Agenda packet, first session — Santa Monica City Council, July 28, 2026 (part 3 of 4)

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.

Sincerely,
Steve Clare
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 91 David Yakobson
From: Alicia Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:20 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!

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,
Alicia Davis, Sunset Park resident
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 92 David Yakobson
From: Kevin Campos <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B at 7/28 Meeting – 5 Critical Reasons to Vote NO

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Homelessness is an urgent issue, but Agenda Item 11-B at the 7/28 City Council meeting is not an acceptable solution for the Palm Motel, its surrounding neighborhood, or Santa Monica. I respectfully and strongly ask each Councilmember to vote no on every component of Agenda Item 11-B for the following critical reasons:

1. This proposal is a fundamental and consequential change in Palm Motel’s use, not a continuation of existing interim housing.

2. Relocating emergency and higher-acuity stabilization housing from a commercial setting to a dense residential neighborhood creates new and substantial risks.

3. The proposal abandons Santa Monica’s publicly stated requirement for “fair geographic distribution” and instead concentrates homelessness services in one neighborhood.

4. Before approving any new homelessness-housing site anywhere in Santa Monica the Council must require complete, enforceable operating standards and accountability measures and this proposal does not provide that.

5. The City’s communication and community engagement on this proposal have been inadequate and borderline misleading.

Fundamental and consequential change of use: The proposed shift from interim housing to stabilization housing has serious implications for the surrounding neighborhood. The staff report characterizes this as a material change, and it should be evaluated with the transparency, diligence, and public process that such a change requires.

New and substantial risks: SaMoShel is located in a commercial area, while Palm Motel is located in a dense residential neighborhood only blocks from both an elementary school and a middle school. A facility serving a higher-acuity population must be evaluated through the lens of neighborhood safety, operational capacity, school proximity, and the impact on nearby residents and businesses.

Abandoning fair geographic distribution: SaMoShel currently provides 60 stabilization beds, yet this proposal would shift 48 beds -- 80% of that capacity -- to Palm Motel. That is not a citywide network of sites; it is an excessive concentration of homelessness-service capacity in the Pico/Sunset Park area. And the staff report suggests it could even be worse than that if the Manor (the only other named potential site) is used for 40 interim-housing beds. That would place 84 beds -- 40% more than the original capacity of the SaMoShel -- within approximately 0.4 miles of one another in the same neighborhood.

Lacking clear standards and accountability: The City has described this model as one in which it will establish standards at every site and be accountable for results. Yet Agenda Item 11-B does not provide the level of detail, enforceable commitments, or neighborhood protections necessary to responsibly approve new stabilization or other homelessness-housing capacity. At a minimum, every proposed site should be supported by the following before approval:
 A detailed written operating plan identifying the target population, eligibility criteria, referral process, anticipated acuity levels, service model, staffing ratios, and bed-management protocols  A site-specific safety and security plan, including 24/7 trained staffing, active on-site management, security coverage, incident-response procedures, and coordination protocols with police, fire, nearby schools, businesses, and neighborhood stakeholders
 A binding good-neighbor agreement with enforceable service standards, designated neighborhood contacts, response-time commitments, a complaint-and-escalation process, and regular public reporting Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 93  Clear behavioral expectations and enforceable consequences addressing weapons, violence, drug use, public intoxication, trespass, loitering, and disruptive conduct  Measurable performance standards and independent oversight, including public reporting on occupancy, length of stay, exits to permanent housing, calls for service, neighborhood complaints, critical incidents, and correctiveaction requirements  A formal community-advisory process, regular public meetings, and a clear mechanism for residents and businesses to raise concerns and obtain timely resolution  A citywide geographic-distribution analysis demonstrating that the proposed site advances—not undermines—an equitable network of homelessness-service locations
Without these protections established as binding, site-specific conditions before a vote, the Council should not approve any new homelessness-housing capacity under this proposal. Promises of future standards or post-approval engagement are not an adequate substitute for a complete and publicly reviewable plan before the City authorizes a material change in use.

Inadequate and misleading communication: Many neighbors on my street, only blocks from Palm Motel, learned of this agenda item just one day before the vote, leaving little or no meaningful opportunity to review the proposal or engage with the City. More concerning, several City communications and officials have characterized this proposal as a continuation of interim housing, even though the staff report identifies a material transition to stabilization housing.

Santa Monica can pursue humane and effective homelessness solutions without sacrificing transparency, operational accountability, equitable distribution, or neighborhood trust. I respectfully and strongly urge every Councilmember to vote no on all components of Agenda Item 11-B.

Sincerely,
Kevin Campos
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 94 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Neighbors <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:27 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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,
Jen Smith
Mid City
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 95 David Yakobson
From: Monique Ruddell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Darren 😘
Subject: Opposition to item 11B, Palm Motel

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
My name is Monique Ruddell and my family and I are Santa Monica residents for over 10 years. We live at 14th street and Pine, directly across from Will Roger’s Elementary School. We have 3 children, ages 5, 8 and 11 in the Santa Monica school system. We just learned about today’s vote on item 11B to make a trial in transitional housing at the Palm Motel more permanent with an emphasis on drug addiction.

Both Will Rogers Elementary and John Adams middle school are zoned for residences on either side of Pico Boulevard meaning that children are walking daily past the Palm Motel. We are so grateful to live in an urban area that feels more like a suburb, where our children can walk and bike freely to and from school, after school programs, and friends houses, but this measure will significantly impact the freedom and safety of our children. I wanted to express my strong opposition to this measure and my hope that you will take the children of our community into consideration with this decision. There are many more urban areas of our community where transitional, addiction focused, residences would have less of an impact on childrens’ ability to move freely and experience growing independence. Please continue looking for better options. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you,
Monique and Darren Ruddell and family
1348 Pine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 96 David Yakobson
From: Maria Loya <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:29 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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-todate, 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, [Your name] [Your street / neighborhood]
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 97 David Yakobson
From: Julie Rusk <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; Aileen Reynolds; Allyson Crosby
Subject: Input to Items #11B/#16F (07.28/26)

EXTERNAL
Mayor, Council, City Manager, & Staff:

For the City’s next steps to address the complex, national/regional challenge of homelessness, I support item #16F provided this Council direction explicitly includes full extension of lease and funding for Samoshel and the Access Center through this fiscal year with opportunity to extend, if needed.

Clear, predictable, and adequate time parameters are essential to signaling the Council’s intent to respect public process and engagement which involves The People Concern, its clients/unhoused residents, and the community at large.

Thank you for continuing the City’s long tradition of leadership on one of the most vexing, troubling and divisive issues facing us all.

Respectfully,
Julie Rusk
—
Julie Rusk
Co-Founder, Civic Wellbeing Partners
Board Co-Chair, Santa Monica Human Relations Council
Community Wellbeing Program
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 98 David Yakobson
From: John Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:45 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!

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,
(YOUR NAME)
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 99 David Yakobson
From: John Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:45 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
Dear City Councilmembers,
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,
John Murdock
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 100
David Yakobson
From: Tracey Hom <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:52 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Oliver Chi; Karen M. Fisher; Roni Crichton; Heidi von Tongeln; Molly; Lynn Sturgis Subject: oppose 11b

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
I could not attend the town hall last week that presented the Proposed Housing Plan. i have been briefed on it by several people. It is clear that 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.

I could not attend because i had a catastrophic fall over a poorly repaired section of sidewalk and crushed my should. I have already had one surgery (a plate and 8 screws) and will likely need more surgery. Spend 9 million on repairing our streets and sidewalks.

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, Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 101
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,
 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.

Tracey P. Hom Esq.
10850 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 825
Los Angeles, California 90024
310 749 5343
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 102
David Yakobson
From: Fernando E. Cornejo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:52 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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 homelessoutcome data the City already tracks.

Respectfully,
Fernando E. Cornejo
1827 17th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
62+ years Pico neighborhood resident
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: Nzinga Garvey <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Authorization to Enter into Certain Agreements and Provide Further Direction to Staff Related to a Housing Focused System of Care

EXTERNAL
Good Morning,
Below please find my written public comment to the above-mentioned agenda item:

Reviewing the City's strategic plan to address homelessness and refined model gave me a comprehensive understanding of why this solution matters now. As a resident for over 20 years, I have watched homelessness become more complex as behavioral health needs, the Metro end-of-line dynamic and demands on first responders have intensified. I commend the City for pursuing system redesign and not simply another program.

The proposal is viable because it preserves capacity and partnerships while correcting structural weaknesses that interrupt progress. First, the system relies on a 60-bed congregate shelter downtown and outside entities for later-stage housing. The refined model creates a City-directed continuum, from outreach and emergency placement through interim and permanent housing, so responsibility no longer dissolves at the handoff. City teams can match people to the setting, preserve clinical continuity and measure whether each placement advances someone toward housing.

Second, moving from dependence on a congregate setting toward referral-only placements such as Palm Motel rooms, supplemented by regional beds and interim sites, offers dignity and stability.

Embedding case management, physical and behavioral health care, substance use treatment, workforce development and housing navigation makes a bed the beginning of a recovery and housing plan, not the endpoint of crisis response.

Quite frankly, this is the disciplined infrastructure Santa Monica needs (locally accountable, regionally connected, clinically responsive and judged by permanent housing exits). The plan creates a role for experienced partners able to engage people with complex substance use and co-occurring mental health needs.

We are grateful for this opportunity to understand the proposal in depth. CLARE | MATRIX gladly lends its support to advancing Santa Monica's Housing-Focused System of Care.

Best,
Nzinga
Nzinga Garvey, MBA
Partner Relations
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 2 5220 W. Washington Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90016
clarematrix.org
Phone: (310) 570-5141
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. 597 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 3 David Yakobson
From: Duncan Webb <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:14 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin Subject: Proposed shelter location

EXTERNAL
Hello Santa Monica leadership team.

I am a resident of Bay Street writing with concern about the location of a homeless shelter at the Palm Motel. I can appreciate you're in the difficult position of trying to find safe locations for the unhoused people in our city.

However, as someone with two children who attend Will Rogers, I wonder if having one so close to a school is the best option. Like many other families, we walk down 14th St. every day - it's one of the benefits that brought us to the neighborhood. We're not trying to pretend we live in a utopia without people who deal with serious mental health and substance abuse problems, but I'd be lying if I said we want to navigate that on the way to school each day. Do any of you live within 500 ft of a shelter location and have the ability to speak from experience about what it's like? Maybe you could reassure me that this is not going to come with safety concerns?
Thanks for your time.

Duncan Webb
1513 Bay St.

Santa Monica
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 4 David Yakobson
From: jennifer o'sullivan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSITION to Shuttering SaMoShel and The Palm Motel Stabilization Housing Agreement

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to you today as a concerned resident of the neighborhood surrounding The Palm Motel to urge you to vote NO on the proposed "Housing Focused System of Care" at your July 28th meeting. The plan to decommission SaMoShel and replace it with a scattered-site housing system (specifically the conversion of The Palm Motel into stabilization housing) is deeply flawed and poses a direct risk to our neighborhood.

While I recognize the need to address the regional homelessness crisis, dismantling our city’s only dedicated sheltering resource in favor of an underfunded, decentralized motel network is the wrong approach. I urge you to reject this proposal for the following reasons:

1. Unacceptable Risks to Neighborhood Children and Schools This is a residential neighborhood where families live and children walk to and from nearby schools every day.

Using The Palm Motel to house individuals who have been chronically homeless for three or more years, or who are frequent users of emergency services, introduces severe safety and security risks. Concentrating high-needs stabilization housing in a family-dense area is inappropriate, and written "good neighbor" policies will not be enough to prevent the disturbances that frequently spill out of these facilities.

2. Reckless Closure of a Centralized Resource Ending all operations at SaMoShel, a reliable 60-bed congregate shelter that has served the city for decades, to force an experimental motel model is irresponsible. Current vulnerable residents will be transferred to "as yet undetermined facilities," effectively demolishing our existing infrastructure without a guaranteed, operational local facility ready to take them in. We need centralized care, not a piecemeal network of residential motels.

3. The "SMPP" Requirement Will Leave People on Our Streets The city's plan limits local placement at facilities like The Palm Motel to those meeting the strict "Santa Monica Program Participant" (SMPP) definition. By the city’s own admission, only about 10% of SaMoShel’s current occupants meet this threshold. Displacing the other 90% means they Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 5 will either be pushed back onto our local streets and into our neighborhoods, or shipped 30 miles away to the Bell Shelter, severing their local support ties.

4. Bypassing Community Review and Financial Instability It is deeply concerning that city staff are asking the council to fast-track The Palm Motel agreement by bypassing competitive bidding and claiming a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption. Silencing community review is unacceptable. Furthermore, committing $9.5 million to these motel agreements using temporary development funds, with no guaranteed funding beyond year two, is fiscally shortsighted. When the money runs out, our neighborhood will be left dealing with an underfunded facility the city cannot afford to manage.

Our neighborhood is not the appropriate testing ground for stabilization housing, and Santa Monica cannot afford to lose its most established shelter.

I strongly urge you to vote NO on the budget amendment, deny the CEQA exemption for The Palm Motel, and halt the decommissioning of SaMoShel. Please send city staff back to the drawing board to find alternative locations in non-residential areas and to develop a plan that guarantees continuity of care in a centralized, secure location.

Thank you for your time, your service to Santa Monica, and your attention to the safety of our neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Jennifer O'Sullivan
1352 Pine St
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 6 David Yakobson
From: Donna Ashton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:56 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Heather Averick; Oliver Chi; Dan Hall Subject: 11B-Closure of SaMoShel and moving homeless services to the Palms Motel

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 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.

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.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 7 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,
Donna Ashton
1823 20th St, SM
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 8 David Yakobson
From: Robert Mickelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:57 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,
Robert Mickelson
3204 Pearl Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 9 David Yakobson
From: Danny Guggenheim <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:57 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 - opposition

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
The proposal to bring homeless housing into the heart of the Sunset Park neighborhood disregards the interests of longtime residents, including families, seniors and children (many of whom walk to the nearby public elementary and middle schools).

We deserve neighborhoods that are designed for the residents who live there, and safe and stable for all.

At a minimum there should be agreements for projects like this establishing minimum standards for management as a good neighbor, and requiring screening for mental illness and addiction. The recent violence at 1905 Pico demonstrates the seriousness of these concerns.

And the city has many more important needs for $9m, which could provide services to many more people if not concentrated on a single project serving a very small number of people.

Please prioritize residents by opposing this.

Sincerely,
Danny Guggenheim
Sunset Park resident since 2006
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 10 David Yakobson
From: Kathleen Kelleher McCarthy <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:01 AM
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!

The Palms Motel at 2020 14th Street is a horrible spot to facilitate a homeless program for up to 48 people. We have lived in Sunset Park since 1991. Our alley is a veritable open air toilet. In one week, my neighbor had her garage door shat upon and our backyard wall abutting the alley was similarly defiled by human excrement with used toilet tissue lying near the trash can. The very same week someone was sleeping in front of my next door neighbor’s trash can in our alley and she is a single mother of two elementary-school children. Shall we call City Sanitation to come clean it up? It’s on city property but we are the one’s having to deal with it! It’s utterly unacceptable. This happens all the time. A transient recently sat in front of my 90-something neighbor’s house acting erratically after charging another neighbor as he was getting into his car. My elderly neighbor reached out to all of us (we have a text thread for our street) asking for help. She felt threatened and trapped in her house. Neighbors have had a transient hiding and lurking about in her backyard more than once, while she was huddled inside with her two small daughters and her husband was out of town. Bicycles have been stolen, cars stolen and a few incidents of burglary. Last year, a woman with a box cutter threatened a St. Monica’s Catholic Church volunteer setting up for an event and earlier that week a person with a box cutter attacked a driver resulting in the driver being taken to the hospital. Most recently, a 27-year-old woman was fatally shot in a communal bathroom at The Manor, located at 19th Street and Pico Blvd., an assisted living apartment for mentally ill and developmentally disabled adults. This is a smattering of evidence showing why The Palms and The Manor DO NOT BELONG in residential neighborhood!! I am 100% opposed to the city taking over operations at The Palms because I DO NOT want those folks as my neighbors! They do not belong in residential neighborhoods! SAMOSHEL should stay in operation because it in not in a residential neighborhood, it is not located near preschools, elementary schools, middle schools and children’s therapy practices. Also, Santa Monica City should NOT be taking on LA County’s off-loaded responsibility for a crisis of its homeless operations finances born of grossly mismanaged operations and unaccountable spending of taxpayer dollars.

I agree with Friends of Sunset Park that if the city moves forward with this horrible idea against residents wishes, a few things need to happen. Before the City Council approves a $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. No one Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 11 who is using drugs or drinking should be allowed to be housed at The Palms or The Manor. Recurring spontaneous testing for drugs and alcohol must be mandatory.

And just to reiterate, 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,
Kathleen McCarthy
1306 Grant St.

Santa Monica
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 12 David Yakobson
From: Susan Alinsangan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:15 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 Alinsangan
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 13 David Yakobson
From: Giesa DiBianca <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Opposition to Item 11B – Palm Motel

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I'm writing to urge you to vote no on Agenda Item 11B, which would convert the Palm Motel at 14th and Pico into a permanent city-run emergency shelter .

My family and I recently moved to 14th and Maple specifically because of this neighborhood's reputation for safety and walkability. We have lived in Santa Monica for over 10 years and felt this neighborhood would be right as our forever home to raise our children. We have two young children, ages 6 and 8, and we chose this area with a clear goal in mind: to raise kids who can ride their bikes to a friend's house, walk to school, and eventually navigate the neighborhood on their own. That kind of independence depends on parents being able to trust the streets our kids are moving through.

Please remember that this neighborhood houses both an Elementary and Middle School with children walking directly past the Palm Hotel daily to get to and from school.

The current proposal for the Palm Motel shelter does not include the safeguards that would make this compatible with a residential, family-filled neighborhood. Specifically:
 No sobriety requirement for residents, despite this being positioned as a shelter for those struggling with addiction
 No drug testing
 No outside security, with only one required meeting per day and reportedly as few as 3 rotating staff for more than 42 residents
I'd ask the Council to:

1. Vote no on 11B as currently structured

2. Direct staff to identify a facility and program design that includes real security, treatment requirements, and adequate staffing

3. Keep 14th and Pico as a motel or find a more appropriate site for an emergency shelter model Thank you for your time and for representing this community's concerns.

Sincerely,
Giesa DiBianca
Resident, 14th & Maple, Santa Monica
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 14 David Yakobson
From: Cuff, Dana <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:23 AM
To: Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; councilmtgitems Subject: Oppose Agenda #11B, July 28, 2026

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and SM City Council,
I write in strong opposition to the closure of SAMOSHEL, which is one of Santa Monica’s most important resources for supporting unhoused community members. Such a resource will be impossible to replace within our own community, and it is not either equivalent or acceptable to move residents to a facility in Bell. I am a proud many-decade homeowner in Santa Monica, and have always held up our community where rather than displacing problems to other places, —classic NIMBY moves, we recognize the humanity of all our residents, and our responsibilities to solve the problems at home. Similarly, SAMOSHEL’s 60 beds are already not enough, so if the Palms Motel or the Manor are available for shelters, we should add them to SAMOSHEL. They certainly do not replace it.

Thank you for taking all of our views into account. I encourage you to vote against the closure of SAMOSHEL.

Dana Cuff
653 Raymond Ave
Santa Monica
……………………………………………………………….

Dr. Dana Cuff
Director, cityLAB – UCLA
Distinguished Professor, Architecture + Urban Design
Core Faculty, Urban Humanities Initiative
Rm B215-Perloff Hall UCLA
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1467
310-804-0045 cell
……………………………………………………………………………..

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 15 David Yakobson
From: Sheryl Newbridge <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:24 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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 homelessoutcome data the City already tracks.

Respectfully,
[Your name]
[Your street / neighborhood]
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 16 David Yakobson
From: Amani Abou-Zamzam MBA <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:24 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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 homelessoutcome data the City already tracks.

Respectfully,
Thanks, Amani Northeast
Amani A. Abou-Zamzam MBA
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 17 David Yakobson
From: S Newbridge <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:24 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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.

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.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 18 Respectfully,
[Your name]
[Your street / neighborhood]
Confidentiality Notice
The information contained in this communication (including, without limitation, in any attachment) is confidential and is intended for disclosure only to the addressee(s). If you are not an intended recipient or have otherwise received this communication in error, please notify the sender and then delete it, and you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of any of the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 19 David Yakobson
From: Sheryl <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:25 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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.

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.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 20 Respectfully,
[Your name]
[Your street / neighborhood]
Confidentiality Notice
The information contained in this communication (including, without limitation, in any attachment) is confidential and is intended for disclosure only to the addressee(s). If you are not an intended recipient or have otherwise received this communication in error, please notify the sender and then delete it, and you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of any of the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 21 David Yakobson
From: Anne Sadeghpour <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Heather Averick; Oliver Chi; Dan Hall Subject: Item 11-B on today's City Council agenda, July 28, 2026

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. I am a long-time Santa Monica resident, retired librarian at Edison Language Academy and Roosevelt Elementary, and Pico Neighborhood resident since 2010. I realize that people with mental health issues and situational homelessness need care, and it is distressing for them and for our Pico neighborhood that neither such care nor a venue for serving them are available, leaving many deserving folks with nothing to do all day long, living in a state of poverty, idleness, and danger and therefore posing a danger to others. I have taken the locally-sponsored zoom mental health training of just a few hours on de-escalating mental health crises if encountered on the street, being mindful that first, we must keep ourselves SAFE should such an encounter occur. My husband and I participated in the initial planning for the 19th St. community garden. The trashy state of our neighborhood is a concern. Please do not allow the area to become an increasing embarrassment to the entire Santa Monica community, nor a place where our parents continue to feel that their children are unsafe.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 22 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,
Anne Sadeghpour, LT, M.Ed.
residence: 20th St.

Pico Neighborhood
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Comment on Items 11B and 11C
Fyi.

Sarah Almendarez (she/her)
O: (310) 458-8303
-----Original Message-----
From: Olivia Nahass <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:23 AM
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment on Items 11B and 11C

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding agenda items 11B and 11C and their potential impact on the Pico neighborhood.

Regarding item 11B, I strongly oppose the placement of a new homeless shelter in close proximity to multiple schools, including Mount Olive Preschool, Will Rogers Elementary School, John Adams Middle School, and Santa Monica High School. The safety and well-being of students and families in this area must remain a priority.

Residents have already observed an increase in crime and police activity in the Pico neighborhood, and there is concern that adding another shelter may further strain public safety resources.

Additionally, the neighborhood is already served by an existing facility, The Laurel. Establishing another shelter on 14th Street appears redundant and could place unnecessary pressure on the surrounding community. I respectfully suggest maintaining SAMOSHEL in its current location, where it is better situated near the freeway and downtown, minimizing disruption to residential neighborhoods.

From a fiscal perspective, the proposed expenditure of approximately $9 million on a new shelter is also concerning, particularly given the City’s current financial challenges. These funds may be better allocated toward solutions that balance community needs with fiscal responsibility.

Regarding item 11C, I am equally concerned about the proposal to allow 212 units in an area currently zoned R1.

Such a significant increase in density would fundamentally alter the character of the Sunset Park and Pico neighborhood. Many property owners chose this area for its established residential nature, schools, and sense of community. Expanding high-density development in this zone risks undermining those qualities.

If additional housing is necessary, I encourage the Council to consider focusing development in areas already designated for higher density, such as downtown Santa Monica, where infrastructure is better equipped to support it.

Thank you for your time and consideration of these important community concerns.

Sincerely,
Olivia Nahass
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 2 David Yakobson
From: Clerk Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Support for Items 11-B and 11-C
Mitchell Kois
Staff Assistant III | City Clerk’s Office
(310) 458-8211 x5518
-----Original Message-----
From: Debbie Paperman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:07 AM
To: [email protected]; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; Clerk Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Items 11-B and 11-C

EXTERNAL
Good morning and happy Tuesday
I’m writing to support both Item 11-B and Item 11-C. We desperately need more access for unhoused people, and we need more housing. Blocking shelter beds and blocking new homes only keeps the problems exactly where they are and it’s only going to get worse Item 11-B gives unhoused people a safe place indoors, which is basic and necessary.

Item 11-C allows more housing to exist in areas that have been limited to single-family zoning which is not sustainable nor keeping up with the times.

If we want fewer people living outside and more people able to afford to live here, ( as I think we should !) we need both shelter and more homes.

Please approve both items.

Thank you so much for all that you do
Debbie Paperman
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: Abel, Richard <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:06 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Proposed abolition of Samoshel

EXTERNAL
I am writing to oppose the abolition of Samoshel. I have been a Santa Monica resident for half a century. Every day I encounter homeless people in need of shelter: on the beach and when I walk and bicycle around our lovely city for pleasure or doing shopping. We know that the number of unhoused people in greater Los Angeles has been increasing. Santa Monica has always been a caring community. We have a duty to provide shelter for the unhoused. Please keep Samoshel in operation.

Sincerely,
Richard Abel
446 16th Street
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: Deborah Maddis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:12 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]
Subject: Oppose Agenda #11B - July 28, 2026 KEEP SAMOSHEL OPEN Importance: High

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing as a 40 year resident of Santa Monica (Sunset Park) to strongly oppose the new Homeless Strategic Plan and the closing of Santa Monica’s first and only emergency shelter SAMOSHEL, that was already downsized from 100 beds to 60.

While SAMOSHEL was intended to be a temporary emergency shelter at its inception over 30 years ago, it is a major reason that the homeless count in Santa Monica has been lower than ALL neighboring cities for the past three decades.

In addition, the local hospitals rely heavily on SAMOSHEL as the main resource for discharging homeless high utilizers of the health care system here in Santa Monica. There are no current replacements for SAMOSHEL.

I urge you to consider a Homeless Strategic plan that uses the land at 505 Olympic to transform TPC - SAMOSHEL into a permanent facility modeled after TPC - Cloverfield Services Center.

Sincerely,
Deborah Maddis
Deborah Maddis, MPH
Consultant
Integrating Healthcare and Housing
(310) 968-9903
[email protected]
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 2 David Yakobson
From: Maria Loya <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Heather Averick; Oliver Chi; Dan Hall Cc: PNA Freddy Luis; Brian O'Neil; Gina DeBaca; B. Onofre; Esther Hickman; Mary Cornejo; PNA SM; PNA~Kiana Choy
Subject: Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Members of the Council, and City Manager Chi, The PNA is writing regarding Item 11-B on today's agenda, July 28.

We are 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, We are 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.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 3 — Publish resident-impact data — police calls, school safety, neighborhood quality of life — alongside the homeless-outcome data the City already tracks.

Respectfully,
Pico Neighborhood Board of Directors
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 4 David Yakobson
From: Karen Arrigo-Hill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:31 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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 homelessoutcome data the City already tracks.

Respectfully,
Karen Arrigo-Hill
1121 21st St.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 5 David Yakobson
From: scott cherkasky <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:32 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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 homelessoutcome data the City already tracks.

Respectfully,
[Your name]
[Your street / neighborhood]
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 6 David Yakobson
From: Allan Goldrath <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:34 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,
Allan Goldrath
Gloria Kamler
1035 Hill St.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 7 David Yakobson
From: Dan Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:36 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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 homelessoutcome data the City already tracks.

Respectfully,
Dan Kolhoff
2628 29th Street
Sunset Park
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 8 David Yakobson
From: DT4SM <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:40 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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.

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.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 9 Respectfully,
Derrick Townsend
Derrick Townsend for Santa Monica City Council 2026
[email protected]
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 10 David Yakobson
From: Dolores Grijalva <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:43 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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 homelessoutcome data the City already tracks.

Respectfully,
Dolores Grijalva
Pico Neighborhood, 12th Street
Life is good!
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 11 David Yakobson
From: Maze Douglass Brownell-Wells <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:43 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; Maze Douglass Brownell-Wells Subject: Oppose Agenda #11B - 28 July 2026 KEEP SAMOSHEL OPEN

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing as a twenty-five years resident of Santa Monica (Pico/DTSM) to strongly oppose the new Homeless Strategic Plan and the closing of SAMOSHEL, our city's first and only emergency shelter, which has already been downsized from one hundred to sixty beds.

While SAMOSHEL was intended as a temporary emergency shelter over thirty years ago, it is a major reason why Santa Monica's unhoused population has remained lower than all neighboring cities for the past three decades. Additionally, local hospitals rely heavily on SAMOSHEL as the primary discharge resource for high utilizers of the healthcare system. There are currently no replacements for this vital facility.

I urge you to revise the Homeless Strategic Plan to utilize the land at 505 Olympic to transform SAMOSHEL into a permanent facility modeled after the Cloverfield Services Center.

Sincerely,
Maze Douglass Brownell-Wells
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 12 David Yakobson
From: Lynn Gephart <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:43 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,
Lynn Gephart
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 13 David Yakobson
From: Elise Solé <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 11B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and the Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 11B, which would place an emergency shelter at the Palm Motel on Pico.

I do not believe placing a homeless facility in the middle of a residential neighborhood is a safe solution, especially given the number of incidents involving people under the influence of alcohol or drugs, harassing families as they walk by, or in some cases, attempting violence.

Please prioritize the safety and quality of life of the people who are raising families in Santa Monica by voting NO on Item 11B.

Thank you very much,
Sincerely,
E. Sole
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 14 David Yakobson
From: Pat Oconor <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B at 7/28 Meeting – 5 Critical Reasons to Vote NO

1. This proposal is a fundamental and consequential change in Palm Motel’s use, not a continuation of existing interim housing.

2. Relocating emergency and higher-acuity stabilization housing from a commercial setting to a dense residential neighborhood creates new and substantial risks.

3. The proposal abandons Santa Monica’s publicly stated requirement for “fair geographic distribution” and instead concentrates homelessness services in one neighborhood.

5. The City’s communication and community engagement on this proposal have been inadequate and borderline misleading.

Abandoning fair geographic distribution: SaMoShel currently provides 60 stabilization beds, yet this proposal would shift 48 beds -- 80% of that capacity -- to Palm Motel. That is not a citywide network of sites; it is an excessive concentration of homelessness-service capacity in the Pico/Sunset Park area. And the staff report suggests it could even be worse than that if the Manor (the only other named potential site) is used for 40 interim-housing beds. That would place 84 beds in total -- 140% of the original capacity at SaMoShel -- all within the same neighborhood, just 0.4 miles apart.

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 15  Clear behavioral expectations and enforceable consequences addressing weapons, violence, drug use, public intoxication, trespass, loitering, and disruptive conduct  Measurable performance standards and independent oversight, including public reporting on occupancy, length of stay, exits to permanent housing, calls for service, neighborhood complaints, critical incidents, and correctiveaction requirements  A formal community-advisory process, regular public meetings, and a clear mechanism for residents and businesses to raise concerns and obtain timely resolution  A citywide geographic-distribution analysis demonstrating that the proposed site advances—not undermines—an equitable network of homelessness-service locations
Without these protections established as binding, site-specific conditions before a vote, the Council should not approve any new homelessness-housing capacity under this proposal. Promises of future standards or post-approval engagement are not an adequate substitute for a complete and publicly reviewable plan before the City authorizes a material change in use.

Inadequate and misleading communication: Many residents in my neighborhood, only blocks from Palm Motel, learned of this agenda item just one day before the vote, leaving little or no meaningful opportunity to review the proposal or engage with the City. More concerning, several City communications and officials have characterized this proposal as a continuation of interim housing, even though the staff report identifies a material transition to stabilization housing.

Sincerely,
Patricia O'Conor
1310 Pine Street
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 16 David Yakobson
From: mwdobbs <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:45 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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 homelessoutcome 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,
Michael Dobbs
2350 Ashland Ave., Sunset Park.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 17 David Yakobson
From: Geoff Coster <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:47 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,
Geoff Coster
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 18 David Yakobson
From: Gretchen Goetz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 11B at 7/28 Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council members,
We own a home in Sunset Park and are concerned about the impact of homelessness in our city.

In response to the news of the closing of Samoshel and the possible future placement of homeless individuals, we support the Palm Motel status as continuing to provide interim housing.

Beyond that, we support using destinations like the one we have read about in Bell, and possibly more Salvation Army beds. The Sunset Park neighborhood is small and dense, and full of schools and children traveling on foot. We feel that it already bears its' share of providing for those in need — and any further emergency or high acuity stabilization housing will create new and substantial risks.

Questions:
1) While we have approximately 800 homeless individuals in SM, the current proposals only include supporting a fraction of them. Does the Council have a plan for placing the rest? Will placement be beyond the borders of Santa Monica?
2) What is the long term strategy for funding this?
Thank you for your time,
Gretchen Goetz
1337 Pine Street, SM 90405
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 19 David Yakobson
From: Brian O'Neil <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Cc: Brian ONeil; Nada Shamonki
Subject: 7/28/26 Item 11B: Safeguards for SaMoShel Relocation to Pico Neighborhood

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Members of the Council, and City Manager Chi,

We are 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. We are 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, we are 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.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 20 The Laurel is our own evidence of what happens without these safeguards: a documented 444–450% increase in police calls since it opened. We are asking the Council not to repeat that outcome in another neighborhood before first fixing what went wrong there.

Highest regards,
Brian O’Neil/ Nada Shamonki
2929 Delaware Ave (Pico Neighborhood)
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 21 David Yakobson
From: Jim O <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B at 7/28 Meeting – 5 Critical Reasons to Vote NO

1. This proposal is a fundamental and consequential change in Palm Motel’s use, not a continuation of existing interim housing.

2. Relocating emergency and higher-acuity stabilization housing from a commercial setting to a dense residential neighborhood creates new and substantial risks.

3. The proposal abandons Santa Monica’s publicly stated requirement for “fair geographic distribution” and instead concentrates homelessness services in one neighborhood.

5. The City’s communication and community engagement on this proposal have been inadequate and borderline misleading.

New and substantial risks: SaMoShel is located in a commercial area, while Palm Motel is located in a dense residential neighborhood only blocks from both an elementary school and a middle school. A facility serving a higheracuity population must be evaluated through the lens of neighborhood safety, operational capacity, school proximity, and the impact on nearby residents and businesses.

Abandoning fair geographic distribution: SaMoShel currently provides 60 stabilization beds, yet this proposal would shift 48 beds -- 80% of that capacity -- to Palm Motel. That is not a citywide network of sites; it is an excessive concentration of homelessness-service capacity in the Pico/Sunset Park area. And the staff report suggests it could even be worse than that if the Manor (the only other named potential site) is used for 40 interim-housing beds. That would place 84 beds in total -- 140% of the original capacity at SaMoShel -- all within the same neighborhood, just 0.4 miles apart.

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 22  A binding good-neighbor agreement with enforceable service standards, designated neighborhood contacts, response-time commitments, a complaint-and-escalation process, and regular public reporting  Clear behavioral expectations and enforceable consequences addressing weapons, violence, drug use, public intoxication, trespass, loitering, and disruptive conduct  Measurable performance standards and independent oversight, including public reporting on occupancy, length of stay, exits to permanent housing, calls for service, neighborhood complaints, critical incidents, and correctiveaction requirements  A formal community-advisory process, regular public meetings, and a clear mechanism for residents and businesses to raise concerns and obtain timely resolution  A citywide geographic-distribution analysis demonstrating that the proposed site advances—not undermines—an equitable network of homelessness-service locations
Without these protections established as binding, site-specific conditions before a vote, the Council should not approve any new homelessness-housing capacity under this proposal. Promises of future standards or post-approval engagement are not an adequate substitute for a complete and publicly reviewable plan before the City authorizes a material change in use.

Sincerely,
Patricia O'Conor
1310 Pine Street
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 23 David Yakobson
From: Oscar <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Heather Averick; Oliver Chi; Dan Hall Subject: item 11-B

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.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 24 — Publish resident-impact data — police calls, school safety, neighborhood quality of life — alongside the homeless-outcome data the City already tracks.

Respectfully,
[Your name]
[Your street / neighborhood]
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 25 David Yakobson
From: Mark Varo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 11B

EXTERNAL
Please do not shutdown the SaMoShel housing facility.

Please do not move homeless people to the Palm Hotel. This is right near an elementary school and right in the neighborhood of sunset park.

Mark Varo
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 26 David Yakobson
From: Erin Foley King <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:56 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
Hi there 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,
Erin and Matthew King
Ashland Avenue
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 27 David Yakobson
From: Diana Szymanski <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:56 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

I currently live in an apartment building with 1-unit occupied by an unhoused occupant, and my life has dramatically gotten worse. Trash is felt outside of my door steps. Unlivable noise is made at all hours of the night, so I can't get a good night's sleep. I work to pay to live in my apartment and have called in sick several times due to the disruption this tenant creates. I call the police - they come - she doesn't open the door, the Police leaves. There is no plan or protection in place for residents living in our building or neighbor. We have to pick up and clean trash left on the street - the unhoused person doesn't care. The unhoused person spits from her second floor as people are passing under her. She doesn't care and no action can be taken to protect ourselves.

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.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 28 - 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.

Respectfully,
Diana Ski
Euclid/Pico District
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 29 David Yakobson
From: Lynn Bar-Or <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:58 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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 homelessoutcome data the City already tracks.

Respectfully,
Lynn Bar-Or
27 Arcadia Terrace Santa Monica
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 30 David Yakobson
From: Will Finch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Agenda item 11-B

EXTERNAL
Hi, I am writing in support of the city’s homelessness housing plan. We need to provide more supportive housing capacity and should continue identifying sites that can provide this! Sincerely,
Will Finch
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 31 David Yakobson
From: Aleese Orr <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 12:00 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11-B July 28, 2026

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 tax paying and contributing members of the Santa Monica community have been negatively impacted by the housing first/focused/no barrier plans this city council has repeatedly allowed into our city. Allowing continued drug and alcohol abuse on the property helps no one. And zero background checks put dangerous people in our backyards.

These policies have failed both the housed AND the unhoused. The residents have attended council meetings, town halls, neighborhood gatherings, written to all city officials and yet the city council continues to laugh in their faces and do the opposite of what the communities demand. Your experiments and policies have failed. Facts do not lie. Anyone living in Santa Monica or visiting Santa Monica can see the failures outside their windows. Our children are put in harm's way. They can no longer walk to school, to their friends' houses or ride their bikes to get an ice cream without coming across an unstable drug addict or a volatile mentally ill person. YOU have taken the safety away from the residents who you answer to.

Again, I am asking that the city re-examine its housing first/focused/no sobriety approach. Closing one shelter and opening another with the same policies is a waste of my tax dollar. WE ALREADY KNOW THE OUTCOME. Look at San Jose and San Francisco's pivots. Los Angeles has failed. Santa Monica can separate themselves and pull out of this vile pit.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 32 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.

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.

Respectfully,
Aleese Orr
308 Alta Ave, Santa Monica
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 652 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.

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.

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.

Respectfully,
Daniel Register
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 653 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. 654 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.

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.

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.

Respectfully,
Daniel Register
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 655 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. 656 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: David Goetz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi

EXTERNAL
To:

Subject:

Agenda Item 11-B at 7/28 Meeting – 5 Critical Reasons to Vote NO Email Body:

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Homelessness is an urgent issue, but Agenda Item 11-B at the 7/28 City Council meeting is not an acceptable solution for the Palm Motel, its surrounding neighborhood, or Santa Monica. I respectfully and strongly ask each Councilmember to vote no on every component of Agenda Item 11-B for the following critical reasons:

1. This proposal is a fundamental and consequential change in Palm Motel’s use, not a continuation of existing interim housing.

2. Relocating emergency and higher-acuity stabilization housing from a commercial setting to a dense residential neighborhood creates new and substantial risks.

3. The proposal abandons Santa Monica’s publicly stated requirement for “fair geographic distribution” and instead concentrates homelessness services in one neighborhood.

5. The City’s communication and community engagement on this proposal have been inadequate and borderline misleading.

Abandoning fair geographic distribution: SaMoShel currently provides 60 stabilization beds, yet this proposal would shift 48 beds -- 80% of that capacity -- to Palm Motel. That is not a citywide network of sites; it is an excessive concentration of homelessness-service capacity in the Pico/Sunset Park area. And the staff report suggests it could even be worse than that if the Manor (the only other named potential site) is used for 40 interim-housing beds. That would place 84 beds in total -- 140% of the original capacity at SaMoShel -- all within the same neighborhood, just 0.4 miles apart.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 2  A detailed written operating plan identifying the target population, eligibility criteria, referral process, anticipated acuity levels, service model, staffing ratios, and bed-management protocols  A site-specific safety and security plan, including 24/7 trained staffing, active on-site management, security coverage, incident-response procedures, and coordination protocols with police, fire, nearby schools, businesses, and neighborhood stakeholders
 A binding good-neighbor agreement with enforceable service standards, designated neighborhood contacts, response-time commitments, a complaint-and-escalation process, and regular public reporting  Clear behavioral expectations and enforceable consequences addressing weapons, violence, drug use, public intoxication, trespass, loitering, and disruptive conduct  Measurable performance standards and independent oversight, including public reporting on occupancy, length of stay, exits to permanent housing, calls for service, neighborhood complaints, critical incidents, and correctiveaction requirements  A formal community-advisory process, regular public meetings, and a clear mechanism for residents and businesses to raise concerns and obtain timely resolution  A citywide geographic-distribution analysis demonstrating that the proposed site advances—not undermines—an equitable network of homelessness-service locations
Without these protections established as binding, site-specific conditions before a vote, the Council should not approve any new homelessness-housing capacity under this proposal. Promises of future standards or post-approval engagement are not an adequate substitute for a complete and publicly reviewable plan before the City authorizes a material change in use.

Sincerely,
David Goetz
A Santa Monica Sunset Park Community Member
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: TARYN FORDES <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Taryn Fordes
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: anne geffner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 8:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please do not close ANY indoor housing that gives shelter to the unhoused!

EXTERNAL
Closing any type of indoor shelter for the unhoused would only create instability and perhaps prompting people to want to live on the streets again. We cannot afford to shuffle around the most vulnerable of our population. Who became this way because ? A humane society needs to assume a portion of the guilt . Our failings are numerous. Please do
more not less. Unhoused people are human beings - like you and me. Not animals that are forced to poop and pee on the street. Being unhoused should be illegal!! Anne Geffner
1530 5th street apt 419
S.M. 90401
[email protected]
Get Outlook for iOS
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: Louise Dobbs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 8:58 PM
To: Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Thank you for your consideration and your service

EXTERNAL
Subject:

Oppose Agenda #11B, July 28,2026

DO NOT CLOSE SAMOSHEL

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.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 2 Louise Dobbs
2925 4th St #25
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: Joanne Leslie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda items 16F and 11B concerning housing for unhoused people in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Dear council members and staff,
I write as a 30 year resident of Santa Monica and a concerned member of the clergy (retired deacon at St.

Augustine’s-by-the-Sea Episcopal Church). It has recently come to my attention that the city is planning to close SoMoShel. I don’t know enough about the specific considerations to know if this is a good idea, but I am sure that I do not want us to lose any capacity to house and support those who need temporary housing. For this reason, I strongly support Agenda item 16 F, put forward by Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick and Councilmember Raskin. I want all the unhoused people staying in SaMoShel to be able to stay there until they can get the best possible housing support going forward. We don’t need to be in a rush and push already suffering and vulnerable people into sleeping on the streets, or parks or beaches, hoping that they will somehow just disappear. If closing SaMoShel gives the city an opportunity to work out a truly good plan, one that gives all Santa Monicans, no matter where they sleep, an opportunity to have a path to a real permanent home and a better life, then I am in favor.

But this must be carried out with a real concern for the short term and longer term well being of unhoused people, not simply for cosmetic purposes of making Santa Monica comfortable for rich tourists.

I would also like to briefly make an even more personal observation relevant to item 11B. I live on the corner of 14th and Grant streets, where I have owned my home for the past 30 years. I am on the same block as the Palm Motel. Therefore I have lived here all the time that People Concern has operated the Palm Motel as a shelter for unhoused folks. As a neighbor, I can attest to the fact that there have been no problems. Several people whom I believe to be residents at the Palm Motel avail themselves of the Little Free Library in front of my house. I am happy to have them do so. This seems to me to be a good use of motel space and I would be happy to speak with any neighbors of new shelters that the city might open to assure them that I have had nothing but positive experience with the People Concern facility at the Palm Motel.

Thank you for your consideration and attention,
The Rev. Dr. Joanne Leslie
1351 Grant St.

Santa Monica 90405
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: Charles OConor <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 12:03 PM
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B at 7/28 Meeting – 5 Critical Reasons to Vote NO

1. This proposal is a fundamental and consequential change in Palm Motel’s use, not a continuation of existing interim housing.

2. Relocating emergency and higher-acuity stabilization housing from a commercial setting to a dense residential neighborhood creates new and substantial risks.

3. The proposal abandons Santa Monica’s publicly stated requirement for “fair geographic distribution” and instead concentrates homelessness services in one neighborhood.

5. The City’s communication and community engagement on this proposal have been inadequate and borderline misleading.

Abandoning fair geographic distribution: SaMoShel currently provides 60 stabilization beds, yet this proposal would shift 48 beds -- 80% of that capacity -- to Palm Motel. That is not a citywide network of sites; it is an excessive concentration of homelessness-service capacity in the Pico/Sunset Park area. And the staff report suggests it could even be worse than that if the Manor (the only other named potential site) is used for 40 interim-housing beds. That would place 84 beds in total -- 140% of the original capacity at SaMoShel -- all within the same neighborhood, just 0.4 miles apart.

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 2  Measurable performance standards and independent oversight, including public reporting on occupancy, length of stay, exits to permanent housing, calls for service, neighborhood complaints, critical incidents, and correctiveaction requirements  A formal community-advisory process, regular public meetings, and a clear mechanism for residents and businesses to raise concerns and obtain timely resolution  A citywide geographic-distribution analysis demonstrating that the proposed site advances—not undermines—an equitable network of homelessness-service locations
Without these protections established as binding, site-specific conditions before a vote, the Council should not approve any new homelessness-housing capacity under this proposal. Promises of future standards or post-approval engagement are not an adequate substitute for a complete and publicly reviewable plan before the City authorizes a material change in use.

Sincerely,
Charles OConor
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 3 David Yakobson
From: Leigh Leigh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 12:13 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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.

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.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 4 Respectfully,
Leigh Kavanaugh 4
th Street 90403
Get Outlook for Android
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 5 David Yakobson
From: Norma Maister <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 12:20 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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 homelessoutcome data the City already tracks.

Respectfully,
Norma Maister
1330 California Ave #206
Santa Monica, Ca 90493
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 6 David Yakobson
From: Sabrina Fielden <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 12:54 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.

Sabrina Fielden
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 7 David Yakobson
From: Paula Mazur <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 12:57 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!

Sincerely,
Paula Mazur
3204 Pearl Street
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 8 David Yakobson
From: Julie Grosman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 12:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item11-B

Sincerely,
Julie Grosman
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 9 David Yakobson
From: Stephanie Becker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:01 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.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 10 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Ong <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:05 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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.

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.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 11 Respectfully,
Nancy Ong
20th Street/Wilshire
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 12 David Yakobson
From: Alice Lin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:06 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,
Alice
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 13 David Yakobson
From: Kevin P. Pelletier <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:08 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Kelly Smith ([email protected]) Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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.

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.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 14 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,
Kevin P. Pelletier
12th and Wilshire, Santa Monica
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 15 David Yakobson
From: jesslyn hutton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:12 PM
To: Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Heather Averick; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 11B-Closure of SaMoShel and moving homeless services to the Palms Motel

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.

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.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 16 — 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.

Respectfully,
Jess Kahler
Delaware Ave, Pico Neighborhood
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 17 David Yakobson
From: Louis Ssutu <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:13 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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 homelessoutcome data the City already tracks.

Respectfully,
Louis Ssutu
Deanna Ssutu
Laura Ssutu
Residents of Sunset Park
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 18 Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 19 David Yakobson
From: Karen Comegys-Wortz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:18 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!

I AM AGAINST agenda item 11-B. You are putting our neighborhood in danger.

There are other locations in Santa Monica that are not part of the residential areas.

Find and use those!
Sincerely,
Karen Comegys=Wortz
1725 Cedar St
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 20 David Yakobson
From: Ellen Mark <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:19 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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 homelessoutcome data the City already tracks.

Respectfully,
[Your name]
[Your street / neighborhood]
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 21 David Yakobson
From: Ellen Mark <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:20 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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 homelessoutcome data the City already tracks.

Respectfully,
Ellen Mark
Navy St., Sunset Park
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 22 David Yakobson
From: John Levy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:37 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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.

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.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 23 Respectfully,
John Levy
33rd Street/Sunset Park
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 24 David Yakobson
From: Laura Park <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:58 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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 homelessoutcome data the City already tracks.

Respectfully,
Laura Park
Ashland, Sunset Park
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 25 David Yakobson
From: Thomas Finn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Thomas & Pamela Finn
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 26 David Yakobson
From: Robin OConnell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 2:06 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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 homelessoutcome data the City already tracks.

Respectfully,
Robin O’Connell
3044 Paula Drive, SM 90405
(310) 463-2788
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 27 David Yakobson
From: Tony O'Connell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 2:08 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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 homelessoutcome data the City already tracks.

Respectfully,
Tony O'Connell
3044 Paula Drive, SM 90405
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 28 Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 29 David Yakobson
From: Kathleen O'Grady <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 2:08 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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.

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.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 30 Respectfully,
Kathleen O'Grady
Ashland Ave
Sunset Park, Santa Monica
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 31 David Yakobson
From: Mary Blakey <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 9:23 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.

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. 694 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 32 David Yakobson
From: Daniel Funk <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 2:21 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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.

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.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 33 Respectfully,
Daniel Funk
Ashland Avenue, 90405
Get Outlook for iOS
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 34 David Yakobson
From: irena mendez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 2:11 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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.

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.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 35 Respectfully,
[Your name]
[Your street / neighborhood]
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 36 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 2:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Agenda Item11-B
FYI
Sarah Almendarez (she/her)
O: (310) 458-8303
From: Shuilan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:52 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: Agenda Item11-B

Sincerely,
Mariani May
1506 Bay Street
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 37 Sent from Proton Mail for iOS.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 38 David Yakobson
From: jay giannone <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 3:05 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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.

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.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 39 Respectfully,
Jay Giannone
934 4th st
Camera and A Dream Productions
323-301-2353
Keyboardandadream.com
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 40 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 3:14 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.

The Palm Motel is within a very short distance of Will Rogers Elementary School. Please don't risk the safety of the young children and families there by using The Palm Motel for homeless services.

In the bigger picture, it seems that there is little to no interest or willingness to put services for the homeless north of Wilshire. You have made the Pico and Sunset Park neighborhoods a dumping ground for those service. With two homicides in Santa Monica this week, on on 19th St. and Pico- PLEASE do not put a homeless facility on 14th and Pico. It should also be noted that The Palm Motel doesn't offer lock down capabilities for dangerous individuals. Please leave our neighborhood alone. It's northern nSanta Monica's turn to carry at least SOME of the burden of homeless services.

Sincerely,
Emily Sanders
2333 Oak Street Unit 5
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 41 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 3:32 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 11-B

EXTERNAL
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.

PLEASE do not burden Sunset Park with this dangerous plan, which jeopardizes the safety of Santa Monica residents.

Would YOU want this in your neighborhood, in close proximity to schools? Would YOU be willing to live next to this project?
Sunset Park and the Pico neighborhood should NOT be singled out as your dumping ground for the homeless.

Where is the equity in sharing the burden in this city? Why are Sunset Park and the Pico neighborhood always the ones who get these facilities? Sincerely,
Emily Sanders
Santa Monica resident
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 42 David Yakobson
From: Rebecca Lewis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 4:02 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.

--
Rebecca Lewis
Instagram: @bexlewis
Number: +1 310 401 4169
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 43 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 4:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
I support my Santa Monica neighbors in asking that you oppose 11-B.

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.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Sent from my phone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 44 David Yakobson
From: Kara Fox <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 4:32 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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 homelessoutcome data the City already tracks.

Respectfully,
[Your name]
[Your street / neighborhood]
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 45 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Joensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 4:54 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Item 11-B

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.

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 homelessoutcome data the City already tracks.

Respectfully,
Elizabeth Joensen
Ashland Ave/ Sunset Park
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 12:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin
Subject: City Council 7/28/26 Agenda Item 11-B and 16F - OPPOSE

Before the City Council invests in more housing and services, it must answer the question I have been asking for months. Where is the data showing the number of beds and types of services provided in every city in LA County (and the state) to see how we compare? The presentations from staff about the Housing First (now Housing Focused) plan contains almost no facility numbers, no costs, and no maps. There is no master plan. We cannot possibly approve a new program and facility without knowing exactly how it fits in the plan, what the other pieces of the plan are, how much it costs, what the funding sources would be, what the impacts are to the residents, what mitigation measures are needed, and how much those measures cost. We also need to know how many people will move through this new system and whether it will have any measurable impact on the thousands of people who enter this city each year but are not from here.

We keeping hearing that we must "do something" and that we can't "just say no". But our elected officials and government have a responsibility to spend limited public funds, be they county or city funds, effectively for the greater good. Spending $85k per bed is a very large sum, especially if in the aggregate it doesn't make a meaningful impact.

We need to question a system that makes it more profitable to rent beds than run a motel.

Item 16F is a last-minute add by Mayor Torosis that conflicts with 11-B on an agenda she created.

She appears to have lost her way as she is attempting to appease her different donor bases for the election. Samoshel does need to close as it is a failed model. It should not be kept open to enable dispersing services throughout our residential neighborhoods.

We need to pause. The city needs to engage with residents instead of hatching more plans in closed session. We don't need RFEIs when we don't have a plan.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 4:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan.Hall. @santamonica.gov; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Heather Averick Subject: My family's home since 1983 - Items 11b and 11c - Changing the district of Pico Neighborhood

EXTERNAL
I have lived in Santa Monica since 1980, in the Pico Neighborhood since 1983.

My daughter grew up here and attended Santa Monica schools.

My grandson was born and raised here and graduated from SANMOH. His first child is due August 28, 2026. We will be four generations raised in Santa Monica. We live within 2 blocks of each other and we've been long time devoted residents. I love and know my neighbors many of whom lived here long before my family. One neighbor's family has been my gardeners for 30 years. We are a close knit community with deep roots.

I would like to keep my neighborhood the wonderful place to grow up we have known. Therefore, I object to the council making changes to the zoning and building ordinances.

The price of real estate in Santa Monica has gone through the roof and rents have followed accordingly. I am heartbroken for homeless people and those who cannot afford the high rents. We cannot cure the national-wide problem of greed and speculation and I decry these practices.

However, I am concerned about too many developers allowed to build in Santa Monica. Many of them are Private Equity firms, Real Estate Investment Trusts and Hedge Fund Managers. These entities charge exorbitant fees to their investors, getting rich from our beautiful city and making housing in our country a major issue. Soon they will own our city if they don't already do so. FIGHT BACK! PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE KEEP SANTA MONICA FOR THE PEOPLE NOT THE DEVELOPERS.

I am pleading with each of you to vote NO on:

Item 11B-Closure of SaMoShel and moving homeless services to the Palms Motel AND NO ON
Item 11-C: Upzoning of R1 Neighborhoods in the Pico District I Thank you for your service and you kind attention to my email.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 2 Sincerely - Janet Krelle, 1807 19th Street, Apt. A, Santa Monica, CA 90404 (
Contact info: email [email protected]; telephone (310) 266-1261 Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: Clerk Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 2:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Item 11-B
Mitchell Kois
Staff Assistant III | City Clerk’s Office
(310) 458-8211 x5518
From: Sturlik <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 2:03 PM
To: Clerk Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
Please do not add anymore low income housing in the Pico area.

We already have lots of low income housing in this area.

You should spread low income housing to around the North of Wishire and Montana area.

It is not right how you always add low income housing to the same area, it is making it unsafe for families to live here.

Thank you,
Kathy
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: Daphne Dennis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 2:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Items #11B/#16F (07/28/2026)

EXTERNAL
Mayor, City Council, City Manager, and Staff,
I support Council item 16F, provided Samoshel and the Access Center remain funded and open as the City pursues a thorough public process about the community impact of the closure of these two programs.

I say the above as a retired Social Services Manager for the City of West Hollywood and concerned 50-year City resident.

Thank you for your leadership on this extremely challenging issue and may our City continue to support all members of our community, with services provided within our City borders.

Sincerely, Daphne Dennis
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 1 David Yakobson
From: kristie johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Appalled that this is even a consideration!

EXTERNAL
To those who actually care and want to listen in protest to the relocation of homeless services and housing to the Sunset Park neighborhood.

My husband and I have lived in SM almost 30 years, and have teenagers now….and I can honestly say we’ve never felt so unhappy and unsafe as we do today! I used to walk my babies all around SM, Venice, on the strand, at the Promenade…today, we do non of that! We go to Manhattan Beach to shop and my kids go to Century City with friends to avoid the hassles and craziness of homeless people, along with the disgusting streets, stepping over every excrement that comes out of a human being! They both completed 8 years of Junior Lifeguard, learning to be good and helpful citizens only to be moved off SM beach onto North Venice beach - why?! Because they were occupying too much beach space in SM? More BS from this city! My kids “lived” downtown SM for a little over a year, due to the fires. Pali High relocated to the Sears Bldg and everyday was a new adventure of being “greeted” in the mornings by some drugged up homeless person yelling at them that they, as Pali kids, did not belong in SM!
We live not far from SMC, and we’ve had multiple occasions calling the police to have people removed from our rear driveway in the alley! Having cameras placed, now we get to see bicycles being stripped of serial numbers, people doing drugs and hiding drugs in the bushes! Not to mention we’ve had our wheels stolen off our car right in front of our house! And had an attempted GTA of our other car! You really think all of this is going to improve?! Are the police going to come to every home that calls every minute of the day/night to assist with criminal activity, bad behavior and safety issues?! Then, not only will the beautiful and pristine campus of SMC lose its reputation, safety is already becoming a bigger issue..how many murders and violent actions have recently occurred just across the street on pico/19th around an already low income housing?!!! But you plan to surround other schools with homeless activity - a junior High, elementary schools and a preschool all within blocks of your careless and thoughtless plan! Do any of you think about the ramifications of your actions? Any of them? This city has an issue!! Honestly, it’s all of you, but instead of dealing with the problems you’ve created, all of you just move the problems around to create more problems! WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU! If SM wants to continue to be a “welcome mat” to all the homeless and criminals, then keep everything downtown…you have the food bank there already, that train conveniently brings them all in, and you have the police dept right there…there’s not only the empty Sears bldg, but the property on main and pico as well…or are both those properties too visible for the city?!! And what would tourists think?! It is unbelievable that this city would put its residents in harms way, the elderly, the kids, the ones paying the high taxes, buying expensive property and ultimately paying the salaries of you, the SM government!!! All to make SM appear beautiful for tourists who are VISITING the downtown area! Shame on you!!!! You provide for the criminals, druggies and homeless and spend money on frivolous BS that helps no one - except for the city officials, the developers who don’t care about the city they don’t live in, and the NGOs…commonality - all of you only care about the money that goes into your pocket!
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 2 Santa Monica was once a beautiful city I loved and was grateful for, now I can’t wait to leave it - it’s not beautiful anymore, its ugly, it’s become like so much of what the rest of LA already is …fake and run by people who don’t care about the businesses, the residents, the future!
Good luck SM! If this demented plan is approved, be prepared! What is ugly and bad downtown, will not be fixed, it will only spread across this part of SM. Businesses are already gone or leaving from downtown SM only to be replaced by “low income” housing, another joke! A lot of housing, a lot more cars using single narrow roads like your other disaster (Broadway and other streets narrowed for all those hundreds of bikes that use bike lanes!), no businesses to shop at, homeless person at every corner, smelling piss in the alleys and dodging crap on the sidewalks, all while trying to keep our families safe from the mentally deranged individuals SM wants to house next door to all of us…sounds absolutely like a dream! Like the ones you wake up from in a deep sweat and say “thank God that was only a nightmare!”
As elected officials, it is your DUTY to keep the residents of SM safe. This insane plan is in direct violation of that! -Kristie Johnson
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) A Housing Focused System of Care
Discussing the City’s proposal to improve our homelessness response outcomes and treat every person – housed and unhoused – with dignity.

July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) • Preliminary numbers from the 2026 Point
-In-
Time (PIT) count show 718 people are
experiencing homelessness in Santa Monica • This represents an 11.6% decline compared against 2025 • Further, unsheltered homelessness fell 18.7% from 2025 • This mean more people came inside, and less people were on the street • However, the majority of our unhoused population remains unsheltered – on the streets, in our community
The Landscape: The People
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) • 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:
• 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 • 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 • Service Providers and nonprofits dedicated to doing this work are struggling • The City is absorbing more impact due to these funding cuts, and we are prepared to respond to this moment The Landscape: The County
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) • SaMoShel is not being relocated to Sunset Park / Pico • The Palm Motel has operated as interim housing for over 2 years • No new facility is being proposed in any neighborhood • Walk-ups will not be allowed at any of our proposed locations • 24/7 security will be a requirement of our agreements • Good neighbor agreements are built into the proposed service provider contracts, and the City is enthusiastic to develop additional good neighbor agreements in partnership with surrounding neighbors • Assessment for physical health, mental health, and substance abuse will take place prior to program enrollment to determine level of client need
• If an individual needs a higher level of care than what a city subcontracted agency can provide, they will not be referred to our proposed locations
• Any act of physical violence or extensive property destruction would be a violation of the program participation agreement and would result in program termination 4 Clarifying What's Being Proposed (And What Isn't)
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care)

CITY OF SANTA

MONICA HPI

SERVICE SYSTEM
SYSTEM

PATHWAYS
Prevention
Flexible
Financial
Assistance
Eviction
Prevention
Housing
Retention
Housing
Navigation
Intervention
Outreach Emergency
Housing
Interim
Housing
Permanent
Housing
City’s Homeless Response Model
Organizational Infrastructure
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) Congregate Sheltering Isn’t Ideal
For Helping People Stabilize
• While there is a need for congregate
sheltering, people are more likely to
recover, stay healthy, and move forward
when stabilizing in a non-congregate
settings
6 Reasons For Proposed Changes
Lack of City Control of Facilities
Creates Challenges
• The facilities in Santa Monica that have generated
the most neighborhood concern are not controlled
by the City
• While the City can intervene in those situations, a
lack of City control means other entities are
selecting who gets access to those facilities, and
other entities set operating expectations
Sheltering Only Without Interconnected
System For Exits Creates a Strain on
Resources
• The City has not invested in dedicated
resources or systems for housing exits,
requiring service providers to navigate a
variety of complicated systems to assist
clients in finding housing
Current Fragmented Systems Results
in Lack of Accountability
• Our current system is fragmented
• County programs, nonprofit operators, and
City teams are all fighting to access scarce
resources, and each entity is deploying a
different strategy
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 7 New Strategy Proposed Is A
Housing Focused System of Care
• During the past year, the City has been analyzing options for improving the current situation • That assessment has resulted in the development of a new strategy, focused on shifting from a disjointed homeless intervention program, to a housing-focused system of care • The proposed strategy would create a mini-continuum of care in Santa Monica, where the City would have control / access to each step in the interconnected system • Temporary stabilization housing options for people, with wrap-around services • Interim housing to continue assisting people in transitioning from homelessness to housed, with financial counseling, substance use treatment options, and workforce development • Permanent housing resources with on-site services to end an individual or family’s homelessness • Emergency, on-demand psychiatric services to assist individuals with higher needs than shelter can provide
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 8 One System, With The City Being Able To Open Each Doorway

OUTREACH &

FIRST RESPONSE
Outreach teams and public
safety engage people on the
street and refer them in. No
walk-ups, anywhere in the
system.

EMERGENCY

STABILIZATION
A safe, non-congregate
place to come off the street,
with wraparound services
from day one.

INTERIM

HOUSING
Structured transition:
financial counseling,
substance-use treatment
options, workforce
development.

PERMANENT
EXIT
City places people who are
ready into affordable and
supportive units it controls,
to end their homelessness.

The system envisions City-controlled access to facilities at each stage, via a referral only process.

The City would also direct on-site security and facility management, with performance contracts required for City selected operators.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 9 Initial System Implementation

TO CLOSE
SaMoShel
The 30-year 'temporary' tent
shelter would close. Current
residents staying at the site
would transition to alternate
sheltering options, and
nobody will be exited to the
street.

TO BE IDENTIFIED
Future Sites, Via RFEI
The City is looking for existing
motels / apartments that
would be offered by willing
owners, in Santa Monica and
across LA County. Those new
facilities would be used by
the City as part of the larger
Housing Focused System of
Care being developed
Net effect: the City demobilizes a temporary congregate shelter responsibly by connecting individuals to other interim or permanent housing opportunities, while identifying future sites to partner with to maintain bed capacity within the City.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 10 Initial System Implementation

PRESERVED
The Palm Motel
Already operating as interim
housing shelter location for
the past 2 years, the County
will be defunding the
operation in August. The City
is looking to step in and take
over the facility, and to
operate it as part of the City’s
local continuum of care for
an SMPP population.

SUPPORT REGIONAL

SOLUTIONS
Salvation Army Bell
Shelter
The regional homeless
response system is fiscally
strained, and the Salvation
Army has an existing facility
with empty beds and no
funding to use them. The City
is looking to fund capacity
there as our fair-share
investment in the regional
system.

Net effect: no new facility is added to any Santa Monica neighborhood; one existing facility is preserved; and new capacity is funded regionally for use by the entire County.

Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 11 Prioritizing Housing Exits
• The system we’re developing also relies on permanent housing exits from the interim housing options we offer • Santa Monica continues to prioritize affordable housing development and preservation
• In addition to the existing affordable housing in Santa Monica, the City has over 250 units of affordable housing in development
• 90 of those units would be permanent supportive housing units made available to individuals in the City’s refined housing-focused system of care
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 12 How Would This Work?
Example #1
• An older adult experiencing homelessness interacts with one of our city-funded outreach teams • They have economic hardships that landed them homeless after being evicted from their home in Santa Monica, and they want help getting back on their feet
• The outreach team would refer them to The Palm, and the intake team would conduct a biopsychosocial to understand their needs
• On site, this individual would be given a room to stay • They would be connected with mental health services, physical health services, food and hygiene resources • Over time, their on-site case manager would work with them to develop a housing plan • Their case manager thinks they would benefit from housing for older adults that comes with support services and a Section 8 voucher so they can always have resources to help them thrive
• When they’re ready, the individual is referred to a permanent supportive housing building and exits homelessness Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 13 How Would This Work?
Example #2
• An individual experiencing homelessness is having a mental health crisis on the street • The City’s first responder teams are called, and Santa Monica’s APU unit arrives on scene to do a health assessment • The first responders conclude the individual is in crisis and cannot make decisions independently, and needs immediate medical attention
• Referral options include:
• Transport to local hospital
• Call County Department of Mental Health for PMRT team to access a bed in a psychiatric facility • Refer to a psychiatric urgent care center
• This individual would not be referred to interim shelter as they need emergency medical and psychiatric assistance
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 14 How Would This Work?
Example #3
• SMPD identify an individual experiencing homelessness using drugs in a public place • SMPD offers the individual two options: arrest, or accept a diversion program at SaMo Bridge • The individual selects the diversion program, and SMPD transport them to SaMo Bridge • At SaMo Bridge, the individual is offered a recliner, shower, and snacks • As the individual is stabilized, that person will begin working with Exodus staff to enroll directly into temporary housing and health services and start a 90-day case management plan
• Exodus connects the individual to a detox program and sober living facility • After successfully completing their 90-day case management plan, no misdemeanor charges would be filed by the CAO
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) City
Oversight +
Management
of Services
• Under this new system, the City will have direct oversight over the entire model, so that we can…
• Ensure clear operational roles of all service providing entities • Provide proper security and site management for each location • Develop and implement good neighbor policies
• Prioritize coordination with public safety teams
• Facilitate performance monitoring and reporting
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 16 Measuring Success
• Metrics and reporting infrastructure will be developed by the City to ensure these refined programs are delivering effective results • Notably, staff is interested in tracking: • Length of stay • Goal for emergency shelter < 120 days • Goal for interim housing <365 days • Quantifying “Graduations” through the continuum • # of participants moving from emergency shelter to interim housing per month • # of participants moving from emergency shelter to permanent housing per month • # of participants moving from interim housing to permanent housing per month • Connections to other services to aide in stabilization • # of referrals to substance use detox or other outpatient programs • # of referrals to psychiatric services • # of participants enrolled in CalFresh • # of participants enrolled in public assistance • # of participants enrolled in job training programs Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) What’s True Today
• The Palm Motel has operated as interim housing
shelter for ~2 years, under LA County’s Pathway
Home program
• LA County is defunding the program, effective
August 2026
• If we don’t act to preserve the Palm Motel, we
lose this valuable resources, and the property
owner will reutilize the site in whatever manner
comes next
What Changes Under City Control
• A direct City lease, whereby the City, not the
County, gets to decide how the site is run
• The City decides who is referred into the facility
• Referral-only access will be coordinated through
City outreach and first responders, with no walkups
• The City will direct security and site
management, with staffing levels set by the City
• A written good-neighbor policy with a named
City contact and enforcement teeth will be
developed
• A performance-based operator [The People
Concern] contract will also be deployed, with
specific standards, reporting, and
consequences 17
Policy Decision #1:

Preserve The Palm Motel
As An Interim Housing Resource With City Control
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 18 Policy Decision #2:

Support For The Regional System
Salvation Army’s Bell Shelter
• The Salvation Army has a facility in the City of Bell • That particular facility has available capacity, against a backdrop in LA County where regional homeless support facilities are being defunded at scale
• The Salvation Army facility has beds that are sitting empty today because there is no funding to operate them • The City’s investment would fund regional homelessness sheltering capacity • Given that the majority of the homeless population we encounter in Santa Monica are from the broader region, part of our new strategy is to provide support for unused capacity so that it serves the whole region • This will include giving our outreach teams a real option to offer people who want off the street but have no Santa Monica connection
• Other jurisdictions in LA County will also be able to utilize the new capacity that the City is funding at the Salvation Army site • The City is NOT looking to export our problems
• Supporting the regional shelter facility that needs funding to operate is not about relocation or exporting a problem • The facility that we would help activate would be accessible by any jurisdiction that partners with the Salvation Army, • Further, any placement from Santa Monica into the facility would be voluntary, service-connected, and advance the goal of moving a person from a sidewalk into a bed
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) Request for Expressions of Interest
Master Leasing
• In order to identify additional locations for
family shelter and interim housing access,
the City is looking to publish an RFEI
• Through that RFEI, we will be soliciting
property owners who may have a block of
rooms or an entire property to master lease
to the City for integration into the Housing
Focused System of Care
• We will be seeking properties well suited for
use as interim housing in Santa Monica, as
well as possible partnerships in other parts
of LA County, to offer more options for
households looking to get off the streets
Request for Qualifications
Service Providers
• To pair with that RFEI, the City would also
publish an RFQ to build a bench of service
providers who can be called on to contract
for emergency or interim housing services,
or master leasing operations
• Through this process, we will be seeking
experienced service providers who have
capacity to deliver a holistic suite of
services to households transitioning from
homelessness to housed
19 Policy Decision #3:

RFEI / RFQ Process To Find New & Additional Options
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 20 Funding Request Via Budget Amendments
AGREEMENTS 2026-27
(10 mos.) 2027-28
The Palm Motel $1.00M $1.24M
The People Concern $1.30M $1.61M
Salvation Army/Bell $1.97M $2.43M
TOTAL $4.27M $5.28M

FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund (MOE) $500K $2.43M
Measure A $307K $167K
PSJ DA $3.46M $2.68M
TOTAL $4.27M $5.28M
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) Recommended Actions
Policy Decision #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; • 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;
Policy Decision #2: • 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;
Policy Decision #3: • 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;
21 Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) Recommended 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). 22 Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) 23 Community Engagement Activities
Commissions and Committees
Human Services Commission
Housing Commission
Measure GS Committee
Focus Groups City Departments
Homeless Service Providers
Neighborhood Representatives
Friends of Sunset Park
Pico Neighborhood Association
Downtown Santa Monica Neighborhood with DTSM Inc.

Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition
Community Stakeholders
Santa Monica Renter’s Rights
Santa Monica Forward
Santa Monica College
Pico Business Improvement District
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) Side-by-Side SMPD Data for Neighborhood Concerns
Metric Pre-Pathway Motel Pathway Home Era
Serious crime events Death, rape, burglaries, major vandalism Rare, lower severity Arrest footprint Present in older records Zero in 160-call CFS set Dominant call type Suspicious, disturbance, crime reports CHKSTA / PERCHK / 5150 On-site management Minimal / commercial motel County services + security Police posture Reactive to disorder Proactive welfare + outreach Outcome for clients Transient, high risk Pathway to permanent housing Item 11-B
July 28, 2026
Item 11-B
July 28, 2026

11.B.h
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7750 : 11.B Housing Focused System of Care) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 28, 2026
Agenda Item: 11.C
1 of 15
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jing Yeo, Director, Administration
Subject: Options for Increased Development Standards within the Expo/Bundy TransitOriented Development Zone to Qualify for Temporary Exclusion from Senate Bill (SB) 79 Implementation
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council Provide Direction on Increasing Development Standards for Residentially Zoned Parcels within One-Half Mile of the Metro E Expo/Bundy Station to Qualify the Expo/Bundy Transit-Oriented Development Zone to Allow for Exclusion from Senate Bill (SB) 79 Implementation Until One Year Following the Adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element.

Background
On July 1, 2026, Senate Bill 79 (SB 79), the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, went into effect across the State, including in Santa Monica. The new legislation establishes minimum guaranteed development standards (density, floor area ratio (FAR), and height) for qualified housing projects located within one-half mile of specified transit stops in urban transit counties. In Santa Monica, qualifying projects within these transit-oriented development (TOD) zones are eligible for those standards unless the site is covered by a compliant exclusion ordinance that delays SB 79’s implementation or a TOD alternative plan is adopted that redistributes SB 79’s residential capacity within Santa Monica’s TOD zones.

On July 14, 2026, the City Council introduced for first reading an Ordinance to temporarily delay applicability of SB 79 on qualifying sites until one year following adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element (anticipated in 2030) (the “Exclusion Ordinance”). Through this Exclusion Ordinance, Santa Monica is able to delay

11.C
Packet Pg. 740
2 of 15
implementation of SB 79 in six out of seven TOD zones located within the City due to existing development capacity, allowing the City to holistically plan for future housing and incorporate a future TOD alternative plan into future work efforts such as the 7th Cycle Housing Element or Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) update.

In addition, the Council reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendation to increase development standards for 66 multi-unit zoned parcels (R2/R3 zoned parcels) located exclusively within the Expo/Bundy TOD zone, which is located partially in Santa Monica, and partially in the City of Los Angeles. This increase in development potential would allow this remaining TOD zone to qualify for temporary exclusion from SB 79, allowing for consistency across all TOD zones in the City. However, after consideration of potential displacement risks on these parcels, Council directed staff to return with options to instead increase development standards for all, or a selected group, of Single-Unit Residential (R1) zoned parcels within the Expo/Bundy TOD zone to satisfy the criteria for temporary exclusion. Council also directed that information regarding the rent control status of the R1-zoned parcels should be provided to inform potential tenant displacement risks. This report presents options for Council’s consideration.

Santa Monica’s SB 79 TOD Zones

11.C
Packet Pg. 741
3 of 15
Discussion
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1), sites in a TOD zone may be temporarily excluded from SB 79 if the zone satisfies both of the following criteria:

1. At least 33% of sites in the TOD zone permit density and residential FAR that are no less than 50% of the applicable SB 79 standards; AND

2. The permitted densities in the TOD zone cumulatively allow at least 75% of the aggregate density specified by SB 79.

The Expo/Bundy TOD zone contains a total of 381 parcels. Existing zoning provides approximately 123% of the aggregate density required by SB 79, and therefore, the Expo/Bundy TOD zone satisfies the aggregate density of Criterion 2, above. However, the TOD zone does not satisfy the requirements of Criterion 1, above, regarding percentage of sites that permit at least 50% of the density and residential floor area guaranteed under SB 79. Currently, only 74 of the 381 parcels (19.4%) meet this

11.C
Packet Pg. 742
4 of 15
threshold and at least 126 parcels (33%) are necessary to qualify the TOD zone for exclusion. Therefore, at least 52 additional parcels would need to have an increase in development standards to satisfy Criterion 1 for temporary exclusion.

At the July 14, 2026 Council meeting, staff presented the following information on the Expo/Bundy TOD zone to inform Council discussion regarding displacement risks. 381 Expo/Bundy TOD Zone Parcels
➢90 parcels not eligible for SB 79
❖ 49 also located in Bergamot TOD zone
❖ 37 with three or more units and at least one rent-controlled unit ❖ 4 with deed-restricted affordable
➢ 54 commercially zoned parcels that already have local standards equal or greater than SB 79 standards
➢ 237 residentially zoned parcels
❖ 232 parcels with unlikely displacement risk
├── 212 R1-zoned parcels (ownership)
├── 5 parcels that are vacant
└── 15 multiple-unit zoned parcels with ownership units (e.g., condos) ❖ 5 potential involuntary displacement risk
├── 2 with two or fewer units
└── 3 with three or more units (no rent-controlled units) R1 Development Potential
To assist Council in their discussion regarding potential increase in development standards of R1 parcels, the following table provides a comparison of maximum development potential under existing State laws as they apply to typical R1 parcels in the Expo/Bundy TOD zone and what the maximum development potential would be after the proposed change in order to meet SB 79’s exclusion requirements. As shown in the table below, the proposed targeted increase in development standards is aligned with existing development potential already permitted by various State laws.

Table 1 - Existing State Law vs Potential Increase in Development Standards for a Typical R1-Zoned Parcel in the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone

11.C
Packet Pg. 743
5 of 15
Typical Site Characteristics:
• R1 Zone
• Parcel Size: 6,500 sf
• Vacant/No Affordable or Rent Controlled Units
• Located within ½ mile of Expo/Bundy Station
State Law FAR Height Density Max Units
Existing R1 Base
Standards

0.50 28 ft 1 unit per
parcel
1 unit
Accessory Dwelling
Unit(s)
Exempt • Attached
ADUs –
Same as
underlying
zoning
district;
• Detached
ADUs – 24 ft
• 1 ADU
through
conversion
• 1 detached
ADU
• 1 attached
ADU
• 1 Junior ADU
5 units (1
single-unit
dwelling + 4
ADUs
SB 9 (Duplexes/Lot
Splits
Same as
underlying;
800 sf per
unit
guaranteed
Same as
underlying
zoning district*
4 units or 2
units per
resulting
parcel
4 units
SB 1123 (Small Lot
Subdivisions)
• 3-7
units: 1.0
• 8-10
units: 1.25
Same as
underlying
zoning district*
Min. 1,200 sf
per resulting
parcel or 30
du/ac
(10 units max)
5 units
SB 79 2.5 55 ft 80 du/ac 12 units
Targeted Increase
in Development
Standards for SB
79 Temporary
Exclusion

1.25 30 ft 40 du/ac 6 units
*application of standard cannot physically preclude project achieving the density and size permitted by State law
Proposed Options to Increase Development Standards to Allow for Expo/Bundy TOD Exclusion
The following options are presented for Council consideration along with the requested information regarding rent-controlled status and displacement risk. The provisions of SB 79 are not available for projects on a site containing three or more units where the project would require the demolition of rent control or affordable housing. Therefore,

11.C
Packet Pg. 744
6 of 15
staff has included data regarding parcels that are subject to rent control or affordable housing and the number of units on each parcel. Attachment A provides a detailed list of all affected parcels for each option.
➢ Option 1: Increase Development Standards for 89 R1-Zoned Parcels in the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone Located North of the I-10 Freeway
Option 1 provides a focused approach that groups together 89 R1-zoned parcels in the Expo/Bundy TOD zone located north of the I-10 Freeway, east of Dorchester Avenue, south of Exposition Boulevard, and west of Centinela Avenue. These 89 parcels include two parcels also located in the Bergamot TOD zone that are eligible for SB 79 temporary exclusion. This group of parcels generally has a more direct geographic relationship to the Expo/Bundy Station, as they are within a shorter walking distance to the station and are also nearer to the higher-intensity commercially zoned parcels in the Bergamot Area, such as the Mixed Use Creative zoned parcels. Furthermore, this grouping is geographically distinct from the southern parcels in the TOD zone by census block boundaries (i.e., the parcels are located in census block group ID 060377018012).

Increasing development potential for these parcels would also be consistent with the general intent of SB 79 for parcels close to a TOD stop having higher densities, providing a rational basis along with its clear boundaries. This option would minimize the potential for tenant displacement associated with existing multi-unit zoned properties. However, while there are no parcels deed restricted as affordable housing, five of the 89 parcels contain rent-controlled units. All five parcels are developed with a single dwelling unit and, therefore, are not protected by SB 79’s displacement provisions (which establishes a project level exclusion on sites with three or more units that has rent control or affordable housing)

11.C
Packet Pg. 745
7 of 15
Table 2 - R1-Zoned Parcels North of I-10 Freeway in the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone Total RentControlled
Affordable
Housing
89 5 0
➢ Option 2: Increase Development Standards for 212 R1-Zoned Parcels Exclusively in the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone
Option 2 proposes to increase development standards for all 212 R1-zoned parcels located exclusively in the Expo/Bundy TOD zone. Increasing development potential for all these parcels would be more than sufficient to meet the exclusion criteria of 33%. As discussed by Council on July 14, 2026, increasing development potential for the R1 parcels would avoid potential displacement risk of existing tenants on multi-unit zoned

11.C
Packet Pg. 746
8 of 15
parcels. Since this option is based on SB 79’s defined one-half-mile TOD boundary, this option provides the simplest and most uniform approach. This option also would substantially exceed the minimum number of qualifying parcels needed for exclusion while minimizing the potential for tenant displacement associated with existing multiunit zoned properties. However, while there are no parcels developed with affordable housing, 20 of the 212 parcels contain rent-controlled units. Five of these 20 parcels contain three or more units, and, therefore, are protected by SB 79’s displacement provisions.

Table 3 - R1 Zoned Parcels Exclusively in the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone Total RentControlled
Affordable
Housing
212 20 0

11.C
Packet Pg. 747
9 of 15
➢ Option 3: Increase Development Standards for 66 R2/R3-Zoned Parcels in the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone (Planning Commission Recommendation) Option 3 would revert to the June 17, 2026, Planning Commission recommendation to increase development standards for parcels located within the Expo/Bundy TOD zone that are zoned multi-unit residential (R2/R3 parcels). This targeted approach would increase the allowable density and FAR on a total of 66 multi-unit zoned parcels, consisting of 60 R2-zoned parcels and six R3-zoned parcels.

This option represents the approach that would affect the least number of parcels, while still meeting the 52 parcels needed to meet the 33% criteria for TOD zone exclusion. As previously indicated in the July 14 Council staff report, this approach would effectively establish development standards comparable to those currently permitted in the City's R3 and R4 zoning districts, and what is permitted for small lot subdivision projects utilizing the provisions of Senate Bill 684, which permits up to 10 units multi-unit zoned parcels.

Table 4 - Option 3 Existing State Law vs Potential Increase Development Standards for a Typical R2-Zoned Parcel in the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone Typical Site Characteristics:
• R2 Zone
• Parcel Size: 6,500 sf
• Vacant/No Affordable or Rent Controlled Units
• Located within ½ mile of Expo/Bundy Station
FAR Height Density Max Units
Existing R2
Base
Standards

1.0 30 ft 1 unit/1,500 sf (~29
units/acre)
4 units
SB 684
(Small Lot
Subdivisions)
• 3-7 units:

1.0 • 8-10 units:

1.25 Same as
underlying
zoning district*
Min. 600 SF per
Resulting Parcel or
30 du/acre (10
units max)
10 units
SB 79 2.5 55 ft 80 du/acre 12 units

11.C
Packet Pg. 748
10 of 15
Targeted
Increase in
Development
Standards

1.25 30 ft 40 du/acre 6 units
*application of standard cannot physically preclude project achieving the density and size permitted by State law
Table 5 – R2/R3 Zoned Parcels Exclusively in the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone Total RentControlled
Affordable
Housing
66 44 4
Of the 66 R2/R3 zoned parcels, there are 44 parcels with rent-controlled units and four parcels with affordable units (three parcels contain both rent-controlled units and affordable units). As detailed in the July 14, 2026 Council staff report, based on Staff’s

11.C
Packet Pg. 749
11 of 15
detailed review of the parcels, there would be no or low displacement risk for all 66 parcels proposed for an increase in development standards:

No Displacement Risk – 30 parcels:
• No existing units (e.g. surface parking lot)
• Ownership housing (e.g. single-unit dwelling, condos) • More existing units than potential increased density
• Existing affordable deed-restricted units
Low Displacement Risk – 36 parcels unlikely to redevelop:
• More than 50% of total potential increased density would be replacement units
• Potential increased density is substantially the same as what is allowed under existing State housing laws
• Replacement unit requirements under State law + City’s inclusionary housing requirements (AHPP) + Rent Control provisions make redevelopment unlikely ➢ Options Considered but Rejected
The following briefly summarizes options that have been analyzed by staff and discussed with the Planning Commission and Council. These are provided as background information as to the selection of proposed options to increase development standards.
• Increase in Development Standards for Parcels within the SB 79 ¼ Mile Radius of the Expo/Bundy Station – There are 20 parcels located within ¼ mile of the Expo/Bundy Station established by SB 79 for the greatest increase in standards, of which 19 are zoned R1 and 1 is zoned R2. Implementing this option would increase the number of parcels meeting the 50% capacity threshold from 74 to approximately 94 parcels, representing approximately 24% of all parcels within the TOD zone.
o Why Rejected? Although this approach would result in additional housing development potential closest to transit, it would not satisfy the 33%

11.C
Packet Pg. 750
12 of 15
statutory criterion required for temporary exclusion. Therefore, it would result in increased development capacity but no exclusion from SB 79 standards, which would not accomplish the City's implementation objective. For this reason, this option was rejected by the Planning Commission at its June 14, 2026 meeting and therefore not presented to Council.
• Increase in Development Standards for 52 R1-Zoned Parcels within the 1/3 Mile Radius of the Expo/Bundy Station – In response to Council’s initial discussion regarding increasing concentric circles around the Expo/Bundy station, staff reviewed a radius between the ¼ mile and ½ mile tiers established in SB 79.

There are 52 R1-zoned parcels located within 1/3-mile radius of Expo/Bundy station. This option would result in the number of parcels meeting the 50% capacity threshold from 74 to approximately 126 parcels, representing approximately 33% of all parcels within the TOD zone – just sufficient to qualify the Expo/Bundy TOD zone for exclusion.
o Why Rejected? This approach would result in a geographic radius of 1/3 mile, which is not contemplated under SB 79, and does not otherwise increase development standards that are in closest proximity to the Expo/Bundy station. Since this approach is based on a single geometric measurement (radius) rather than physical boundaries, this option is not reflective of actual pedestrian routes and walking distance to the station.

Furthermore, a radius-based approach would cross multiple neighborhood boundaries and does not consider existing local land use patterns. • Increase in Development Standards for R1-Zoned Parcels Located South of the I-10 Freeway within the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone – There are 125 R1-zoned parcels located south of the I-10 freeway within the Expo/Bundy TOD zone. This approach would exceed the minimum number of parcels necessary to qualify the TOD zone for exclusion.

11.C
Packet Pg. 751
13 of 15
o Why Rejected? The majority of these parcels are located at a greater walking distance from the Expo/Bundy Station than the parcels north of the I-10 freeway and therefore, would expand rezoning farther from the station than necessary to achieve the City's implementation objectives. • No Increase in Development Standards – If Council takes no action, the Expo/Bundy TOD zone will not meet the 33% criteria for temporary exclusion from SB 79. All parcels exclusively located in the Expo/Bundy TOD zone would continue to be subject to SB 79 (which guarantees densities of 80 du/ac or 100 du/ac, depending on distance to station).
o Why Rejected? SB79’s proposed densities are higher than existing State and local law and contradicts the City’s overall strategy to direct development pressures to commercial zones and to protect residential neighborhoods from displacement risks. With the forthcoming 7th Cycle Housing Element and General Plan Update, enacting an ordinance that would temporarily exclude parcels in the Expo/Bundy TOD zone would support future comprehensive planning and also be consistent with actions already taken for all other TOD zones within Santa Monica.

Summary
Below is a summary of the three potential options for Council’s consideration and direction.

Table 6 - Summary of Potential Increase in Development Standards Options Option Parcels
Affected
Resulting % of
Sites Meeting
50% SB 79
Criteria
No. of Parcels
Affected with
Rent Controlled
or Affordable
Units
No. of
Parcels with
Rent
Controlled or
Affordable
Housing Not
Protected by
SB 79
Displacement
Provisions
Basis for Increase
in Development
Standards
Option
1 89 R1
parcels

42.7% 5 with rentcontrolled units5 Focused on parcels
generally closest in
walking distance to

11.C
Packet Pg. 752
14 of 15
station meeting the
intent of SB 79;
Provides a clear
geographical
boundary.

Option
2 212 R1
parcels

75.5% 20 with rentcontrolled units15 Uniform increase in development
standards for all R1
parcels within SB
79 one-half mile
radius of station
Option
3 66 R2/R3
parcels

36.7% 44 with rentcontrolled units
and 4 with
affordable units,
3 of which
overlap
4 Least amount of
parcels; Uniform
increase in
development
standards for all
multi-unit parcels
within TOD zone;
Aligns with density
potential already
provided by other
State laws.

In terms of displacement risk, Option 1 would affect the fewest parcels with rent controlled units – however, all five parcels with rent controlled units are developed with single dwelling units and are not protected by SB 79’s displacement protections. Option 2 would affect 20 parcels with rent-controlled units – of which 15 parcels have fewer than three units and therefore, are not protected by SB 79’s displacement protections.

Under Option 3, 44 parcels are developed with rent control or affordable units – however, 40 of the 44 parcels have three or more units and therefore, four parcels would not be protected by SB 79’s displacement protections.

Anticipated Timeline
Based on Council direction, staff will prepare and present Zoning Ordinance text amendments and will return to Council after completing all procedural and public noticing requirements.

Environmental Review
The discussion of options for satisfying the criteria for exclusion from SB 79 standards is not a “project” within the meaning of CEQA because no action is proposed that would result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21065). The item consists solely of policy discussion

11.C
Packet Pg. 753
15 of 15
and direction and therefore, falls within the activities excluded from the definition of a project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b). Accordingly, no environmental review is required at this time.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate 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: Rachel Kwok, Environmental Planner
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. July 14, 2026 Council Meeting SB 79 Exclusion Ordinance (Web Link) B. Upzoning Options - Parcel Tables
C. Written comments
D. PowerPoint Presentation

11.C
Packet Pg. 754
Address
Parcel
ID
APN Zoning
Parcel
Size (SF)
Parcel Size
(Acre)
TOD
Distance
Affordable
Housing (1,0)
Rent Control
(1,0)
Landmark
(1,0)
1817 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2644 4268025016 R1 5,003 0.11 1/4 mile 0 0 0 1821 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2645 4268025017 R1 6,206 0.14 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3337 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2646 4268025018 R1 5,181 0.12 1/4 mile 0 0 0 2017 CENTINELA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2647 4268025019 R1 5,872 0.13 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3333 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2657 4268026009 R1 5,497 0.13 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3339 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2658 4268026010 R1 5,499 0.13 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3345 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2659 4268026011 R1 5,505 0.13 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3349 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2660 4268026012 R1 5,217 0.12 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3355 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2661 4268026013 R1 6,447 0.15 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3350 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2662 4268026014 R1 6,275 0.14 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3344 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2663 4268026015 R1 6,180 0.14 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3340 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2664 4268026016 R1 5,119 0.12 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3336 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2665 4268026017 R1 4,998 0.11 1/4 mile 0 0 0 2111 CENTINELA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2670 4268027015 R1 4,979 0.11 1/4 mile 0 1 0 3360 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2671 4268027016 R1 6,587 0.15 1/4 mile 0 1 0 3354 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2672 4268027017 R1 6,596 0.15 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3350 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2673 4268027018 R1 6,584 0.15 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3344 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2674 4268027019 R1 6,583 0.15 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3340 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2675 4268027020 R1 6,581 0.15 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3061 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2588 4268023011 R1 4,775 0.11 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3053 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2589 4268023012 R1 6,174 0.14 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3047 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2590 4268023013 R1 6,533 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3043 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2591 4268023014 R1 6,501 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3037 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2592 4268023015 R1 6,499 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3033 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2593 4268023016 R1 6,493 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3027 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2594 4268023017 R1 6,517 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3023 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2595 4268023018 R1 6,515 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3017 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2596 4268023019 R1 6,495 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3013 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2597 4268023020 R1 6,502 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3007 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2598 4268023021 R1 6,500 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3003 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2599 4268023022 R1 6,529 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3002 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2600 4268024001 R1 6,497 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3008 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2601 4268024002 R1 6,532 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3014 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2602 4268024003 R1 6,492 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3020 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2603 4268024004 R1 6,502 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3024 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2604 4268024005 R1 6,502 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3028 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2605 4268024006 R1 6,520 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3032 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2606 4268024007 R1 6,512 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3040 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2607 4268024008 R1 6,502 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3044 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2608 4268024009 R1 6,502 0.15 1/2 mile 0 1 0 3050 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2609 4268024010 R1 6,492 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3054 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2610 4268024011 R1 6,529 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3058 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2611 4268024012 R1 6,514 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3064 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2612 4268024013 R1 4,886 0.11 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1912 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2613 4268024014 R1 5,525 0.13 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3141 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2614 4268024015 R1 7,578 0.17 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3133 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2615 4268024016 R1 6,506 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3127 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2616 4268024017 R1 6,169 0.14 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3121 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2617 4268024018 R1 7,133 0.16 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3117 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2618 4268024019 R1 6,483 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3113 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2619 4268024020 R1 6,525 0.15 1/2 mile 0 1 0 3109 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2620 4268024021 R1 6,495 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3101 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2621 4268024022 R1 6,489 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3033 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2622 4268024023 R1 6,497 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3029 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2623 4268024024 R1 6,529 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3023 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2624 4268024025 R1 6,497 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3017 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2625 4268024026 R1 6,489 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3011 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2626 4268024027 R1 6,496 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3007 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2627 4268024028 R1 6,497 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3001 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2628 4268024029 R1 6,519 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1811 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2630 4268025002 R1 5,707 0.13 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1817 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2631 4268025003 R1 5,409 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1821 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2632 4268025004 R1 5,437 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1827 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2633 4268025005 R1 5,410 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1903 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2634 4268025006 R1 5,416 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1909 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2635 4268025007 R1 5,219 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 Option 1 - 89 R1 Zoned Parcels North of I-10 Freeway in Expo/Bundy TOD Zone

11.C.b
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Upzoning Options - Parcel Tables (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 1826 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2636 4268025008 R1 4,939 0.11 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1822 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2637 4268025009 R1 5,015 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1816 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2638 4268025010 R1 4,995 0.11 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1812 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2639 4268025011 R1 5,301 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1808 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2640 4268025012 R1 5,367 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1913 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2649 4268026001 R1 5,221 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1919 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2650 4268026002 R1 5,217 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3303 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2651 4268026003 R1 7,583 0.17 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3309 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2652 4268026004 R1 5,483 0.13 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3315 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2653 4268026005 R1 5,503 0.13 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3319 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2654 4268026006 R1 5,484 0.13 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3325 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2655 4268026007 R1 5,496 0.13 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3329 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2656 4268026008 R1 5,496 0.13 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3330 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2666 4268026018 R1 5,104 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3326 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2667 4268026019 R1 5,019 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3322 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2668 4268026020 R1 5,454 0.13 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1832 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2669 4268026021 R1 5,980 0.14 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3334 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2676 4268027021 R1 6,565 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3320 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2677 4268027024 R1 5,393 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3314 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2678 4268027025 R1 4,718 0.11 1/2 mile 0 1 0 3330 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2679 4268027028 R1 9,796 0.22 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3304 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2680 4268027031 R1 5,523 0.13 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3300 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2681 4268027032 R1 9,563 0.22 1/2 mile 0 0 0

11.C.b
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Upzoning Options - Parcel Tables (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) Address
Parcel
ID
APN Zoning
Parcel
Size (SF)
Parcel Size
(Acre)
TOD
Distance
Affordable
Housing (1,0)
Rent Control
(1,0)
Landmark
(1,0)
1817 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2644 4268025016 R1 5,003 0.11 1/4 mile 0 0 0 1821 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2645 4268025017 R1 6,206 0.14 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3337 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2646 4268025018 R1 5,181 0.12 1/4 mile 0 0 0 2017 CENTINELA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2647 4268025019 R1 5,872 0.13 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3333 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2657 4268026009 R1 5,497 0.13 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3339 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2658 4268026010 R1 5,499 0.13 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3345 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2659 4268026011 R1 5,505 0.13 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3349 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2660 4268026012 R1 5,217 0.12 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3355 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2661 4268026013 R1 6,447 0.15 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3350 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2662 4268026014 R1 6,275 0.14 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3344 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2663 4268026015 R1 6,180 0.14 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3340 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2664 4268026016 R1 5,119 0.12 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3336 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2665 4268026017 R1 4,998 0.11 1/4 mile 0 0 0 2111 CENTINELA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2670 4268027015 R1 4,979 0.11 1/4 mile 0 1 0 3360 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2671 4268027016 R1 6,587 0.15 1/4 mile 0 1 0 3354 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2672 4268027017 R1 6,596 0.15 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3350 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2673 4268027018 R1 6,584 0.15 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3344 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2674 4268027019 R1 6,583 0.15 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3340 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2675 4268027020 R1 6,581 0.15 1/4 mile 0 0 0 3061 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2588 4268023011 R1 4,775 0.11 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3053 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2589 4268023012 R1 6,174 0.14 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3047 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2590 4268023013 R1 6,533 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3043 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2591 4268023014 R1 6,501 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3037 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2592 4268023015 R1 6,499 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3033 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2593 4268023016 R1 6,493 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3027 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2594 4268023017 R1 6,517 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3023 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2595 4268023018 R1 6,515 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3017 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2596 4268023019 R1 6,495 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3013 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2597 4268023020 R1 6,502 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3007 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2598 4268023021 R1 6,500 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3008 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2601 4268024002 R1 6,532 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3014 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2602 4268024003 R1 6,492 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3020 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2603 4268024004 R1 6,502 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3024 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2604 4268024005 R1 6,502 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3028 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2605 4268024006 R1 6,520 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3032 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2606 4268024007 R1 6,512 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3040 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2607 4268024008 R1 6,502 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3044 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2608 4268024009 R1 6,502 0.15 1/2 mile 0 1 0 3050 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2609 4268024010 R1 6,492 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3054 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2610 4268024011 R1 6,529 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3058 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2611 4268024012 R1 6,514 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3064 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2612 4268024013 R1 4,886 0.11 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1912 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2613 4268024014 R1 5,525 0.13 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3141 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2614 4268024015 R1 7,578 0.17 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3133 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2615 4268024016 R1 6,506 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3127 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2616 4268024017 R1 6,169 0.14 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3121 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2617 4268024018 R1 7,133 0.16 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3117 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2618 4268024019 R1 6,483 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3113 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2619 4268024020 R1 6,525 0.15 1/2 mile 0 1 0 3109 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2620 4268024021 R1 6,495 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3101 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2621 4268024022 R1 6,489 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3033 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2622 4268024023 R1 6,497 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3029 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2623 4268024024 R1 6,529 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3023 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2624 4268024025 R1 6,497 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3017 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2625 4268024026 R1 6,489 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3011 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2626 4268024027 R1 6,496 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3007 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2627 4268024028 R1 6,497 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3001 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2628 4268024029 R1 6,519 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1811 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2630 4268025002 R1 5,707 0.13 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1817 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2631 4268025003 R1 5,409 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1821 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2632 4268025004 R1 5,437 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1827 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2633 4268025005 R1 5,410 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1903 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2634 4268025006 R1 5,416 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1909 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2635 4268025007 R1 5,219 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1826 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2636 4268025008 R1 4,939 0.11 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1822 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2637 4268025009 R1 5,015 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 Option 2 - 212 R1 Zoned Parcels Exclusively in Expo/Bundy TOD Zone

11.C.b
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Upzoning Options - Parcel Tables (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 1816 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2638 4268025010 R1 4,995 0.11 1/2 mile 000
1812 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2639 4268025011 R1 5,301 0.12 1/2 mile 000
1808 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2640 4268025012 R1 5,367 0.12 1/2 mile 000
1913 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2649 4268026001 R1 5,221 0.12 1/2 mile000 1919 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2650 4268026002 R1 5,217 0.12 1/2 mile000 3303 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2651 4268026003 R1 7,583 0.17 1/2 mile000 3309 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2652 4268026004 R1 5,483 0.13 1/2 mile 000
3315 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2653 4268026005 R1 5,503 0.13 1/2 mile 000
3319 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2654 4268026006 R1 5,484 0.13 1/2 mile000 3325 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2655 4268026007 R1 5,496 0.13 1/2 mile 000
3329 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2656 4268026008 R1 5,496 0.13 1/2 mile 000
3330 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2666 4268026018 R1 5,104 0.12 1/2 mile 000
3326 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2667 4268026019 R1 5,019 0.12 1/2 mile 0 00
3322 DELAWARE AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2668 4268026020 R1 5,454 0.13 1/2 mile 0 00
1832 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2669 4268026021 R1 5,980 0.14 1/2 mile 000
3334 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2676 4268027021 R1 6,565 0.15 1/2 mile 0 00
3320 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2677 4268027024 R1 5,393 0.12 1/2 mile 000
3314 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2678 4268027025 R1 4,718 0.11 1/2 mile 010
3330 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2679 4268027028 R1 9,796 0.22 1/2 mile 000
3304 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2680 4268027031 R1 5,523 0.13 1/2 mile 0 00
3300 VIRGINIA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2681 4268027032 R1 9,563 0.22 1/2 mile 0 0
0 2314 31ST ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2922 4270006036 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile 000
2310 31ST ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2923 4270006037 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile 00 0
2306 31ST ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2924 4270006038 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile 000
2309 31ST ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2933 4270007006 R1 7,200 0.17 1/2 mile 010
2315 31ST ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2934 4270007007 R1 7,200 0.17 1/2 mile 000
2321 31ST ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2935 4270007008 R1 9,000 0.21 1/2 mile000 2327 31ST ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2936 4270007009 R1 9,000 0.21 1/2 mile 000
2331 31ST ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2937 4270007010 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile 000
2335 31ST ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2938 4270007011 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile 00 0
2339 31ST ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2939 4270007012 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile 000
2343 31ST ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2940 4270007013 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile 000
2418 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2958 4270007031 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile 000
2414 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2959 4270007032 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile000 2408 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2960 4270007033 R1 9,000 0.21 1/2 mile 000
2404 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2961 4270007034 R1 9,000 0.21 1/2 mile 000
2344 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2962 4270007035 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile 000
2340 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2963 4270007036 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile 000
2336 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2964 4270007037 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile 010
2332 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2965 4270007038 R1 9,000 0.21 1/2 mile 000
2324 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2966 4270007039 R1 9,000 0.21 1/2 mile00 0 2320 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2967 4270007040 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile 000
2316 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2968 4270007041 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile000 2312 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2969 4270007042 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile 000
2313 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2975 4270008004 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile000 2317 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2976 4270008005 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile000 2321 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2977 4270008006 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile000 2325 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2978 4270008007 R1 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile 00 0
2329 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2979 4270008008 R1 7,200 0.17 1/2 mile 000
2333 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2980 4270008009 R1 7,200 0.17 1/2 mile 000
2341 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2981 4270008010 R1 7,200 0.17 1/2 mile000 2343 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2982 4270008011 R1 7,200 0.17 1/2 mile000 2401 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2983 4270008012 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile 000
2405 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2984 4270008013 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile 000
2411 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2985 4270008014 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile 000
2415 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2986 4270008015 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile000 2419 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2987 4270008016 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile000 2423 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2988 4270008017 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile 000
2425 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2989 4270008018 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile 000
2431 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2990 4270008019 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile 000
2435 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2991 4270008020 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile000 3215 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2994 4270008023 R1 5,775 0.13 1/2 mile 000
3221 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2995 4270008024 R1 5,355 0.12 1/2 mile000 3225 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2996 4270008025 R1 6,195 0.14 1/2 mile000 3231 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2997 4270008026 R1 5,250 0.12 1/2 mile000 2442 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2998 4270008027 R1 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile000 2436 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2999 4270008028 R1 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile000 2428 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3000 4270008029 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile000 2424 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3001 4270008030 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile000 2420 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3002 4270008031 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile010

11.C.b
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Upzoning Options - Parcel Tables (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 2416 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3003 4270008032 R1 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile 000
2410 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3004 4270008033 R1 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile 000
2404 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3005 4270008034 R1 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile 000
2344 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3006 4270008035 R1 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile000 2340 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3007 4270008036 R1 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile000 2334 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3008 4270008037 R1 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile000 2318 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3009 4270008038 R1 19,200 0.44 1/2 mile 010
2319 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3017 4270009004 R1 8,000 0.18 1/2 mile 000
2325 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3018 4270009005 R1 8,000 0.18 1/2 mile000 2329 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3019 4270009006 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile 010
2335 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3020 4270009007 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile 000
2339 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3021 4270009008 R1 7,200 0.17 1/2 mile 000
2343 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3022 4270009009 R1 7,200 0.17 1/2 mile 0 00
2401 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3023 4270009010 R1 7,200 0.17 1/2 mile 0 00
2405 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3024 4270009011 R1 7,200 0.17 1/2 mile 000
2411 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3025 4270009012 R1 7,200 0.17 1/2 mile 0 00
2415 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3026 4270009013 R1 7,200 0.17 1/2 mile 000
2419 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3027 4270009014 R1 8,000 0.18 1/2 mile 000
2423 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3028 4270009015 R1 8,000 0.18 1/2 mile 000
2429 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3029 4270009016 R1 8,000 0.18 1/2 mile 0 00
2433 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3030 4270009017 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0
0 2439 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3031 4270009018 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile 000
2441 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3032 4270009019 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile 01 0
3303 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3033 4270009020 R1 6,300 0.14 1/2 mile 000
3309 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3034 4270009021 R1 5,250 0.12 1/2 mile 010
3315 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3035 4270009022 R1 5,250 0.12 1/2 mile 000
3317 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3036 4270009023 R1 5,250 0.12 1/2 mile000 3323 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3037 4270009024 R1 5,250 0.12 1/2 mile 010
3327 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3038 4270009025 R1 6,300 0.14 1/2 mile 000
2517 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3232 4270017001 R1 7,200 0.17 1/2 mile 01 0
3408 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3233 4270017002 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile 010
3414 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3234 4270017003 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile 010
2601 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3235 4270017004 R1 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile 000
2607 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3236 4270017005 R1 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile000 2611 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3237 4270017006 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile 010
3304 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3262 4270018001 R1 7,200 0.17 1/2 mile 000
3310 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3263 4270018002 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile 000
3316 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3264 4270018003 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile 000
2602 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3299 4270018047 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile 000
2526 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3300 4270018048 R1 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile 000
3318 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3301 4270018049 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile01 0 3324 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3302 4270018050 R1 6,000 0.14 1/2 mile 000
2516 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3303 4270018051 R1 7,200 0.17 1/2 mile000 2943 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5061 4274030011 R1 7,161 0.16 1/2 mile 000
2937 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5062 4274030012 R1 6,502 0.15 1/2 mile000 2108 DORCHESTER AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5072 4274030022 R1 9,429 0.22 1/2 mile000 2940 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5099 4274032008 R1 7,814 0.18 1/2 mile000 3000 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5108 4274033001 R1 7,815 0.18 1/2 mile 00 0
3014 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5109 4274033002 R1 7,800 0.18 1/2 mile 000
3016 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5110 4274033003 R1 6,520 0.15 1/2 mile 000
3020 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5111 4274033004 R1 6,503 0.15 1/2 mile000 3024 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5112 4274033005 R1 6,490 0.15 1/2 mile000 3030 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5113 4274033006 R1 6,504 0.15 1/2 mile 000
3102 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5114 4274033007 R1 6,505 0.15 1/2 mile 000
3108 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5115 4274033008 R1 6,523 0.15 1/2 mile 000
3112 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5128 4274034001 R1 6,493 0.15 1/2 mile000 3114 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5129 4274034002 R1 6,505 0.15 1/2 mile000 3118 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5130 4274034003 R1 6,504 0.15 1/2 mile 000
3122 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5131 4274034004 R1 6,505 0.15 1/2 mile 000
3202 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5132 4274034005 R1 6,505 0.15 1/2 mile 000
3208 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5133 4274034006 R1 6,521 0.15 1/2 mile000 3214 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5134 4274034007 R1 6,504 0.15 1/2 mile 000
3218 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5135 4274034008 R1 6,206 0.14 1/2 mile000 3222 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5150 4274034029 R1 6,731 0.15 1/2 mile000 3105 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5152 4274035026 R1 5,159 0.12 1/2 mile000 3033 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5153 4274035027 R1 5,903 0.14 1/2 mile010 3027 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5154 4274035028 R1 4,977 0.11 1/2 mile000 3023 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5155 4274035029 R1 6,234 0.14 1/2 mile000 3017 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5156 4274035030 R1 6,502 0.15 1/2 mile000 3011 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5157 4274035031 R1 6,505 0.15 1/2 mile000

11.C.b
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Upzoning Options - Parcel Tables (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 3007 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5158 4274035032 R1 6,520 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3003 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5159 4274035033 R1 6,484 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3107 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5160 4274035036 R1 4,387 0.10 1/2 mile 0 0 0 2109 DORCHESTER AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5161 4274035039 R1 7,182 0.16 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3121 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5162 4274035040 R1 6,168 0.14 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3115 URBAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 5163 4274035041 R1 3,642 0.08 1/2 mile 0 1 0

11.C.b
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Upzoning Options - Parcel Tables (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) Address
Parcel
ID
APN Zoning
Parcel
Size (SF)
Parcel Size
(Acre)
TOD
Distance
Affordable
Housing (1,0)
Rent Control
(1,0)
Landmark
(1,0)
1753 CENTINELA AVE NO B SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2355 4268007014 R2 5,986 0.14 1/2 mile 0 1 0 3231 NEBRASKA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2356 4268007015 R2 6,063 0.14 1/2 mile 0 1 0 1751 CENTINELA AVE NO 1 SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2373 4268007037 R2 6,013 0.14 1/2 mile 0 1 0 3014 EXPOSITION BLVD SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2580 4268023003 R2 5,010 0.12 1/2 mile 0 1 0 3018 EXPOSITION BLVD SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2581 4268023004 R2 4,997 0.11 1/2 mile 0 1 0 3024 EXPOSITION BLVD SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2582 4268023005 R2 5,000 0.11 1/2 mile 0 1 0 3028 EXPOSITION BLVD SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2583 4268023006 R2 5,010 0.12 1/2 mile 0 1 0 3032 EXPOSITION BLVD SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2584 4268023007 R2 5,000 0.11 1/2 mile 0 1 0 3040 EXPOSITION BLVD SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2585 4268023008 R2 5,006 0.11 1/2 mile 0 1 0 3044 EXPOSITION BLVD SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2586 4268023009 R2 4,992 0.11 1/2 mile 0 1 0 1808 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2587 4268023010 R2 5,554 0.13 1/2 mile 0 1 0 1805 WARWICK AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2629 4268025001 R2 6,261 0.14 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3324 EXPOSITION BLVD SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2641 4268025013 R2 6,134 0.14 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1803 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2642 4268025014 R2 5,555 0.13 1/2 mile 0 0 0 1811 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2643 4268025015 R2 5,469 0.13 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2003 CENTINELA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90404 2648 4268025020 R2 6,064 0.14 1/4 mile 0 0 0 2255 30TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2889 4270006003 R2 18,000 0.41 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2266 31ST ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2925 4270006039 R2 18,001 0.41 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2262 31ST ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2926 4270006040 R2 6,689 0.15 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2267 31ST ST #D SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2930 4270007003 R2 7,200 0.17 1/2 mile 0 0 0 2301 31ST ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2931 4270007004 R2 7,200 0.17 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2305 31ST ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2932 4270007005 R2 7,200 0.17 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2308 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2970 4270007043 R2 9,000 0.21 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2302 32ND ST APT 000A SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2971 4270007044 R2 9,000 0.21 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2301 32ND ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 2974 4270008002 R2 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile 0 0 0 2310 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3010 4270008039 R2 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile 0 1 0 3011 4270008040 R2 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile 0 0 0
2307 32ND ST NO 1 SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3013 4270008043 R2 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3318 PICO BLVD SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3015 4270009002 R2 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile 0 0 0 2315 33RD ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3016 4270009003 R2 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile 0 0 0 2444 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3039 4270009026 R2 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2440 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3040 4270009027 R2 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2432 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3041 4270009028 R2 19,200 0.44 1/2 mile 1 1 0 2420 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3042 4270009029 R2 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2410 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3043 4270009031 R2 8,000 0.18 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2402 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3044 4270009033 R2 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 2344 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3045 4270009034 R2 8,000 0.18 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2336 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3046 4270009035 R2 8,000 0.18 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2334 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3047 4270009036 R2 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2330 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3048 4270009037 R2 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 2326 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3049 4270009038 R2 6,400 0.15 1/2 mile 0 0 0 2320 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3050 4270009039 R2 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile 1 1 0 2316 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3051 4270009040 R2 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile 0 0 0 2408 34TH ST NO 1 SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3053 4270009045 R2 9,600 0.22 1/2 mile 0 0 0 2416 34TH ST UNIT 1 SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3054 4270009052 R2 8,000 0.18 1/2 mile 0 0 0 2429 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3055 4270010008 R2 11,527 0.26 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2435 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3056 4270010009 R2 7,681 0.18 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2441 34TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3057 4270010010 R2 19,203 0.44 1/2 mile 0 1 0 3401 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3058 4270010011 R2 6,300 0.14 1/2 mile 0 1 0 3407 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3059 4270010012 R2 5,771 0.13 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3409 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3060 4270010013 R2 4,734 0.11 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3417 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3061 4270010014 R2 5,250 0.12 1/2 mile 0 0 0 3425 PEARL ST SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3062 4270010015 R2 4,408 0.10 1/2 mile 0 0 0 2511 CENTINELA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3063 4270010016 R2 7,987 0.18 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2437 CENTINELA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3064 4270010019 R2 17,830 0.41 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2403 CENTINELA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3065 4270010023 R2 18,027 0.41 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2339 34TH ST 1 SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3066 4270010030 R2 57,629 1.32 1/2 mile 0 0 0 2427 CENTINELA AVE NO A SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3067 4270010075 R2 17,862 0.41 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2423 CENTINELA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3068 4270010087 R2 35,872 0.82 1/2 mile 1 0 0 2501 CENTINELA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3071 4270010091 R2 35,490 0.81 1/2 mile 1 1 0 2637 CENTINELA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3253 4270017030 R3 24,238 0.56 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2609 CENTINELA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3254 4270017033 R3 17,456 0.40 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2601 CENTINELA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3255 4270017034 R3 17,505 0.40 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2521 CENTINELA AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3256 4270017035 R3 17,557 0.40 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2633 CENTINELA AVE 1 SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3260 4270017108 R3 10,418 0.24 1/2 mile 0 1 0 2621 CENTINELA AVE 1 SANTA MONICA CA 90405 3261 4270017120 R3 17,404 0.40 1/2 mile 0 1 0 Option 3 - R2/R3 Zoned Parcels Exclusively in Expo/Bundy TOD Zone

11.C.b
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Upzoning Options - Parcel Tables (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 4:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan.Hall. @santamonica.gov; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Heather Averick Subject: My family's home since 1983 - Items 11b and 11c - Changing the district of Pico Neighborhood

EXTERNAL
I have lived in Santa Monica since 1980, in the Pico Neighborhood since 1983.

My daughter grew up here and attended Santa Monica schools.

I would like to keep my neighborhood the wonderful place to grow up we have known. Therefore, I object to the council making changes to the zoning and building ordinances.

I am pleading with each of you to vote NO on:

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 2 Sincerely - Janet Krelle, 1807 19th Street, Apt. A, Santa Monica, CA 90404 (
Contact info: email [email protected]; telephone (310) 266-1261 Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 1 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 12:25 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Oliver Chi
Subject: 7/28 City Council Agenda Item 11.C (7/28) - Oppose R1 Upzoning; Return to Option 3

EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I am writing because I came to the 8/14/26 meeting and I asked this body to protect the Pico neighborhood from exactly what is now on your agenda. I am not writing to introduce myself or my concerns to you. You already know who I am and how long I have fought for neighborhoods. I am writing because, once again, Pico neighborhood is being asked to absorb a burden it did not create and was never asked about. Why?
At your July 14, 2026 meeting, the item before you was the Planning Commission's recommendation, Option 3, targeting the 66 R2/R3 multi-unit parcels in the Expo/Bundy TOD zone and I asked you to agree with that recommendation. Instead, this Council went off script. Without notice to the residents who would be affected, without outreach to this neighborhood, and without any apparent consideration of what this community has already endured, you directed staff to instead look at upzoning R1-zoned parcels, in the Pico neighborhood, to satisfy SB 79's exclusion criteria, because you did not want to risk displacing renters in multi-unit buildings elsewhere. I want to be direct about what that decision actually did: it protected renters in one part of this city by placing the burden on a neighborhood that is itself home to generational families and renters who were given no say in the matter. Nearly 20% of the households on Pico's streets are renters. Many of their homes hold three generations under one roof, five to eight people deep, because this is what has always been possible here, and because for much of this city's history, it was one of the only neighborhoods where families were allowed to be. This is not incidental. This is the same neighborhood where Japanese American families, upon returning from incarceration during World War II, were only permitted to resettle, a history that is not abstract to us, because a few of those families still live on their street today. This is the same neighborhood that has absorbed the I-10 Freeway cutting through it, that has lived beside a former dump, and that is now expected to sleep through squealing brakes and horns from the Metro rail maintenance yard testing trains at 3 a.m., every night, indefinitely. This is the neighborhood you have now targeted for increased density, with less process, less notice, and less consideration than was given to the option the Planning Commission actually recommended.

I also want to raise an environmental impact this report does not mention at all: the at-grade rail crossing on our streets. At peak traffic hours, cars back up behind the arm, sometimes two blocks long, idling the entire time the crossing is down. That is not a minor inconvenience. That is concentrated vehicle exhaust, sitting and accumulating, in a residential neighborhood, on a daily basis. Before this Council adds density to these streets, I am asking you to answer a direct question: how does further densification near this crossing affect the health and wellbeing of the families who already live here and already breathe that air every day? This is just one example of cars idling and being backed up. It also happens Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 2 consistently on Virginia Avenue at Centinela. This report analyzes displacement risk parcel by parcel. It does not analyze this. It should, before any option is adopted. I recognize the report before you on July 28 frames Options 1 and 2 as the lower-displacement-risk choices because the R1 parcels are largely owner-occupied and SB 79's displacement protections apply only to sites with three or more units. But ownership status is not the same as absence of harm. Renters in single-family homes in this neighborhood are just as real, and just as vulnerable, as renters anywhere else in this city, they are simply not counted, because SB 79's protections were not written with this neighborhood in mind. A policy that avoids displacement on paper by shifting density onto a historically overburdened, environmental-justice community is not a neutral planning choice. It is a continuation of a pattern this neighborhood has lived through for generations: when a hard choice has to be made, it gets made here, quietly, and after the fact. I am asking this Council to do the following: Return to Option 3, the Planning Commission's recommendation, and give it the genuine consideration it was owed before this Council redirected staff away from it.

If this Council will not adopt Option 3, reject Options 1 and 2 outright. Do not upzone the R1 parcels of this neighborhood as an alternative simply because it appeared administratively convenient. At minimum, before any further direction is given, conduct real, direct outreach to the households on these streets, not a staff report presented after the fact, but actual engagement with the families who will live with this decision.Formally analyze the cumulative environmental justice burden already carried by this neighborhood, the freeway, the former dump, the rail yard noise, the historical housing discrimination, as part of any decision to further increase density here.

This neighborhood has given this city more than its share already. I am asking you not to take more from it without asking first. I stand in solidarity with the Gandara Park neighbors on this. We will continue to fight, together, for our right to equality, to real investment, and to a quality of life this city has too often decided we can do without.

Respectfully,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh, Chair
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 3 David Yakobson
From: Gene Nishina <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 4:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: My Protest against up-zone of R-1 neighborhood plan

EXTERNAL
I Mr. Fumio Nishina registeted owner of residential home on lot at 3024 Delaware Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90404 protest the up-zoning from R-1.

I urge SM City Council et.al to :

1. reject option 1 and option2

2. and proceed with the Planning Commission's original reccomendation of option 3.

My full weight and forbearance is with option 3. Reject all else.

Very Truly Yours,
Mr. Fumio Nishina
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 1 David Yakobson
From: info <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2026 10:49 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: Jose Parra; O'Neil Brian; Brent Thompson; Nada Shamonki; Sarah Devine; Robert Sturman; Juan Padilla; [email protected]; [email protected]; meagan westhoven; Oscar de la Torre; Christian Kennel; [email protected]; Brent Thompson; Katina Metzidakis; James McCoy; [email protected]; Maria Loya Subject: Agenda Item 11.C (7/28) - Oppose R1 Upzoning; Return to Option 3 Importance: High

EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing as a Pico Neighborhood resident, a former member of this Council, and someone who has stood before you many times to ask this body to protect this neighborhood from exactly what is now on your agenda. I am not writing to introduce myself or my concerns to you. You already know who I am and how long I have fought for this neighborhood. I am writing because, once again, this neighborhood is being asked to absorb a burden it did not create and was never asked about.

At your July 14, 2026 meeting, the item before you was the Planning Commission's recommendation, Option 3, targeting the 66 R2/R3 multi-unit parcels in the Expo/Bundy TOD zone. Instead, this Council went off script. Without notice to the residents who would be affected, without outreach to this neighborhood, and without any apparent consideration of what this community has already endured, you directed staff to instead look at upzoning R1-zoned parcels, our neighborhood, to satisfy SB 79's exclusion criteria, because you did not want to risk displacing renters in multi-unit buildings elsewhere.

I want to be direct about what that decision actually did: it protected renters in one part of this city by placing the burden on a neighborhood that is itself home to generational families and renters who were given no say in the matter. Nearly 20% of the households on our streets are renters.

Many of our homes hold three generations under one roof, five to eight people deep, because this is what has always been possible here, and because for much of this city's history, it was one of the only neighborhoods where our families were allowed to be. This is not incidental. This is the same neighborhood where Japanese American families, upon returning from incarceration during World War II, were only permitted to resettle, a history that is not abstract to us, because a few of those families still live on our street today. This is the same neighborhood that has absorbed the I-10 Freeway cutting through it, that has lived beside a former dump, and that is now expected to sleep through squealing brakes and horns from the Metro rail maintenance yard testing trains at 3 a.m., every night, indefinitely.

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 2 This is the neighborhood you have now targeted for increased density, with less process, less notice, and less consideration than was given to the option the Planning Commission actually recommended.

I also want to raise an environmental impact this report does not mention at all: the at-grade rail crossing on our streets. At peak traffic hours, cars back up behind the arm, sometimes two blocks long, idling the entire time the crossing is down. That is not a minor inconvenience. That is concentrated vehicle exhaust, sitting and accumulating, in a residential neighborhood, on a daily basis. Before this Council adds density to these streets, I am asking you to answer a direct question:
how does further densification near this crossing affect the health and wellbeing of the families who already live here and already breathe that air every day? This is just one example of cars idling and being backed up. It also happens consistently on Virginia Avenue at Centinela. This report analyzes displacement risk parcel by parcel. It does not analyze this. It should, before any option is adopted.

I recognize the report before you on July 28 frames Options 1 and 2 as the lower-displacement-risk choices because the R1 parcels are largely owner-occupied and SB 79's displacement protections apply only to sites with three or more units. But ownership status is not the same as absence of harm. Renters in single-family homes in this neighborhood are just as real, and just as vulnerable, as renters anywhere else in this city, they are simply not counted, because SB 79's protections were not written with this neighborhood in mind. A policy that avoids displacement on paper by shifting density onto a historically overburdened, environmental-justice community is not a neutral planning choice. It is a continuation of a pattern this neighborhood has lived through for generations: when a hard choice has to be made, it gets made here, quietly, and after the fact.

I am asking this Council to do the following:

1. Return to Option 3, the Planning Commission's recommendation, and give it the genuine consideration it was owed before this Council redirected staff away from it.

2. If this Council will not adopt Option 3, reject Options 1 and 2 outright. Do not upzone the R1 parcels of this neighborhood as an alternative simply because it appeared administratively convenient.

3. At minimum, before any further direction is given, conduct real, direct outreach to the households on these streets, not a staff report presented after the fact, but actual engagement with the families who will live with this decision.

4. Formally analyze the cumulative environmental justice burden already carried by this neighborhood, the freeway, the former dump, the rail yard noise, the historical housing discrimination, as part of any decision to further increase density here.

Please also be aware that I, we, are in the process of consulting with an environmental justice attorney regarding this decision and the process by which it was reached among all other injustices this neighborhood has endured to date. I am doing so because I believe this neighborhood deserves, at minimum, the same level of care, analysis, and public process that was given to every other option in this report, and because I intend to make sure that whatever this Council decides on July 28 is made with full awareness of the history it is repeating.

This neighborhood has given this city more than its share already. I am asking you not to take more from it without so much as asking first.

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 3 I stand in solidarity with my Gandara Park neighbors on this. We will continue to fight, together, for our right to equality, to real investment, and to a quality of life this city has too often decided we can do without.

Respectfully,
Christine Parra
Pico Neighborhood Resident
Former Santa Monica City Councilmember
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 1 David Yakobson
From: Lina Ara <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:15 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-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Council-members,
Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 single-family homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel.

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

In 2021, Councilmember Raskin was quoted by the Daily Press as follows: “The demographic in our city that’s at the single greatest risk of displacement is working-class families who rent single-family homes." Please return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and 2. Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Lina Ara
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 2 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Doyle <[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-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Council-members,
Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 singlefamily homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel.

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Catherine Doyle
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 3 David Yakobson
From: Alan Levenson <[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-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please do not subject single family homes to speculators and developers out to turn a fast payday.

Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 single-family homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel.

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Alan Levenson
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 4 David Yakobson
From: Tregg Rustad <[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-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I understand the City must complete targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. However, Item 11-C appears to go well beyond what state law requires.

Options 1 and 2 would increase allowable density, floor area ratio, and building height for 212 single-family properties in portions of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood located within one-half mile of the station. These changes could allow 10- to 12-unit apartment buildings to be constructed on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel.

The potential displacement consequences deserve serious consideration. In 2021, Councilmember Raskin was quoted in the Santa Monica Daily Press as saying, “The demographic in our city that’s at the single greatest risk of displacement is working-class families who rent single-family homes.”
For that reason, I respectfully ask the Council to return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and 2. Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change necessary to satisfy the state’s SB 79 requirements while reducing the potential harm to existing residents.

The City can comply with state law without creating more displacement risk than the law requires.

Sincerely,
Tregg Rustad
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 5 David Yakobson
From: David Abramis <[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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

In 2021, Councilmember Raskin was quoted by the Daily Press as follows: "The demographic in our city that's at the single greatest risk of displacement is working-class families who rent single-family homes." Please return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and 2.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state's SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,Â
David Abramis & Iris Souza
2642 33rd St.

Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 6 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Estelle Mednick
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 7 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Jacquelyn Lawson
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 8 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Betty Mednick
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 9 David Yakobson
From: Toby Berlin <[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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Toby Berlin
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 10 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME) Lucy Frances Stone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 11 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-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 single-family homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel.

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Chad Mountain
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 12 David Yakobson
From: Lynn Murdock <[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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Lynn Murdock
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 13 David Yakobson
From: Joseph Lilli <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:25 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-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers, Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 single-family homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel. Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires. In 2021, Councilmember Raskin was quoted by the Daily Press as follows: “The demographic in our city that’s at the single greatest risk of displacement is working-class families who rent single-family homes." Please return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and 2. Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Joe Lilli
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 14 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Amanda OBrien
Owner 1744 Bryn Mawr Ave
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 15 David Yakobson
From: Hilary Galanoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:28 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-C

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Hilary Galanoy
2636 32nd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 16 David Yakobson
From: Dan Halperin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:29 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-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 single-family homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel. Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires. In 2021, Councilmember Raskin was quoted by the Daily Press as follows: “The demographic in our city that’s at the single greatest risk of displacement is working-class families who rent single-family homes." Please return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and 2. Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Dan Halperin
1030 Cedar St. Santa Monica, CA 90405
(33 year resident of Santa Monica, 28 years at this location as homeowner) Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 17 David Yakobson
From: Lisa Test, OTD, OTR/L <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 11c

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Lisa A Test
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 18 David Yakobson
From: mwdobbs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:31 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 W Dobbs.

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 19 David Yakobson
From: mwdobbs <[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: Item 11-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

In 2021, Councilmember Raskin was quoted by the Daily Press as follows:
“The demographic in our city that’s at the single greatest risk of displacement is working-class families who rent single-family homes."
Please return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and 2. Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Michael W Dobbs.

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Shane Murphy
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 1 David Yakobson
From: Tina <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:39 PM
Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 single-family homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel. Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires. In 2021, Councilmember Raskin was quoted by the Daily Press as follows: “The demographic in our city that’s at the single greatest risk of displacement is working-class families who rent single-family homes." Please return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and 2. Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Tina Cox
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 2 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Mike Ishler
2314 Pearl Street
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 3 David Yakobson
From: Dennis <[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; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Dennis Granelli
Concerned Citizen and Neighbor
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 4 David Yakobson
From: CHERI DICKINSON <[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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Cheri Dickinson
2268 22nd Street
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 5 David Yakobson
From: Dalila Fuentes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:48 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Dalila Fuentes
36 years resident in Sunset Park
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 6 David Yakobson
From: Gail Gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:50 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Please think ahead to our needs as a City not just a row of buildings We need FAMILY Housing Family that have lived there for decades Generational housing.

You will be wiping out an established location of Latino Families that will never have the opportunity to reestablish them selves. Think: Chavez Ravine.
“In the early 1950s, the Los Angeles Housing Authority used eminent domain to buy out and evict residents under the guise of urban renewal and public housing.

STOP! This fallacy of SB 79 is one part of the ‘ABUNDANT HOUSING’ begun by Billionaires to buy up various STATES. STARTS WITH WEINER AND ENDS WITH displacing families so the area can be controlled. And the Billionaires will make more money Sincerely,
Gail Gordon
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 7 Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 8 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Jerry Nodiff
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 9 David Yakobson
From: [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; Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman; Oliver Chi 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 7/28/26 item 11-C -- OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
July 27, 2026

To: Mayor Torosis and City Council members

From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park

RE: 7/28/26 agenda item 11-C: OPPOSE
Agenda item 11-C proposes to upzone 212 single-family homes in parts of Sunset Park and Pico Neighborhood.

We ask that you return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and

2. Please make the smallest change is that meets the state’s requirement. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

The FOSP Board is very concerned about the direction City Council gave staff on July 14 regarding SB 79 implementation, which would rezone 212 single-family parcels across Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood to allow buildings of 10 to 12 units on a typical 6,500-square-foot lot.

We understand that Santa Monica is required to do some targeted upzoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy station. But this goes far beyond what the state law requires.

The reason given for turning to single-family blocks rather than multi-family blocks was concern about displacing renters. But in 2021, Councilmember Raskin was quoted by the Daily Press as follows: “The demographic in our city that’s at the single greatest risk of displacement is working-class families who rent single-family homes.” Pico and Sunset Park are where our most affordable single-family homes are, and where working-class families who cannot afford to buy in Santa Monica are most likely to be renting.

Both the Community Development Department and the Planning Commission proposed a narrower upzoning option focused on apartment-zoned parcels, because almost every apartment building in that option is already shielded from SB 79. But a majority of the Council chose an option that goes far beyond state law and permanently carries far more displacement risk across 212 homes.

We are not asking you to trade one group of renters for another. Half of the households in Sunset Park are apartments, and those tenants matter to us. This is about where redevelopment is likely.

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 10 Again, we ask that you return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and 2. Please make the smallest change is that meets the state’s requirement. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Thank you for your consideration.

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 11 David Yakobson
From: Christine Thomas <[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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Christine Thomas
A 76 year resident of Sunset Park
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 12 David Yakobson
From: Todd Sherman <[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-C: Please Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Todd Sherman
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 13 David Yakobson
From: Laura M. Gallant <[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: Opposition to Item 11-C

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please reject Options 1 and 2 for Item 11-C and instead adopt Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission.

While Santa Monica must comply with SB 79, the City is not required to implement the most aggressive upzoning available. Option 3 satisfies the law while minimizing unnecessary impacts on existing residential neighborhoods.

As Councilmember Raskin previously noted, working-class families who rent single-family homes are among the residents most vulnerable to displacement. The City should not adopt zoning changes that increase that risk beyond what state law requires.

Residents expect the Council to comply with state law while exercising restraint. Option 3 achieves that balance by meeting legal requirements with the least potential for neighborhood disruption and displacement.

Sincerely,
Laura Gallant
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 14 David Yakobson
From: Brad Segal <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:01 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME)
———> iPhone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 15 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Janet Tunick
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 16 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME)
Sent from my iPhone
Melissa Feinberg

PROPERTY MASTER
[email protected]
(818) 612-1654
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 17 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Melissa Feinberg
Sent from my iPhone
Melissa Feinberg

PROPERTY MASTER
[email protected]
(818) 612-1654
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 18 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Agenda item 11-c
FYI.

Sarah Almendarez (she/her)
O: (310) 458-8303
From: Tom Richards <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:45 PM
To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda item 11-c

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilman
Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 singlefamily homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel.

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

2. Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Tom Richards
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 19 David Yakobson
From: JORDAN ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:23 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Jordan Ellis
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 20 David Yakobson
From: Mindi Shank <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:29 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Please, begging of you to consider the livelihoods and well-being of your constituents.

If you do not live here yourself, imagine yourself doing so! Sincerely,
Mindi Shank
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 21 David Yakobson
From: Jeanette Schachtner <[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-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 singlefamily homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel. Santa Monica is required to do targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Jeanette Schachtner
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 22 David Yakobson
From: Merle Newman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:31 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Merle Newman
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 23 David Yakobson
From: David Rock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:40 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
David W Rock
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 24 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Item 11-C: Oppose!
FYI
Sarah Almendarez (she/her)
O: (310) 458-8303
From: Katherine Reuter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:35 PM
To: Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Katherine Reuter
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 25 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Item 11-C: Oppose!
FYI
Sarah Almendarez (she/her)
O: (310) 458-8303
From: David Rock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:40 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
David W Rock
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 26 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Chris Rowe
2442 22nd St
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 27 David Yakobson
From: Bronwyn Barkan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 single-family homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel. Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires. In 2021, Councilmember Raskin was quoted by the Daily Press as follows: “The demographic in our city that’s at the single greatest risk of displacement is working-class families who rent single-family homes." Please return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and 2. Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Bronwyn Barkan
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 28 David Yakobson
From: Danielle Borgia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:57 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-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
We bought into Sunset Park because it is a neighborhood with blocks of houses rimmed by apartments near the commercial areas.

The city’s too-soft policies supporting homelessness for the percentage of whom it is a choice have brought us to a mess. Do you really think that lowering our houses’ value by changing houses into apartments is going to improve our drowning economy? Have you not noticed that the more services we provide, the more unhoused, specifically the chronically unhoused, we attract? 11-C will only add to the amount of new, vacant housing in our city-and further strain our water infrastructure. It’s irresponsible. It will also bankrupt our school district. People renting apartments will not be approving nor paying increased property taxes for our schools nor paying into SMEF and the pta to keep our great programs. And when the schools decline, the real estate will devalue, and even more businesses will leave.

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Please return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and 2.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Danielle Borgia
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 29 David Yakobson
From: nancykless <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:00 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Nancy Kless
Sent from my Galaxy
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 30 David Yakobson
From: oesr <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:00 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 11C

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Jane Dempsey
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 1 David Yakobson
From: Elaine Becker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:09 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-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers, Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 single-family homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel. Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires. In 2021, Councilmember Raskin was quoted by the Daily Press as follows: “The demographic in our city that’s at the single greatest risk of displacement is workingclass families who rent single-family homes." Please return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and 2. Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm. Sincerely, Elaine Becker
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel.

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Clare
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 3 David Yakobson
From: Karen Fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:19 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Karen M. Fisher
Mobile: 310-600-1040
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 4 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Mary Hubbell
Sent from my iPad
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 1 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:37 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Danielle Charney
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 2 David Yakobson
From: ALICE ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:59 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Alice Ellis
Santa Monica resident
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 3 David Yakobson
From: Debbie Millar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:07 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-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I urge you to reject Options 1 and 2 for Item 11-C and instead adopt Option 3, as recommended by our city's Planning Commission.

Item 11-C would significantly increase allowable density, floor area ratio, and building height for approximately 212 single-family homes in the portions of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood located within one-half mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. On a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family lot, the proposed standards could allow apartment buildings with 10 to 12 units.

While Santa Monica must complete targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in the implementation of SB 79 around the Expo/Bundy Station, Item 11-C goes well beyond what state law requires.

In 2021, Councilmember Raskin told the Santa Monica Daily Press: "The demographic in our city that's at the single greatest risk of displacement is working-class families who rent single-family homes."
That concern remains just as relevant today. Option 3 satisfies the City's obligations under SB 79 and strikes a more balanced approach by complying with state law while minimizing the risk of displacement and preserving neighborhood stability.

I respectfully ask you to adopt Option 3 and reject Options 1 and 2. Residents deserve implementation of state law in a way that minimizes unnecessary displacement and protects the people most vulnerable to its impacts.

Sincerely,
Debbie Millar
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 1 David Yakobson
From: Britt Johansson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:12 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-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
There is too much development proposed for Sunset Park that goes way beyond what State law is requiring. These proposals will make definitely make our working-families move out, but it will also make the wealthier homeowners want to leave as we will be living in urban canyons surrounded by dense apartments.

Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 singlefamily homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel.

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Britt Johansson
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 2 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Pearl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:17 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Nancy Pearl
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 3 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Linda
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 1 David Yakobson
From: s. g. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: 11-C

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members,
Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 single-family homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel. Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires. In 2021, Council member Raskin was quoted by the Daily Press as follows: “The demographic in our city that’s at the single greatest risk of displacement is working-class families who rent single-family homes." Please return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and 2. Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Susan Grant
1030 Cedar St
30+ year Sunset Park Resident
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 2 David Yakobson
From: Jeremiah Knight <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:35 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-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I’m sure you’re hearing a lot about this topic and I so appreciate you reading my email.

As a long time Sunset Park resident, I’d like to be very clear that I DO think that we need additional housing in Santa Monica and that this is not just a NIMBY plea.

But, I’d like the council to be wise… and, to be deliberate in the creation of a plan that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements, adds new density, but does so with consideration to the impact on the neighborhoods and necessary infrastructure to handle ingress and egress of increased numbers of travelers.

In fact, I’d argue that this is the kind of moment that requires a thoughtful master plan for growth, similar to what you’ve done brilliantly for SMC, for the Santa Monica Airport Park Conversion, and even for the ‘urban forest’ plantings master plan; a long-range plan with an eye on the type of reasonable growth that will make Santa Monica sustainable and desirable now and far into the future.

With that in mind, following is a ’template’ note with things you know already (I’m sure). Thank you for making sure that working class families aren’t displaced and helping us to solve the Santa Monica housing crisis responsibly.

Sincerely,
Jeremiah Knight
2335 33rd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
REASONS TO VOTE NO ON 11-C
Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 singlefamily homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel.

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 3 Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 4 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Michael Osment

MICHAEL OSMENT
Osment Productions & Photography
[email protected]
310-291-1272
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 5 David Yakobson
From: Holly Silvers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:48 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Holly Silvers-Granelli
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 6 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME)
Leslee Mickshaw
Leslee Mickshaw
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 7 David Yakobson
From: KENNY GRANT <[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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

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-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 8 David Yakobson
From: Roni Crichton <[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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Roni Crichton
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 9 David Yakobson
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:08 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 Item 11-C Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Agenda Item 11-C
Zoning for 10 - 12 Story Apartment Buildings
TO:
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Dear Councilmembers,
Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 single-family homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10-to-12-unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel.

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Phyllis Chavez
Sunset Park
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 10 David Yakobson
From: Ann Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:16 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Ann Kelly
Resident of Santa Monica
Parent of 3 school-aged children attending Grant Elementary & JAMS --
Ann Kelly | [email protected]
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 11 David Yakobson
From: Rosie Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:37 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Rosie Lee
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 12 David Yakobson
From: Mayra Herrera <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:47 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-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers, we ar Sunset Park do not need to increase development standards.

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Mayra Herrera
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 13 David Yakobson
From: Geraldine Kennedy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Geraldine Kennedy
More than 50 year Sunset Park homeowner Former Santa Monica Planning Commissioner Sent from my iPad
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 14 David Yakobson
From: TARYN FORDES <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:05 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Taryn Fordes
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 15 David Yakobson
From: Shawn Landres
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11.C — Options for Increased Development Standards within the Expo/Bundy Transit-Oriented Development Zone to Qualify for Temporary Exclusion from Senate Bill (SB) 79 Implementation
Dear Mayor Torosis and Members of the City Council,
I am writing as an individual Planning Commissioner to recommend that your direction on Item 11.C consider pairing the proposed standards with a minimum density that ratchets up with floor area. In summary, you could adopt 1.25 FAR and 40 du/ac as by-right base zoning, preserve the existing singleunit envelope for anyone building a single home, and require that any project using the increased standards contain more units as it uses more floor area, with ADUs counting toward the minimum.

An illustrative schedule for a typical 6,500-square-foot parcel follows:
 Within existing R1 envelope: 1 unit (no change); unit size per existing code  Above existing envelope to 0.75 FAR (4,875 SF): minimum 5 units; ~975 SF average  0.75 to 1.00 FAR (6,500 SF): minimum 6 units; ~1,085 SF average  1.00 to 1.25 FAR (8,125 SF): minimum 6 units; ~1,355 SF average (40 du/ac on a 6,500-square-foot parcel yields 5.97 units; six units follows the rounding in the staff report's Table 1. The 1.25 FAR / 40 du/ac figures equal 50 percent of SB 79's standards for the quarter-tohalf-mile band; any affected parcel within one-quarter mile of the station would require 1.5 FAR and 50 du/ac to count.)
With no ratchet, 1.25 FAR permits an 8,000-square-foot single-family residence; but a ratchet would convert the same envelope into homes at roughly 1,000 square feet each through 1.00 FAR. (Holding the full 1.25 FAR step to that size would require eight units, or one unit per 800 square feet of lot area, which exceeds the 40 du/ac base and is addressed below.)
In my reading, keeping the FAR itself unconditional strengthens the parcels' qualification under Government Code section 65912.161(b)(1)(B)(i), which counts what zoning "permits"; HCD has not yet interpreted that term in this context, and its SB 79 determinations to date do not address it. No covenant or affordability condition is needed at the base, and SB 9 and ADU projects proceed under their own state standards regardless.

State law permits a minimum unit count above the existing single-unit envelope. Zoning minimums rest on the same police power as zoning maximums, and no court appears to have invalidated a minimumdensity standard; the Court of Appeal has treated minimum densities as substantive requirements (People for Proper Planning v. City of Palm Springs (2016)). Los Angeles adopted such a minimum in 2025, requiring one dwelling unit, accessory dwelling units included, for every 2,000 square feet of lot area, rounded up, on housing element sites and in specified higher-density multifamily zones (Ordinance No. 188479; Municipal Code section 16.70); and HCD credits adopted minimums toward housing Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 16 element site capacity. There are three constraints, and the recommended structure satisfies each: the Housing Accountability Act poses no obstacle, because a single-family home is not a protected housing development project (Reznitskiy v. County of Marin (2022)) and objective minimums are permissible standards; the Housing Crisis Act bars reducing capacity below the January 1, 2018 baseline (Yes In My Back Yard v. City of Culver City (2023)), and because a minimum attaching only to the new increment above a preserved legacy envelope adds rather than reduces intensity, it should not offend that bar, though no published case has squarely decided the structure; and SB 9 and ADU law set floors the minimum cannot override.

The ratchet also keeps open a pathway for the Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan, which I will present at a later agenda item, and the top step shows why. The baseline upzoning caps a typical parcel at six homes; the MMHRP would permit more. Its density standard of one unit per 800 square feet of lot area allows eight homes on the same 6,500-square-foot parcel, the level at which the full 1.25 FAR yields homes of roughly 1,000 square feet, in exchange for a recorded workforce covenant. The base ratchet produces homes through 1.00 FAR; the MMHRP pathway completes the schedule at the top. The specifics belong with that item.

As staff notes, a flat FAR increase would qualify these parcels for the SB 79 exclusion. Adding a ratcheting minimum could help ensure that anyone seeking to take advantage of the window of opportunity before the postponement and alternative plans take effect would have to produce housing accessible to a broader range of incomes.

Respectfully submitted,
Shawn Landres
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 17 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Lea LeBlanc
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 18 David Yakobson
From: Maury Pearl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:45 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-C

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 19 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Lynn Karz
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 20 David Yakobson
From: Kathy Kane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 7:10 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
The Cody Family - Kathy, Phil, Cameron and Spencer
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 21 David Yakobson
From: Jenny Blum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 7:23 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,
Jennifer Blum
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 22 David Yakobson
From: Jenny Blum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 7:24 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Blum
Sunset Park Resident
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 23 David Yakobson
From: Emily Davidson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 7:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Emily Davidson
Resident of Sunset Park
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 24 David Yakobson
From: Darlene Vogel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 7:57 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
darlene vogel
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 25 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Alisa Bunting
Alisa Bunting
[email protected]
310-569-5499 Cell
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 26 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 8:14 PM
To: Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11.C - Support Option 2

EXTERNAL
Hello Mayor and Council Members,
Santa Monica is writing in support of Option 2, for item 11.C, that would apply increased development standards to all R1 parcels within a half-mile of Expo-Bundy.

Santa Monica's housing crisis isn't just a shortage of units, it's a shortage of homes where families can put down roots through ownership. For decades, our zoning has overwhelmingly favored the preservation of single-family houses whose prices have spiraled out of reach of the vast majority of residents. This crisis is deeply unjust, and demands immediate action wherever possible. Tonight, spurred by SB79 you have one of those opportunities for action.

Allowing for the creation of new townhomes around Expo-Bundy through option 2 is an outstanding way to create new opportunities for residents to buy homes, while at the same time protecting renters. By affecting only R1 parcels, this change would allow for the city to welcome new residents while affecting a limited number of rent-controlled units, who are protected by Santa Monica’s robust existing anti-displacement laws.

Best,
Sam Shapiro-Kline and Brad Ewing
Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward
--
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.

SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 27 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME)
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 28 David Yakobson
From: Peter Davidson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 8:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: PETER DAVIDSON
Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
SUBJECT: Agenda Item 11-C
Dear Councilmembers,
Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 single-family homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel.

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Peter Davidson
Residential Property Owner
3011 Linda Ln
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 29 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
cydney and Kenneth kirschbaum
Cydney Kirschbaum
[email protected]
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 30 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Megan FitzGerald
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 31 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Janis Flax
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 32 David Yakobson
From: E Lerner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 9:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 11-C

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Ellyn Lerner
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 33 David Yakobson
From: Jedd Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:05 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Jedd thomas
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 34 David Yakobson
From: Brent Thompson <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Agenda Item 11.C: Return to Option 3 and Study a Commercial-Corridor Alternative

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I'm writing about Item 11.C, the proposal to raise development standards near the Expo/Bundy Metro station to qualify the zone for temporary exclusion from SB 79. My wife and I have rented in the Gandara Park neighborhood, near 34th and Delaware, for five years now, and we have a young toddler. I won't be able to attend in person tomorrow, so I wanted to put this in writing ahead of the noon deadline.

I want to be clear up front: I'm not opposed to added density near transit. My objection is that staff is recommending the least creative path to the legal threshold, on a rationale that doesn't hold up, when a better and less destructive path hasn't even been studied.

On July 14, Council moved away from the Planning Commission's recommendation (Option 3: upzoning 66 existing R2/R3 parcels) specifically over concern for displacing renters, and directed staff to look at R1 parcels instead on the premise that those lots are owner-occupied. My household is a direct counterexample to that premise, and we're not alone; neighbors have identified renter households, including ADU tenants and families with young children, throughout the R1 parcels on Delaware, Centinela, and Urban. The report's own numbers confirm the pivot backfired: Option 3 leaves only 4 unprotected parcels out of 66, because most already qualify for SB79's tenant-protection carve-out.

Options 1 and 2, the R1 alternatives, leave 5 and 15 parcels unprotected respectively. This gap exists because SB79's displacement protection only applies to sites with three or more units; most R1 parcels today have far fewer, so raising their density does not bring them under that protection the way it does for the R2/R3 buildings that already qualify. The option chosen to protect renters protects fewer of us than the one it replaced.

Meanwhile, 54 parcels in this same zone are already commercially zoned and already meet or exceed SB79's density standards. The report treats that as a solved input rather than a lever worth pulling further. Upzoning commercial land to close the remaining gap displaces zero current residents, a claim none of the three options on the table can make. Gandara Park already contains a real mix of townhomes and multifamily buildings alongside a shrinking stock of single-family homes; spending down what's left of it, on a rationale the report's own data contradicts, isn't a necessary tradeoff.

I'm asking Council to return to Option 3 for now, and to direct staff to formally study a commercialcorridor upzoning alternative before any further R1 rezoning moves forward.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 35 Brent Thompson
LinkedIn
[email protected]
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 36 David Yakobson
From: Lauren Marie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:34 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Please stop allowing 4k 1 bedroom to be build under the guise of “low income housing” or “affordable housing.” It’s quite the joke,
Sincerely,
Lauren Wyka
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 37 David Yakobson
From: Amy Taylor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Subject: Agenda Item 11.C: Return to Option 3 (URGENT)

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I’m writing to share my thoughts on Item 11.C because this proposal directly impacts my family. I rent a single family home in the Gandara Park neighborhood near Delaware and 34th, where I’m raising a two year old daughter.

I support building more housing near transit. What concerns me is that the proposed R1 rezoning doesn’t seem to be the onlyor the best way to accomplish that goal. The reasoning that R1 parcels are primarily owner-occupied doesn’t reflect the reality of our neighborhood. My family rents an R1 home, and many of our neighbors do as well, including families and ADU tenants.

What stood out to me in the staff report is that the previous R2/R3 approach actually appears to leave fewer properties without SB 79 tenant protections than the R1 alternatives. At the same time, there are already many commercially zoned properties in this area that meet or exceed the required density standards. It seems worth exploring whether additional commercial upzoning could achieve the City’s objectives while avoiding unnecessary displacement of residents.

I respectfully ask the Council to reconsider Option 3 or, at a minimum, direct staff to fully evaluate a commercial-focused alternative before rezoning additional R1 neighborhoods.

Thank you for your time and for considering the perspective of those of us who already rent here and call this neighborhood home.

Sincerely,
Amy Taylor
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 38 David Yakobson
From: Chuck Abbott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:58 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Charles Abbott
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 39 David Yakobson
From: Will Finch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 12:05 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 11C (SB 79)

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I would like to push back on the council’s reasoning for delaying SB 79. While the nominal reason given by the council for the delay is preventing displacement, SB 79 has protections against using the law to demolish any rentcontrolled buildings where renters have lived for the last 7 years. Additionally, a UCSF study in 2023 found that new housing DECREASES the risk of displacement. The discussion also does not acknowledge that the zones in the SCAG map extend beyond the Pico neighborhood.

SB 79 was well thought out and contingencies for communities at risk for displacement were extensively accounted for. It is bad policy to try to negate the effects now when we desperately need new housing. We are hurting - not helping - people being priced out of their communities.

Please don’t delay any longer in implementing transit-oriented development allowed by SB 79! Sincerely,
Will Finch
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 40 David Yakobson
From: Roger Director <[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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Roger Director
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 41 David Yakobson
From: Peter A Donald <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:19 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-C: Oppose!
Attachments: PastedGraphic-5.tiff

It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel.

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 42 David Yakobson
From: William Schoene <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:35 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-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 singlefamily homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station, well beyond what SB 79 has mandated. It would allow 10 to 12-unit apartment buildings on typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcels. We live in Sunset Park and 10 years ago our neighbors to the west added a 2-story apartment building to their backyard, under the government-approved "granny flat" rule. We cannot imagine remaining where we are had they been able to replace their home
with a 10-unit building.

Furthermore, the R1 lots most likely to be converted house the least economically secure families -- an unwelcome form of gentrification. In 2021, Councilmember Raskin was quoted by the Daily Press: “The demographic in our city that’s at the single greatest risk of displacement is working-class families who rent single-family homes."
Please return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and 2.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements, and why should Santa Monica densify beyond what is mandated by a state law that steamrollers over all our control of local zoning? You owe it to Santa Monica residents to minimize both forced rezoning and the amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
William and Mary Lou Schoene
1519 Oak Street Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 43 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 6:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 11.C - The numbers don't lie - Option 3 is the only option that actually delivers

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I'm writing about Item 11.C on Tuesday's agenda, the proposal to adjust development standards near the Metro Bundy station so this area can qualify for a temporary exclusion from SB79. I've owned my home here for years and before that was a renter in Santa Monica for 20+ years. I have watched the Gandara Neighborhood change slowly and steadily long before SB79 ever came up, and I want to make sure the choice you make on Tuesday actually holds up.

On July 14, the Council moved away from the Planning Commission's original recommendation, Option 3, which would have upzoned 66 R2/R3 parcels, and directed staff toward the R1 options 1 & 2 instead, covering either 89 or all 212 single-family parcels. The stated reason was to "protect renters", since the report describes the R1 parcels as "ownership" housing with "unlikely displacement risk." I understand the instinct. But the report's own numbers cut the other way. SB79's tenant protections apply only to buildings with three or more units that already carry rent control or affordable housing. Most R1 lots don't have three units today, so upzoning them doesn't bring them under that protection. That's why Option 3 leaves just 4 of 66 parcels unprotected, while Option 1 leaves 5 and Option 2 leaves 15. The options 1 & 2 meant to protect renters protects fewer of them than the recommended option #3. I ask Council to reject Options 1 and 2, return to Option 3, or direct staff to model a commercial-parcel alternative before adopting any option that unprotects more renters than the one it replaced.

I've lived here long enough to know this neighborhood already has townhomes and multifamily buildings woven in among the single-family homes, and that the single-family stock has been shrinking for years, not growing. I also know this area has carried more than its share of the city's burdens for generations: the I-10 Freeway was routed through here, the city's old dump was sited here, and the Metro rail yard still operates here. We've absorbed a lot already.

There is a better path. 54 parcels in this zone are already commercially zoned and already meet or exceed the state's density targets. That underused land could take on real growth without displacing a single renter or demolishing a single home.

I'm asking you to choose the recommended option #3 that actually delivers on the goal you stated on July 14.

Do the right thing!
Thank you for your consideration,
Christian Kennel & Meagan Westhoven
3007 Delaware Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 44 ____________________________________
Christian Kennel
US Mobile/WhatsApp: 1-310-614-4070
EU Mobile: +34 658 048 233
E: [email protected]
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 45 David Yakobson
From: Maria Faillace <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 6:44 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Seriously! Stop this being in the developer’s pocket!!
Sincerely,
Maria Faillace
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 46 David Yakobson
From: terri williamson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 6:48 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Teresa Williamson
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 47 David Yakobson
From: Karen Pinto <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 6:56 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME) Karen M Pinto
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 48 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Colette Herbstman
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 49 David Yakobson
From: Ramesh Ramalingam <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:22 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Ramesh Ramalingam
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 50 David Yakobson
From: Richard Daum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:23 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-C: Oppose! - Does it address Ownership vs. Renting

EXTERNAL
Three additional factors seem to be missing:
1) Encouragement of Condominium Ownership vs Rentals.
2) Home Size requirements that will encourage families to locate into Santa Monica. 3) Architectural requirements that lessen burdens of more density; that include, sunlight & air in units, aesthetics of buildings and neighborhoods and parks and open spaces for kids and adults alike.

I trust the evaluation of the Friends of Sunset Park and Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow.

Dear Councilmembers, Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 single-family homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel. Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires. In 2021, Councilmember Raskin was quoted by the Daily Press as follows: “The demographic in our city that’s at the single greatest risk of displacement is working-class families who rent single-family homes." Please return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and 2. Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Richard Daum
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 51 David Yakobson
From: K Ponthier S Devine <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Subject: Subject: Agenda Item 11.C - Reject Options 1 and 2

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am Kevin Ponthier a homeowner and long-time resident of the Gandara Park/Pico neighborhood, near the Metro E Expo/Bundy and Bergamot stations. I am writing on Agenda Item 11.C, the staff report proposing higher development standards on parcels near the station to qualify the zone for temporary exclusion from SB79.

On July 14, Council moved away from Option 3, the Planning Commission's June 17 recommendation, because of displacement risk to R2/R3 renters, and directed staff to look at R1 parcels instead, on the premise that R1 parcels are ownership housing with unlikely displacement risk. That premise does not hold up against the report's own numbers. SB79's displacement carve-out only protects sites with three or more units that carry rent control or affordable housing. Most R1 parcels today have fewer than three units, so raising their density does not bring them under that protection the way it does for R2/R3 buildings that already qualify.

Option 1 has 5 rent-controlled R1 parcels, all single-unit, so none are protected. Option 2 has 20 rent-controlled parcels, and 15 remain unprotected. Option 3 has 44 rent-controlled and 4 affordable parcels, with only 4 unprotected. Moving away from Option 3 to protect renters produces an option that protects fewer of them.

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 52 As a homeowner, I do not think the R1 designation in this neighborhood means what the report assumes it means. I know renter households on R1 parcels near Delaware, Centinela, and Urban, including ADU tenants and families with children. Treating R1 as uniformly owner-occupied is not accurate here.

I also note that 54 parcels in the zone are already commercially zoned and already meet or exceed SB79 standards. The report does not present or model an option to further upzone those commercial parcels, even though that is the only path to the 33% threshold that displaces no current resident.

I ask Council to reject Options 1 and 2, return to Option 3, or direct staff to model a commercial-parcel alternative before adopting a plan that leaves more renters unprotected than the plan it replaced.

Respectfully,
Kevin Ponthier
3003 Delaware Avenue
310.866.2478
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 53 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Ido Gruberger
Sent from my phone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 54 David Yakobson
From: Kevin Ponthier <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Subject: Agenda Item 11.C - Reject Options 1 and 2

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am Sarah Devine a homeowner and long-time resident of the Gandara Park/Pico neighborhood, near the Metro E Expo/Bundy and Bergamot stations. I am writing on Agenda Item 11.C, the staff report proposing higher development standards on parcels near the station to qualify the zone for temporary exclusion from SB79.

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 55 As a homeowner, I do not think the R1 designation in this neighborhood means what the report assumes it means. I know renter households on R1 parcels near Delaware, Centinela, and Urban, including ADU tenants and families with children. Treating R1 as uniformly owner-occupied is not accurate here.

Respectfully,
Sarah Devine
3003 Delaware Avenue
310-601-0483
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 56 David Yakobson
From: Jose Parra <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:07 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems; info
Subject: Agenda Item 11.C (7/28) - Oppose R1 Upzoning; Return to Option 3

EXTERNAL
On July 14, 2026, this Council had the Planning Commission’s recommendation to focus density increases on the 66 R2/R3 multi-unit parcels already identified in the Expo/Bundy TOD zone. Instead, you departed from that recommendationn with no notice to the residents who stood to be affected, no outreach to our neighborhood, and seemingly no accounting for what this community has already been through. You instructed staff to look instead at rezoning R1 parcels in the Gandara Park neighborhood, as well as Sunset Park, in order to meet SB 79’s exclusion criteria and avoid the risk of displacing renters elsewhere.

This decision shielded renters in multi-unit buildings in other parts of the city by shifting the weight of that decision onto a neighborhood full of multigenerational families and renters who had no opportunity to weigh in. Close to one in five households on our blocks are renter households. It is common here for a single house to hold three generations and five to eight people, because that has always been the reality of this place — and because for a long stretch of this city’s past, ours was one of the few neighborhoods where our families were even permitted to live. That’s not a coincidence of history. This is the same area where Japanese American families, released from wartime incarceration, were allowed to resettle — and that history isn’t distant or theoretical; some of those very families, our next door neighbors included, still live here. This is also the neighborhood that has had the I-10 cut straight through it, that sits next to what used to be a landfill, and that now lies awake to the sound of Metro rail cars being tested at 3 a.m., night after night, with no end date in sight.

And this is the neighborhood you’ve now singled out for more density, with less public process, less advance notice, and less scrutiny than the option your own Planning Commission had actually put forward. It’s especially upsetting that there are 3 Councilmembers (Snell, Raskin, Zernaskaya) who live in our neighborhood and offered zero support knowing all our history of this neighborhood being the casualty of discrimination.

There’s also an environmental consequence unmentioned from this report: the at-grade rail crossing running through our streets. During peak hours, traffic backs up behind the gate arm — sometimes two blocks deep — with engines running the whole time it’s down. That’s not a small annoyance; it’s exhaust accumulating repeatedly, day after day, in a place people live. The same backup happens regularly at Virginia Avenue and Centinela. Before adding more density to these blocks, what will additional density near this crossing mean for the health of the people who already live here and already breathe that air daily? The current report evaluates displacement risk parcel by parcel but says nothing about this. It needs to, before any option moves forward.

I understand the July 28 report presents Options 1 and 2 as lower-risk for displacement, since the R1 parcels are mostly owner-occupied and SB 79’s tenant protections only kick in for buildings with three or Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 57 more units. But being owner-occupied doesn’t mean no one gets hurt. Renters living in single-family homes here are no less real, and no less exposed, than renters anywhere else — they’re just invisible on paper, because SB 79 wasn’t drafted with a neighborhood like ours in mind. Avoiding displacement numbers on a spreadsheet by routing density into a community that has already carried more than its share of environmental burden isn’t a neutral technical decision. It’s the same pattern this neighborhood has absorbed for decades: the hard call gets made quietly, here, after everyone else has been spared it.

I’m asking this Council to:

1. Go back to Option 3 as recommended by the Planning Commission, and actually give it the consideration it deserved before staff was redirected away from it.

2. If Option 3 is off the table, reject Options 1 and 2 outright rather than defaulting to our neighborhood simply because it was the administratively easier path.

3. At a minimum, before taking any further action, carry out genuine, direct outreach to the households who live on these streets — not a report written after decisions are made, but real engagement with the families who will actually live with the outcome.

4. Formally assess the cumulative environmental justice burden this neighborhood already carries — the freeway, the former dump site, the rail yard noise, the history of housing exclusion — as part of any decision to add density here.

I also want this Council to know that we are consulting with an environmental justice attorney about this decision and the process that produced it, in the context of the broader pattern of injustice this neighborhood has faced. I’m doing that because this community deserves the same care, analysis, and public process that every other option in this report received — and because I want to make sure that whatever is decided on July 28 is decided with clear eyes about the history it would be repeating.

This neighborhood has already given this city more than its fair share. I’m asking you not to take more from it without even asking.

I stand with my Gandara and Sunset Park neighbors on this, and we will keep fighting — together — for equal treatment, real investment, and a quality of life this city has too often decided we could go without.

Jose Parra
3027 Delaware Ave
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 58 David Yakobson
From: Jenny Monbouquette <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:12 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Jenny Monbouquette
Jenny Monbouquette
(310)266-3665
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 59 David Yakobson
From: Julia Nicholls <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Subject: Agenda Item 11.C

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I'm writing about Item 11.C on Tuesday's agenda, the zoning changes near the Metro Bundy station that are meant to keep our neighborhood from falling under SB79's default rules. I've owned a house in this neighborhood for 7 years and I'm asking you to look again at which option you're choosing, because the one framed as protecting renters may do the opposite.

I understand why the Council moved away from the Planning Commission's original recommendation (Option 3, upzoning 66 R2/R3 parcels) on July 14 and toward the R1 options instead. The staff report called the 212 R1 parcels "ownership" housing with "unlikely displacement risk," and the intent was to shield renters from harm. But the report's own numbers say something different. SB79's tenant protections only kick in for buildings with three or more units that already have rent control or affordable housing. Most R1 lots today don't have three units, so upzoning them doesn't bring them under that protection the way it does for buildings that already qualify. That's why Option 3 leaves only 4 of 66 parcels unprotected, while Option 1 leaves 5 and Option 2 leaves 15. The option chosen specifically to protect renters ends up protecting fewer of us.

I'm not a statistic in this report. I'm one of the homeowners on these blocks, and I know other homeowners and renters nearby on Delaware, Centinela, and Urban, including families with young kids and people living in ADUs. One neighbor got a 30-day eviction notice in 2021 the day a moratorium lifted, with a one-year-old in the house. That is what displacement actually looks like here.

There are very few areas in Santa Monica where a family can buy or rent a 1-story home. This is a neighborhood of bungalows populated by many people of Japanese descent. It’s important to keep historic areas of Santa Monica.

There's also a simpler option sitting right in front of you. 54 parcels in this zone are already commercially zoned and already meet or exceed the state's density targets. That land could absorb real growth without pushing anyone out of their home.

Please choose the option that actually protects renters, not just the one labeled that way.

Julia Nicholls
2934 Delaware Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 60 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Hicks <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:44 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Nancy & Wes Hicks
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 61 David Yakobson
From: lmarreola <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: July 28 CC Mtg. ITEM 11C

EXTERNAL
Please Reject Options 1 and 2, Please return to Option 3.

Carol and Larry Arreola
Sunset Park Residents
Sent from my Galaxy
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 62 David Yakobson
From: Faustino Garza <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 9:13 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Faustino Garza
Sunset Park
Santa Monica
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 63 David Yakobson
From: Alicia Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:21 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Alicia Davis, Santa Monica resident
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 64 David Yakobson
From: PNA90404 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:34 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11-C

EXTERNAL
Subject: Item 11-C: Upzoning of R1 Neighborhoods in the Pico District Date: July 28, 2026
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
As a long time Pico neighborhood resident, I am writing to urge you to reverse the proposed upzoning of Pico’s R1, which would implement SB79 to allow 6-12 homes to be built on a single R1 lot in our historically aggrieved neighborhood. I urge you to pause this radical zoning shift in order to 1) allow for adequate public input and transparency in the process; 2) consider accurate data regarding the number of renters who would be displaced by the proposed upzoning; and 3) appreciate how such an action would once again disproportionately fall on the Pico neighborhood to bear the brunt of the city’s infrastructure and housing policies. 1) CALL FOR GREATER PUBLIC INPUT AND TRANSPARENCY – AN SB79 TOWN HALL!!! Two weeks ago, city staff recommended that SB79 housing densification be targeted in appropriate R2-R3 areas. At the last council meeting on July 14, nearing 1am with little public input, council decided to ignore city staff recommendation and instead shift the focus of SB79 implementation to target R1 neighborhoods. This shift would in effect destroy the residential character of the Pico (and parts of Sunset Park) R1 neighborhoods. While the Planning Commission has recently held an SB79 listening session, there is still widespread confusion in the community about what SB79 allows, what the planning commission's position is, and what exactly the city council’s position is. With such dramatic impacts at play, I call on the city council to hold its own SB79 town hall or listening session to adequately get informed in a transparent, public fashion, as to how such a policy shift to the R1 neighborhoods would unfold. 2) ACCURATE DATA REGARDING RENTERS IN PICO R1 ZONES (20-25%) Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 65 At July 14 city council meeting, a false assumption was made in the argument to shift to densifying R1 lots as opposed to R2-R3 lots. The inaccurate assumption was that R1 neighborhoods were made up of almost entirely of owner-occupiers. This is simply not the case. A rough estimate in the Gandara Park neighborhood, for example, is that at least 20-25% of homes are rentals. This significant number of renters would potentially be displaced as developers gobble up R1 lots. 3) ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! PICO UNDER SEIGE YET AGAIN!
Sadly, for long-term Pico residents, it comes as no surprise that the city is contemplating having this radical zoning change, the upzoning of R1 neighborhoods, would fall almost entirely on the Pico district, and not the more affluent Santa Monica neighborhoods. The Pico neighborhood has historically borne the brunt of the city’s infrastructure and housing needs (Interstate 10; City Dump and Recycling Yards; Metro Maintenance facility; recent moves to move most homeless services to the Pico area). Please do the right thing and, at the very least, pause this proposed radical upzoning of Pico’s R1 neighborhoods until adequate public input can be heard and deliberated on.

Sincerely yours, Cris McLeod Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 66 David Yakobson
From: PNA <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Cc: PNA; Maria Loya; Brian O'Neil
Subject: 7/28/26 Council Mtg: Item 11C: PNA Board - Oppose Upzoning Pico R1 Neighborhoods

EXTERNAL
Subject: Item 11-C: Upzoning of R1 Neighborhoods in the Pico District Date: July 28, 2026
From: Pico Neighborhood Association Board
Dear Mayor Torosis, Councilmembers, and City Manager Chi, We, the Pico Neighborhood Association Board, are writing to urge you to reverse the proposed upzoning of Pico’s R1, which would implement SB79 to allow 6-12 homes to be built on a single R1 lot in our historically aggrieved neighborhood. I urge you to pause this radical zoning shift in order to 1) allow for adequate public input and transparency in the process; 2) consider accurate data regarding the number of renters who would be displaced by the proposed upzoning; and 3) appreciate how such an action would once again disproportionately fall on the Pico neighborhood to bear the brunt of the city’s infrastructure and housing policies.
1) CALL FOR GREATER PUBLIC INPUT AND TRANSPARENCY – AN SB79 TOWN HALL!!! Two weeks ago, city staff recommended that SB79 housing densification be targeted in appropriate R2-R3 areas. At the last council meeting on July 14, nearing 1 a.m. with little public input, council decided to ignore city staff recommendation and instead shift the focus of SB79 implementation to target R1 neighborhoods. This shift would in effect destroy the residential character of the Pico (and parts of Sunset Park) R1 neighborhoods. While the Planning Commission has recently held an SB79 listening session, there is still widespread confusion in the community about what SB79 allows, what the planning commission's position is, and what exactly the city council’s position is. With such dramatic impacts at play, we call on the city council to hold its own SB79 town hall or listening session to adequately get informed in a transparent, public fashion, as to how such a policy shift to the R1 neighborhoods would unfold. 2) ACCURATE DATA REGARDING RENTERS IN PICO R1 ZONES (20-25%) At July 14 city council meeting, a false assumption was made in the argument to shift to densifying R1 lots as opposed to R2-R3 lots. The inaccurate assumption was that R1 neighborhoods were made up of almost entirely of owner-occupiers. This is simply not the case. A rough estimate in the Gandara Park neighborhood, for example, is that at least 20-25% of homes are rentals. This significant number of renters would potentially be displaced as developers gobble up R1 lots.
3) ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! PICO NEIGHBORHOOD UNDER SIEGE YET AGAIN! Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 67 Sadly, for long-term Pico residents, it comes as no surprise that the city is contemplating having this radical zoning change, the upzoning of R1 neighborhoods, fall almost entirely on the Pico district, and not the more affluent Santa Monica neighborhoods. The Pico neighborhood has historically borne the brunt of the city’s infrastructure and housing needs (Interstate 10; City Dump and Recycling Yards; Metro Maintenance facility; recent moves to move most homeless services to the Pico area). Please do the right thing and, at the very least, pause this proposed radical upzoning of Pico’s R1 neighborhoods until adequate public input can be heard and deliberated on.

Sincerely yours,
PNA Board
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 68 David Yakobson
From: John Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:43 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-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and 2.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
John Murdock
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 69 David Yakobson
From: Tracey Hom <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:45 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; Roni Crichton; [email protected]; Karen M. Fisher; Molly; Lynn Sturgis
Subject: PLEASE REJECT Item 11-C, and make the smallest change that would meet the SB79 requirements (Option 3, Planning Commission)

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
You are not taking into account that we will not have enough water or electrical grid for this massive increase in density or escape routes in the event of a emergency.

You are specifically hurting people of color and renters. Have you looked at the map? What are you trying to do?
I know that Councilmember Raskin has looked at the map. In 2021, Councilmember Raskin was quoted by the Daily Press as follows: “The demographic in our city that’s at the single greatest risk of displacement is working-class families who rent single-family homes." Granted, Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires. Your persistence in expanding what is required under SB 79 is not well founded and downright dangerous.

Please return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and 2.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Tracey P. Hom Esq.
10850 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 825
Los Angeles, California 90024
310 749 5343
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 70 David Yakobson
From: Brian O'Neil <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Cc: Brian ONeil; Nada Shamonki
Subject: 7/28/26 Council Meeting: Item 11-C: Upzoning of R1 Neighborhoods in the Pico District Doesn't Match Your Own Numbers

EXTERNAL
We have owned our home in the Gandara Park/Pico neighborhood for years and have watched enough city processes play out to recognize when a rationale is built after the decision rather than before it. Item 11.C is one of those cases, and I am asking you to look at the staff report again before you vote.

On July 14, you turned down the Planning Commission's June 17 recommendation to upzone 66 R2/R3 parcels near the Bundy station, and instead directed staff to bring back options to upzone R1 parcels. Your stated reason was concern about displacing renters on the R2/R3 lots. The report you got back justifies the R1 pivot by calling all 212 R1 parcels "ownership" housing with "unlikely displacement risk." That claim does not survive contact with the report's own data.

Under Option 1, all 5 rent-controlled R1 parcels are single-unit properties, so none qualify for SB79's own displacement carve-out, which requires 3 or more units plus rent control or affordable units. Under Option 2, 20 of 212 R1 parcels have rent-controlled units, and 15 of those get no protection for the same reason. Now compare Option 3, the original 66 R2/R3 parcels: 44 have rent-controlled units, 4 have deed-restricted affordable units, and only 4 total end up unprotected, because most of those buildings already qualify for SB79's own tenant safeguards. The plan you pivoted toward protects fewer renters than the plan you rejected, not more.

We have also heard directly from neighbors that renter households, including ADU tenants and families with children, currently live on R1 parcels on Delaware, Centinela, and Urban, and that a tenant was evicted on one of these streets in 2021 when a moratorium lifted. The blanket "ownership" label in the staff report does not reflect this neighborhood as it actually exists.

I would also point out that 54 parcels in the study area are already zoned commercial and already meet or exceed SB79 standards. The report offers no analysis of upzoning those parcels further, despite that being the one category where added density displaces no current resident.

Reject Options 1 and 2 as written. Either send staff back to correct the record, or return to Option 3, which reaches the legal threshold using fewer parcels than any alternative on the table.

Highest regards,
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 71 Brian O’Neil/ Nada Shamonki
2929 Delaware Ave
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 1 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Comment on Items 11B and 11C
Fyi.

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding agenda items 11B and 11C and their potential impact on the Pico neighborhood.

Residents have already observed an increase in crime and police activity in the Pico neighborhood, and there is concern that adding another shelter may further strain public safety resources.

Regarding item 11C, I am equally concerned about the proposal to allow 212 units in an area currently zoned R1.

Thank you for your time and consideration of these important community concerns.

Sincerely,
Olivia Nahass
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 2 David Yakobson
From: Clerk Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Support for Items 11-B and 11-C
Mitchell Kois
Staff Assistant III | City Clerk’s Office
(310) 458-8211 x5518
-----Original Message-----
From: Debbie Paperman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:07 AM
To: [email protected]; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; Clerk Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Items 11-B and 11-C

Item 11-C allows more housing to exist in areas that have been limited to single-family zoning which is not sustainable nor keeping up with the times.

If we want fewer people living outside and more people able to afford to live here, ( as I think we should !) we need both shelter and more homes.

Please approve both items.

Thank you so much for all that you do
Debbie Paperman
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 1 David Yakobson
From: TROY PARR <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 9:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Subject: Agenda Item 11.C -NO on Options 1 & 2 - Protect Our Neighborhood and Its Renters

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am a voter, homeowner, and long-time resident of Santa Monica. I live in the Gandara Park/Pico neighborhood, near the Bergamont and Metro E Expo/Bundy stations. I am writing to express my strong concerns about Agenda Item 11.C, the staff report proposing higher development standards on parcels near the stations to qualify the zone for temporary exclusion from SB79.

On July 14, Council moved away from Option 3, which had been recommended by the Planning Commission's June 17, because of displacement risk to R2/R3 renters, and directed staff to look at R1 parcels instead, on the premise that R1 parcels are ownership housing with unlikely displacement risk. This move was not consistent with the report's actual own numbers. SB79's displacement carve-out only protects sites with three or more units that carry rent control or affordable housing. Most R1 parcels today have fewer than three units, so raising their density does not bring them under that protection the way it does for R2/R3 buildings that already qualify. Option 1 has 5 rent-controlled R1 parcels, all single-unit, so none are protected. Option 2 has 20 rentcontrolled parcels, and 15 remain unprotected. Option 3 has 44 rent-controlled and 4 affordable parcels, with only 4 unprotected. Moving away from Option 3 to protect renters produces an option that protects fewer of them. These numbers do not support moving ahead with options 1 and 2.

Our neighborhood has a rich mix of renters and homeowners. There are renters ranging from families with young children to elderly tenants on R1 parcels near Centinela, Delaware, and Urban, including many ADU tenants. It's not accurate to treat all R1 lots as uniformly owner-occupied, that does not reflect the reality of our diverse neighborhood. 54 parcels in the zone are already commercially zoned and already meet or exceed SB79 standards. The facts presented in the report do not recommend or support an option to further upzone those commercial parcels, even though that is the most practical path to the 33% threshold that would not displace any current residents.

I sincerely ask that Council reject Options 1 and 2, and support Option 3, or direct staff to research and model a commercial-parcel alternative before adopting a plan that leaves more renters unprotected and disrupts the rich Santa Monica diversity of our neighborhood community.

Sincerely,
Troy Parr
(Gandara Park Resident & Voter)
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 2 David Yakobson
From: Robert Mickelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:59 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

2. Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm!!! Sincerely,
Robert Mickelson
3204 Pearl Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 3 David Yakobson
From: rosindabow <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:06 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 7/28 agenda item 11-C

EXTERNAL
In re 7/28 agenda item 11-C
Dear Councilmembers,
Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 single-family homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel.

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Ross Levinson
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 4 David Yakobson
From: Susan Alinsangan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:16 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Susan Alinsangan
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 5 David Yakobson
From: Maria Loya <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Heather Averick; Oliver Chi; Dan Hall Cc: B. Onofre; Brian O'Neil; PNA Freddy Luis; PNA SM; PNA~Kiana Choy; Gina DeBaca; Esther Hickman; Marisela Herrera; Mary Cornejo
Subject: Item 11-C

EXTERNAL
Subject: Item 11-C: Upzoning of R1 Neighborhoods in the Pico District Date: July 28, 2026
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
The PNA is writing to urge you to reverse the proposed upzoning of Pico’s R1, which would implement SB79 to allow 6-12 homes to be built on a single R1 lot in our historically aggrieved neighborhood. I urge you to pause this radical zoning shift in order to 1) allow for adequate public input and transparency in the process; 2) consider accurate data regarding the number of renters who would be displaced by the proposed upzoning; and 3) appreciate how such an action would once again disproportionately fall on the Pico neighborhood to bear the brunt of the city’s infrastructure and housing policies. 1) CALL FOR GREATER PUBLIC INPUT AND TRANSPARENCY – AN SB79 TOWN HALL!!!
Two weeks ago, city staff recommended that SB79 housing densification be targeted in appropriate R2-R3 areas. At the last council meeting on July 14, nearing 1am with little public input, council decided to ignore city staff recommendation and instead shift the focus of SB79 implementation to target R1 neighborhoods. This shift would in effect destroy the residential character of the Pico (and parts of Sunset Park) R1 neighborhoods. While the Planning Commission has recently held an SB79 listening session, there is still widespread confusion in the community about what SB79 allows, what the planning commission's position is, and what exactly the city council’s position is. With such dramatic impacts at play, I call on the city council to hold its own SB79 town hall or listening session to adequately get informed in a transparent, public fashion, as to how such a policy shift to the R1 neighborhoods would unfold. 2) ACCURATE DATA REGARDING RENTERS IN PICO R1 ZONES (20-25%) Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 6 At July 14 city council meeting, a false assumption was made in the argument to shift to densifying R1 lots as opposed to R2-R3 lots. The inaccurate assumption was that R1 neighborhoods were made up of almost entirely of owner-occupiers. This is simply not the case. A rough estimate in the Gandara Park neighborhood, for example, is that at least 20-25% of homes are rentals. This significant number of renters would potentially be displaced as developers gobble up R1 lots.
3) ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! PICO UNDER SIEGE YET AGAIN!
Sadly, for long-term Pico residents, it comes as no surprise that the city is contemplating having this radical zoning change, the upzoning of R1 neighborhoods, would fall almost entirely on the Pico district, and not the more affluent Santa Monica neighborhoods. The Pico neighborhood has historically borne the brunt of the city’s infrastructure and housing needs (Interstate 10; City Dump and Recycling Yards; Metro Maintenance facility; recent moves to move most homeless services to the Pico area). Please do the right thing and, at the very least, pause this proposed radical upzoning of Pico’s R1 neighborhoods until adequate public input can be heard and deliberated on.

Respectfully,
Pico Neighborhood Association Board of Directors
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 7 David Yakobson
From: Allan Goldrath <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:35 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-C: Oppose!

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
Allan Goldrath
Gloria Kamler
1035 Hill St.

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 8 David Yakobson
From: Ken Pappanduros <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:45 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-C: OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Item 11-C aims to increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 single-family homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel.

Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

Sincerely,
Ken Pappanduros
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 9 David Yakobson
From: Oscar <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Heather Averick; Oliver Chi; Dan Hall Subject: Item 11C

EXTERNAL
Subject: Item 11-C: Upzoning of R1 Neighborhoods in the Pico District Date: July 28, 2026
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
As a Pico neighborhood resident, I am writing to urge you to reverse the proposed upzoning of Pico’s R1, which would implement SB79 to allow 6-12 homes to be built on a single R1 lot in our historically aggrieved neighborhood. I urge you to pause this radical zoning shift in order to 1) allow for adequate public input and transparency in the process; 2) consider accurate data regarding the number of renters who would be displaced by the proposed upzoning; and 3) appreciate how such an action would once again disproportionately fall on the Pico neighborhood to bear the brunt of the city’s infrastructure and housing policies.
1) CALL FOR GREATER PUBLIC INPUT AND TRANSPARENCY – AN SB79 TOWN HALL!!!
Two weeks ago, city staff recommended that SB79 housing densification be targeted in appropriate R2-R3 areas. At the last council meeting on July 14, nearing 1am with little public input, council decided to ignore city staff recommendation and instead shift the focus of SB79 implementation to target R1 neighborhoods. This shift would in effect destroy the residential character of the Pico (and parts of Sunset Park) R1 neighborhoods. While the Planning Commission has recently held an SB79 listening session, there is still widespread confusion in the community about what SB79 allows, what the planning commission's position is, and what exactly the city council’s position is. With such dramatic impacts at play, I call on the city council to hold its own SB79 town hall or listening session to adequately get informed in a transparent, public fashion, as to how such a policy shift to the R1 neighborhoods would unfold. 2) ACCURATE DATA REGARDING RENTERS IN PICO R1 ZONES (20-25%) At July 14 city council meeting, a false assumption was made in the argument to shift to densifying R1 lots as opposed to R2-R3 lots. The inaccurate assumption was that R1 Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 10 neighborhoods were made up of almost entirely of owner-occupiers. This is simply not the case. A rough estimate in the Gandara Park neighborhood, for example, is that at least 20-25% of homes are rentals. This significant number of renters would potentially be displaced as developers gobble up R1 lots.
3) ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! PICO UNDER SEIGE YET AGAIN!
Sadly, for long-term Pico residents, it comes as no surprise that the city is contemplating having this radical zoning change, the upzoning of R1 neighborhoods, would fall almost entirely on the Pico district, and not the more affluent Santa Monica neighborhoods. The Pico neighborhood has historically borne the brunt of the city’s infrastructure and housing needs (Interstate 10; City Dump and Recycling Yards; Metro Maintenance facility; recent moves to move most homeless services to the Pico area). Please do the right thing and, at the very least, pause this proposed radical upzoning of Pico’s R1 neighborhoods until adequate public input can be heard and deliberated on.

Sincerely yours,
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 1 David Yakobson
From: TROY PARR <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 9:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Subject: Agenda Item 11.C -NO on Options 1 & 2 - Protect Our Neighborhood and Its Renters

Santa Monica City CouncilJuly 28, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
July 28, 2026