will only continue to help the local unhoused in Santa Monica and get stronger with the city support. Your city manager, Oliver Chi, and his staff, Heather, Aileen and Allyson are excellent. The conversations and meetings I have had with them show me that they truly care about the state of our city and making it better. The city needs to have services and staff like this.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 76 You can find one of us on site almost every day, planting flowers, cleaning, ensuring our housekeeping staff has everything they need and making sure our property is never an eye sore in the neighborhood. We check in constantly with the county staff that has been there since we started working with the county 2 1/2 years ago. Anything they have needed we have taken care of and we would continue to do all this with the city taking over. Security is on-site 24/7 and nobody is allowed to just walk on property. Nobody is doing drugs.

This much needed program has been running successfully for the past 2 1/2 years and I know with the city partnership so much more good work can be done.

Respectfully,
Thea Cappiccille
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 77 David Yakobson
From: Jenny Monbouquette <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Jenny Monbouquette
Jenny Monbouquette
(310)266-3665
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 78 David Yakobson
From: lmarreola <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: July 28 CC Mtg. ITEM 11B

EXTERNAL
Please keep homeless housing and rehabilitation programs out of residential neighborhoods. Using the Palm Motel where an elementry school is 6 blocks away is crazy. Kids from Pico Neighborhood walk past that motel to go to Will Rogers and John Adams.

Respectfully,
Carol and Larry Arreola
Sunset Park Residents
Sent from my Galaxy
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 79 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Hicks <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Nancy & Wes Hicks
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 80 David Yakobson
From: Susan Shapiro <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 9:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Susan Shapiro
Sent from Outlook
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 81 David Yakobson
From: Joseph Kulman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 9:18 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 11B on July 28, 2026 - Do Not Close SAMOSHEL

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident and strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter and the new Homeless Strategic Plan.

SAMOSHEL has been an incredible 60-bed shelter, providing essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing for 32 years.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people whom the city decides do not belong in Santa Monica to Bell is displacement and raises serious racial and disability discrimination concerns.

Please oppose Agenda Item 11B and keep SAMOSHEL open.
--
Joseph Kulman
(310) 407-9451
[email protected]
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 82 David Yakobson
From: Faustino Garza <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 9:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Faustino Garza
Sunset Park
Santa Monica
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 83 David Yakobson
From: Evan Rothstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 9:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 11B

EXTERNAL
Please do not shutdown the SaMoShel housing facility.

Please do not move homeless people to the Palm Motel. This is blocks away from an elementary school and right in the neighborhood of Sunset Park.

Thank you
Evan Rothstein
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 84 David Yakobson
From: Sheri Porath Rockwell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 9:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Strenuously Oppose

EXTERNAL
I’m asking the Council to vote no on the proposal to spend roughly $9 million to pay to have the Palm Motel be the site of interim housing in Sunset Park, where I live. I do support the use of funds to construct a facility in Bell.

I’ve lived in Santa Monica for over 45 years, starting as a junior high student at Lincoln many years ago. I raised my family here, work hard to have paid and continue to pay taxes here, supported our schools, and I care deeply about this city. I also support helping people who are homeless or struggling with mental illness and addiction and am well familiar with those challenges. But that support has to come with solutions that actually work and don’t repeatedly harm the neighborhoods where they’re placed and, more specifically, continue to undermine Santa Monica’s tax base by scaring away businesses that are already struggling and making it already more difficult for families to feel safe.

I’ve watched the City’s attempts to provide services for people who are drug addicted and mentally ill for a long time, and I’ve seen the same pattern repeat: whatever is happening inside often spills out into the surrounding area.

Here are but a few examples:

The People Concern - Cloverfield Location
I pass by and pump gas near The People Concern’s Cloverfield site regularly. I regularly observe what looks like open drug use and drug dealing nearby, people in obvious crisis, and individuals passed out around the surrounding businesses and along the bike path. I know The People Concern does important work and that staff are trying to help people in very difficult situations. They appear to be successful in less densely populated cities or locations. My concern is that even with good intentions, these kinds of facilities seem to have a hard time preventing serious impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, especially in our very small city.

The Maple Hotel
The Maple Hotel has been a concern in our Pico area for a long time, not just because of the recent tragedy. When I stop for gas across the street or drive by in the course of my day, I’ve often seen what appear to be drug deals, people clearly struggling with addiction or mental illness, and behavior that makes the area feel unsafe for nearby businesses and pedestrians, let alone the college students at SMC. Further, the condition of the building is very poor and is a blight on the neighborhood.

Housing First in Residential Buildings
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 85 My family has also seen what can happen when people with serious behavioral health issues are placed into regular apartment buildings without enough support. A friend of my son struggled to pay rent in a new apartment building shared with other young people, working two jobs to make ends meet. Yet, his hard work was not really rewarded because the City had forced the developer to allocate a percentage of units to homeless individuals. As such, the brand new building quickly deteriorated due to repeated incidents involving drug use, sanitation issues (pee in elevators), and overall destructive behavior. As we have seen in San Francisco’s ill fated programs, just putting people in housing without extensive support on site is not sufficient. It harms the community and doesn’t end up helping the people who it tries to serve.

Venice Experiences
We need to look no further than Venice to see that placing facilities in densely populated areas erodes the tax base, endangers residents, and unnecessarily undermines the potential of our city to be a safe and secure place to live where businesses can thrive. The documented failure of St. Joseph’s Center to provide services in a way that does not prevent people from setting up drug dealing down the street in tents to recent violent incidents across from and inside of Whole Foods on Rose are just a few examples.

The Palm Motel Proposal
Based on the experiences noted above, I oppose The Palm Motel purchase. Institutionalizing the approach of embedding seriously mentally ill people in a small motel that was never built for this purpose and is located in a family- and college-centered neighborhood that has been trying for years to fight drug crimes is wrongheaded.

Like the examples above, it is a foregone conclusion that spill over into the neighborhoods will be a feature, not a bug, of this approach. It also inexplicably undermines the years-long investments we have made in improving SMC. Further, with drug deals and drug use going on regularly just a few blocks away outside the Maple Hotel (and frankly, in alleys all around the area) for all to see, how is putting addicts in this area even helping them? It of course does not.

While LAHSA funds may have supported this approach at The Palm Motel of late, the reason LA County funds and federal funds are no longer able to do so is because their approach failed. Why are we proposing spending taxpayer money to at all support decisions of such a broken institution? Further, the Portland study upon which the use of the motel appears to be premised does not support this plan. Rather, the study describes programs that typically include strong on-site staffing, security, and consistent behavioral health and addiction services and there is no indication that the motels being referenced are set in densely populated areas like this one, which is already near ongoing drug and criminal activity. I don’t see enough detail in this proposal to show that the Palm Motel project will actually have the level of support in place described in the study. Even if it did, the idea the City will somehow hold The People Concern “accountable” through a pledge of some kind is a non-starter. As is plain to see with the Maple Hotel facility which likely also has a covenant of some type to be neighborhood friendly, the City has for years and years allowed neighborhood disorder, open drug use and blight exist at very high levels at the Maple Hotel facility.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 86 The real question isn’t whether interim housing can work in theory in our society. It’s whether this specific project, in this specific location, with this operator, is likely to work in practice. I don’t think the City has made that case. Not only does it have a negative impact residents, college students and businesses, but it appears unlikely to actually help the people in need because it places them in an area already struggling with rampant open drug dealing and drug use.

There are other approaches worth pursuing more seriously, including regional partnerships, paying for 24-7 transportation to appropriate facilities in other locations (e.g., the Bell facility), paid efforts to support family reunification where possible, and more treatment-focused models located elsewhere.

The purchase and use of The Palm Motel to absorb the mentally ill / drug addicts in our streets is not the right use of $9 million.

Sincerely,
Sheri Rockwell
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 87 David Yakobson
From: Emily Grace <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 9:34 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 11B on July 28, 2026 - Do Not Close SAMOSHEL

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident and strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter and the new Homeless Strategic Plan.

SAMOSHEL has been an incredible 60-bed shelter, providing essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing for 32 years.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people whom the city decides do not belong in Santa Monica to Bell is displacement and raises serious racial and disability discrimination concerns.

The Palms Motel is not a fair replacement due to its limited capacity and the fact that it is already consistently full. Is the plan to displace the residents there as well?
The Manor is not a shelter and cannot replace SAMOSHEL. The Manor is one of the few remaining Adult Residential Facilities in Los Angeles County, providing permanent housing for disabled people living with mental health conditions.

Please oppose Agenda Item 11B and keep SAMOSHEL open.

Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 88 David Yakobson
From: Tessa R. Baizer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:04 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose Agenda #11B, July 28,2026

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council:

I am a local resident and I strongly oppose closing the Santa Monica homeless shelter and oppose the new Homeless Strategic Plan.

SAMOSHEL is an incredible 60-bed shelter that has provided essential services and a stepping stone to permanent housing for 32 years.

Creating a new housing system that sends unhoused people who the city decides do not belong in Santa Monica to Bell is displacement and opens Santa Monica up to racial and disability forms of discrimination.

The Palms Motel is not a fair replacement to SAMOSHEL due to limited capacity and the fact that it is always full. Is the plan to displace the residents there also? The Manor is not a shelter and cannot be a replacement for SAMOSHEL. The Manor is one of the few remaining Adult Residential Facilities (ARF) in Los Angeles County. This is a form of permanent housing for disabled people living with mental health issues.

Thank you.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 89 David Yakobson
From: Shireen Ossanlo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Matt Walton; Nzinga Garvey; Aileen Reynolds
Subject: Item #11.B- CLARE|MATRIX Letter of Support for Housing-First System of Care Attachments: CLARE MATRIX LOS for City of SM 7.28.26 Agenda Item 11B.pdf Importance: High

EXTERNAL
Good morning,
Attached please find CLARE|MATRIX's written comment regarding tonight’s City Council Agenda Item #11.B, Housing-First System of Care.

Our CEO, Matt Walton, had hoped to attend the meeting and provide public comment in person; however, he is currently out of town and asked that we submit our support in writing on behalf of the organization.

Thank you for the opportunity to recognize the critical connection between housing and behavioral health services as complementary components of eƯective, whole-person care. We appreciate the City's leadership in advancing this important initiative and look forward to partnering with the City and fellow community-based organizations to expand access to the housing, recovery, and treatment services our community so greatly needs.

Best regards,
Shireen
Shireen Ossanlo
Senior Director of Advancement
909 Pico Blvd
Santa Monica, CA 90405
clarematrix.org
Phone: 310.314.6200 x3427
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of ClareMatrix may contain information that is confidential and legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward, or store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it to the sender and delete it completely from your computer system.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) July 28, 2026
Mayor Torosis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Support for a Housing-Focused System of Care (Item# 11.B, City Council Meeting- July 28, 2026)
Dear Mayor Torosis and Honorable Members of the City Council, On behalf of CLARE|MATRIX, I am writing to express our support for the City of Santa Monica's proposal to establish a Housing-Focused System of Care.

For more than 55 years, CLARE|MATRIX has proudly served the Santa Monica community, providing evidence-based substance use disorder treatment and recovery services since 1970.

Throughout our history, we have been honored to partner with the City through the Human Services Grants Program, which has supported a variety of critical initiatives—from youth prevention and intervention programming to our more recent homeless and housed outreach services for individuals impacted by substance use disorders.

We also value our longstanding partnership with The People Concern and The Salvation Army and deeply appreciate the essential role they play as our community's primary housing service providers. Together, community based organizations like ours demonstrate that lasting change is achieved through collaboration, not isolation. Understanding that often times homelessness is accompanied with behavioral health issues and treating that is essential towards someone’s lifetime stability.

As service providers, we believe the future of care must center on effective whole-person care.

Housing is a critical foundation, but sustainable recovery requires access to substance use disorder services, mental health care, medical support, peer support, employment assistance, and ongoing case management. When these services are integrated, individuals have the greatest opportunity to achieve long-term stability, recovery, and independence.

Every day, we witness stories of hope and transformation. We have served individuals who entered treatment while experiencing homelessness and severe substance use disorders—many after years of instability and repeated crises. Through coordinated care that included treatment, case management, recovery support, and connections to stable housing, they were able to rebuild relationships, secure employment, maintain housing, and sustain long-term recovery.

These successes remind us that there is no single solution. Recovery is a journey, and the more coordinated resources available to individuals, the greater the likelihood of lasting success.

As the City considers this important initiative, we encourage the City Council to continue working alongside community-based organizations, healthcare providers, behavioral health professionals, housing partners, and individuals with lived experience to develop and implement a coordinated agreement that prioritizes safety, stability, and effective whole-person care. By Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) leveraging the expertise of organizations already serving our community, Santa Monica can build a collaborative system that meets individuals where they are, connects them to the right services at the right time, and creates clear pathways toward housing stability, recovery, and long-term wellness.

CLARE|MATRIX believes that the strongest Housing-Focused System of Care will be one that recognizes housing and treatment as complementary—not competing—investments. Lasting solutions are achieved when housing is paired with accessible behavioral health services, substance use disorder treatment, recovery support, and ongoing care coordination.

We appreciate the City for allocating more funding within the City’s budget to address housing instability and hope this will advance further conversations around compassionate wholeperson care for those vulnerable populations within our community. We are proud to support this effort and look forward to continuing our partnership with the City, The People Concern, The Salvation Army, and our fellow service providers to ensure every Santa Monica resident has access to effective whole-person care that promotes safety, stability, recovery, and hope.

Sincerely,
Matt Walton
Executive Director / Chief Executive Officer
CLARE|MATRIX
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 90 David Yakobson
From: Steve Clare <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:10 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 11B on July 28, 2026 - Do Not Close SAMOSHEL

Santa Monica City CouncilJuly 28, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
July 28, 2026