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

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. 913 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!

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 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. 914 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. 915 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!

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

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 916 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. 917 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. 918 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. 919 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. 920 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. 921 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. 922 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 1 David Yakobson
From: Marc Sniderman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 11-

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. 923 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 2 David Yakobson
From: Teri D Bernstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 7:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 11C: OPPOSE !

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
PLEASE REJECT Item 11-C, and make the smallest change that would meet the SB79 requirements (Option 3, Planning Commission)
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.

Have you looked at the map? Do you see how many single family homes that are rented or owned in a neighborhood with many people of color will be affected? 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.

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,
Teri Davis Bernstein
Santa Monica Resident, 1982-1985 and 1993-present
[email protected]
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 1 David Yakobson
From: Lynn Gephart <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 12:09 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,
Lynn Gephart
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 2 David Yakobson
From: Lynda M Rush <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:03 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!
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,
Lynda Rush
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 3 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-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,
Paula Mazur
3204 Pearl Street
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 4 David Yakobson
From: Julie Grosman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 12:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: 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,
Julie Grosman
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 5 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-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,
Alice
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 6 David Yakobson
From: jesslyn hutton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:10 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 11-C: Upzoning of R1 Neighborhoods in the Pico District

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 7 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. 931 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 8 David Yakobson
From: Karen Comegys-Wortz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 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!

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.

THE RESIDENTS OF SANTA MONICA ARE TIRED OF THESE CHANGES BY THE STATE. WE DO NOT WANT OUR CITY COUNCIL TO ADD TO IT!!!
Sincerely,
Karen Comegys-Wortz
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 9 David Yakobson
From: Nathaniel Wilson <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:26 PM
To: Caroline Torosis
Cc: Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan.Hall. @santamonica.gov; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Heather Averick Subject: Item 11-C: Upzoning of R1 Neighborhoods in the Pico District

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I attended the Planning Commission meeting on June 17 to listen to the discussion of SB79. I am an architect and urban planner (UCLA Graduate School). I understand the constant attempt by politicians in Sacramento to force bad urban planning decisions on cites and neighborhoods. I spoke at the Planning Commission meeting regarding my concerns for the City of Santa Monica. I have lived in Santa Monica since 1999. I remember the Expo line planning and discussions regarding the location of the Maintenance Yard. I provided constructive comments regarding a park to buffer the noise from the Pico Neighborhood (Ishihara Park) and having employees of the yard use the Expo line to get to work to minimize the increase vehicle traffic etc.

When the Expo line opened there were many unintended consequences starting with a massive landrush to build multistory housing due to minimal / no requirements for vehicle parking. Projects in City of LA are huge and out of scale with existing adjacent R-1 Zoning.

At the Bundy Station someone purchased blocks of residential and new massive 8-12 story residential is now under construction. The City of Santa Monica says they want to be water independent however, we have already exceeded the supply capacity by allowing so much additional residential development. The Climate and Colorado River supply were vastly over estimated. Lucy Jone Seismologist did a report for Los Angeles which listed the biggest risk to So Cal as losing water supplied from Northern California. The City of Santa Monica and the Planning an Public works need to clearly calculate and set limits for new all new residential construction based on supply of water if not the cost of water will no longer be affordable for existing residents. New developments can pay for graywater systems and retrofit of existing residential to save enough water for a new project.

As a Pico neighborhood resident, I am writing to urge you to reverse the proposed upzoning of Pico’s R1 neighborhood. As I recommended the City Planning Staff at the Planning Commission meeting, the wording and interpretation of SB79 assumes a circle of ¼ or ½ mile of density increases??? A Specific plan/ Area Plan is another way to address this requirement. Revisiting the Bergamot Station Area Plan makes much more sense in terms of impact to adjoining zones and parking to serve the housing. When I attended public planning meetings for Bergamot Station circa 2011-13, I criticized the plan for Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 10 proposing a new parking structure. The Water Garden Project across the street has 2 levels of surplus (vacant) underground parking because their Transportation Demand Management program was so successful. It is time to stop spending a fortune on Planning for an unaffordable park at the Airport and do a new Specific plan to meet the requirements of SB79 and avoid major litigation.

Sincerely yours,
Nathaniel Wilson, AIA, AICP
Resilient, Adaptable and Sustainable
NSW Consulting, Inc. Architecture & Planning
2907 Virginia Avenue,
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Net Zero Energy ADU
Cell: 310 728-0446
Email: [email protected]
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 11 David Yakobson
From: Thomas Finn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 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,
Thomas & Pamela Finn
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 12 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 3:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: 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,
Emily Sanders
Santa Monica resident
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) 13 David Yakobson
From: Ken Abbott <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 5:23 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,
Kenneth S. Abbott
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.c
Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: Written comments [Revision 1] (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) Options to Qualify
Expo/Bundy TOD Zone for
SB 79 Exclusion
City Council
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.d
Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) • On July 14, 2026, Council adopted for first reading an Ordinance to temporarily exclude qualifying sites from SB 79 until 2030 with an effective date of August 27, 2026
o Covers 6 of 7 TOD zones in Santa Monica
o Expo/Bundy TOD zone does not currently qualify for exclusion • Council reviewed Planning Commission’s recommendation to increase development standards for multi-unit zoned parcels (R2/R3) in Expo/Bundy TOD zone to satisfy the criteria for SB 79 temporary exclusion.
• After discussion regarding displacement concerns, Council directed staff to return with options to instead increase development standards for all, or a selected group, of SingleUnit Residential (R1) zoned parcels within the Expo/Bundy TOD zone and to include rent control information.

SB79
Info Page
https://www.santamonica.gov/
sb79-transit-orienteddevelopment
RECAP: SB 79 Council Actions
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.d
Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) SB 79 Overview
• Went into effect July 1, 2026
• Guarantees tiered height, density, and FAR
standards for housing development projects within
½ mile of a TOD stop if the project complies with
certain requirements.
• Displacement Protections:
o SB 79 is not eligible for projects that demolish
3 or more units, with at least 1 unit under rent
control and occupied by tenants within the
last 7 years
• Provides opportunity for local control through
alternative implementation options:

1. “Exclusionary Ordinance” – Delaying SB 79 implementation until 2030

2. TOD Alternative Plan – Ability to redistribute some SB 79 capacity amongst TOD zones Official SCAG Map Identifying Santa Monica TOD Stops
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.d
Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) SB 79 Exclusion Criteria
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 × Currently, only 74 of the 381 parcels (19.4%) meet this threshold • 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
AND

2. Thepermitted densities in the TOD zone cumulatively allow at least 75% ofthe aggregate density specified by SB 79 Existing zoning provides approximately 123% of the
aggregate density required by SB 79
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.d
Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) SB79 Potential Displacement Impact Expo/Bundy TOD Zone
 381 parcels total in Expo/Bundy TOD zone
• 90 parcels that are not eligible to use SB 79
o 49 parcels located also in Bergamot TOD zone (already qualifies for exclusion) o 37 parcels that have 3 or more units and at least 1 rent-controlled unit (project-level exclusion) o 4 parcels with deed-restricted affordable units – project-level exclusion • 54 commercially zoned parcels that already have local standards that are equal or greater than SB 79 standards
• 232 residentially-zoned parcels that likely do not have involuntary displacement risk o 212 R1 parcels - ownership units
o 5 parcels with no existing units
o 15 multi-unit zoned – ownership units (e.g.: single-unit dwelling; TORCA) • 5 residentially-zoned parcels (R2/R3) with potential involuntary displacementimpact o 2 parcels with 2 or fewer units
o 3 parcels with 3 or more units and no rent-controlled units Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.d
Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) State Law vs.

Potential Increase in Development Standards
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 R1 Parcel:

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

11.C.d
Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) R1 Zoned Parcels
North of I-10 Freeway
• 89 parcels north of the I-10 Freeway, east
of Dorchester Avenue, south of Exposition
Boulevard, and west of Centinela Avenue.
• Minimizes displacement risk on existing
multi-unit zoned properties.
• Provides a rational basis: Clear boundaries,
direct geographic relationship to
Expo/Bundy station with a shorter walking
distance to TOD stop, closer to higher
intensity zoned commercial, and distinct
from southern R1 Zoned parcels in
separate census block group.
• Would meet SB 79 Exclusion Ordinance
criteria.
• Of 89 R1 zoned parcels:
o 2 located also in Bergamot TOD zone
o 5 contain rent control (all developed
with single-unit dwellings)
Option 1 –
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.d
Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) R1 Zoned Parcels
Exclusively in Expo/Bundy TOD Zone
• All 212 R1 zoned parcels exclusively in
Expo/Bundy TOD Zone
• Minimizes displacement risk on
existing multi-unit zoned properties
• Uniform, simple approach aligning with
SB 79’s one-half mile radius
• Would meet SB 79 Exclusion
Ordinance criteria
• Of 212 R1 Zone parcels:
o 20 contain rent control (5 parcels
contain multi-unit developments
with 3 or more units)
Option 2 –
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.d
Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) Multi-Unit Zoned Parcels
Exclusively in Expo/Bundy TOD Zone
• Planning Commission Recommendation
• 66 multi-unit zoned parcels exclusively in
Expo/Bundy TOD zone
o 60 R2-zoned parcels
o 6 R3-zoned parcels
• Least amount of parcels affected;
Uniform upzoning for all multi-unit
parcels within TOD zone
• Would meet SB 79 Exclusion Ordinance
criteria
• Of 66 parcels:
o 44 parcels contain rent control
 4 parcels have less than 3 units
o 4 contain affordable housing
 1 overlapping with rent control
Option 3 –
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.d
Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) R2 Parcels –
State Law vs.

Potential Increase in Development Standards
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
State Law FAR Height Density Max Units
Existing R2 Base Standards 1.0 30 ft 1 unit/1,500 sf
(~29 units per acre) 4 units
Accessory Dwelling Unit(s) Exempt
• Attached ADUs – Same
as underlying zoning
district;
• Detached ADUs – 24 ft
• Conversion – 1 or up
to 25% of primary
units
• Detached – 2 w/
new construction; 8
w/existing dev.

Case by case
(ex.: 12 units: 4 units + 8
ADUs)
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/ac (10 units max)
10 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 Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.d
Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) Rejected Options
Option Parcels Affected Why Rejected?
Increase Development Standards for
Parcels within the SB 79 ¼ Mile Radius of
the Expo/Bundy Station
20 parcels – 19 R1 parcels
and 1 R2 parcels
• Would not meet the number of parcels required for
SB 79 exclusion (52 required)
Increase Development Standards for 52
R1-Zoned Parcels within the 1/3 Mile
Radius of the Expo/Bundy Station
52 R1 parcels • Radius has no rational basis (e.g.: not contemplated by SB 79).
• Not reflective of actual pedestrian routes and
walking distance to the station.
• Would cross multiple neighborhood boundaries and
does not consider existing local land use patterns.

Increase Development Standards for R1-
Zoned Parcels Located South of the I-10
Freeway within the Expo/Bundy TOD
Zone
125 R1 parcels • Greater walking distance from the Expo/Bundy Station, therefore not meeting intent of SB 79
• Expand rezoning greater than necessary further
from station
No Increase in Development Standards None • TOD zone would not meet exclusionary criteria • Does not provide for holistic land use planning
• Contradicts the City’s overall strategy to direct
development pressures to commercial zones and to
protect residential neighborhoods from
displacement risks
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.d
Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) Next Steps
• Depending on Council direction, staff will prepare Zoning Ordinance text amendments and will return to Council after completing all procedural and public noticing requirements.

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

11.C.d
Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) Recommended Actions
Staff Recommends that 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 TransitOriented Development Zone to Allow for Exclusion from Senate Bill (SB) 79 Implementation Until One Year Following the Adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.d
Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) Summary of Potential Options for Expo/Bundy
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*
Basis for Option
Option
1 89 R1
parcels 42.7% 5 with
rent-controlled units
5 (all single unit)
• Focused on parcels generally closest
in walking distance to station meeting
the intent of SB 79
• Provides a clear geographical
boundary.

Option
2 212 R1
parcels 75.5% 20 with
rent-controlled units
15 (14 single unit dwelling,
one duplex)
• Uniform upzoning of all R1 parcels
within SB 79 one-half mile radius of
station
Option
3 66 R2/R3
parcels 36.7%
44 with rent-controlled
units and 4 with
affordable units, 3 of
which overlap
4 (two single unit dwellings,
two duplexes)
• Planning Commission
recommendation
• Least amount of parcels
• Uniform upzoning for all multi-unit
parcels within TOD zone;
* Sites with less than 3 units, at least one under rent control or deed restricted; tenancy/occupancy unknown Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.d
Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options) Questions?
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026

11.C.d
Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7823 : 11 C. SB 79 Targeted Upzoning Options)

13.A
July 28, 2026
Council Meeting: July 28, 2026 Santa Monica, California 1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jing Yeo, Director, Records & Elections Services Department Date: July 28, 2026

13.A Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing

13.A
Packet Pg. 953
City of Santa Monica
Planning Commission
1 MEMORANDUM
Date: April 19, 2026
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Josh Hamilton, Chair, Planning Commission, on behalf of the Commission Re: Planning Commission recommendations on Missing Middle Housing Purpose
At its April 15, 2026, meeting, the Planning Commission considered a proposal developed by Commissioner Landres — circulated in advance as a memorandum and summarized at the meeting by PowerPoint presentation — for a missing middle housing program oriented around the cottage-court building form. The Commission voted to transmit the recommendations set forth below, forwarding Commissioner Landres’s memorandum and presentation as Exhibit A.

The Commission asks Council to take up missing middle housing as a policy matter, to define it for Santa Monica, and to direct staff to study the proposal in Exhibit A and related options as the starting point for an implementable program.

Context
The Commission has returned repeatedly, across multiple recent items, to the observation that Santa Monica lacks a working pathway to house households in the workforce income range — roughly 120– 200% of Area Median Income — that includes teachers, firefighters, nurses, and similar workers and their families. These households generally do not qualify for LIHTC-financed affordable housing, and they cannot afford the single-family homes or most townhomes currently available in Santa Monica. The City’s Moderate-Income Housing Overlay and Community Assembly / Congregational Affordable Housing programs were each designed with this gap in mind, but neither has produced units at meaningful scale.

The term “missing middle housing” was coined in 2010 by Daniel Parolek of Opticos Design and is defined in depth at www.missingmiddlehousing.com. At its core, the concept calls for small-scale multifamily housing in single-family neighborhoods that are walkable and convenient to neighborhood commercial districts, transit, and other amenities, offering an affordable alternative to households whose incomes preclude purchasing a detached single-family home. An essential component is contextual design and scale compatible with less dense neighboring properties.

The cottage-court form — six or seven detached cottages of approximately 850 square feet each, arranged around a shared courtyard — offers a pathway that appears to pencil at current Santa Monica land values

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: Planning Commission Missing Middle Memo to Council (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle 2 in R1 and R2, particularly where it can achieve R3 building-code classification through the courtyard configuration. It is also a building form with deep Santa Monica and Southern California roots: courtyard housing was among the principal affordable-home-building models of the 1930s.

Recommendations
The Commission recommends that Council:

1. Formally define “missing middle housing” for Santa Monica The Commission’s deliberations clarified that the term carries two distinct but related components: a form component and a related income-range component of roughly 120–200% AMI. The relationship between the two runs in a specific direction: the form drives the affordability, not the other way around. A cottagecourt configuration at the right density yields units whose size and construction cost produce workforcerange pricing on the open market, without requiring deed restrictions across all units.

The Commission recommends that Council’s definition address both components, and that Council give conceptual direction while leaving room for staff to refine the precise AMI band against Santa Monica’s actual wage distribution.

2. Explore options for pursuing missing middle housing
The Commission recommends that Council explore options for pursuing missing middle housing, including but not limited to the cottage-court-based program in Exhibit A. As a concrete illustration of what a workable pathway could look like, that program contemplates: six or seven detached cottages of approximately 850 square feet around a shared courtyard; R3 construction classification in R1/R2 via the cottage-court form; density of roughly one unit per 800 square feet (30 du/ac, SB 79–compliant); at least one deed-restricted workforce-covenant unit at 200% AMI per project; and a targeted income band of roughly 120–200% AMI.

3. Direct staff to conduct feasibility studies and a nexus study The Commission recommends that Council direct staff to conduct feasibility studies and a nexus study (e.g., on the disaggregated transportation impact fee described below) to refine the definition and the implementing policy choices. The work should include explicit room for staff analysis to fine-tune the AMI range for Santa Monica, given that 200% of LA County AMI reads very differently against Santa Monica’s actual wage distribution for teachers, firefighters, nurses, and similar workforce households — the Santa Monica figures run materially higher than the County figures at the same percentage.

4. Scope the work to dovetail with the next Housing Element

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: Planning Commission Missing Middle Memo to Council (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle 3 The Commission recommends that Council scope the work to dovetail with preparation for the 7th cycle Housing Element. The hard deadline is that the feasibility studies and nexus study are completed in time to bake the program into that Housing Element; where individual components can move faster, they should.

5. Recognize that a missing middle housing program would complement other development pathways
A missing middle housing program would complement other development pathways — including SB 9, SB 1123/684, and SB 79, among others. It is designed to stack with those pathways where stacking is advantageous, and to offer an alternative where those pathways do not pencil for the relevant parcel types and ownership profiles.

6. Forward the associated policy components to staff as part of the study package The memorandum in Exhibit A identifies a set of associated policy components that the cottage-court program relies on to pencil. The Commission recommends that Council forward these to staff as part of the study package:
• a tiered AHPP fee trade for workforce-covenant units; • disaggregation of the transportation impact fee into a per-parking-space vehicle fee and a perbedroom multimodal fee; • pre-approved plans;
• 90-day ministerial review;
• a revolving or rotating capital / bridge-loan fund to help edge-case projects convert from construction financing to permanent financing;
• lot-consolidation allowances;
• exploration of CRC/AB 6 building-code treatment;
• an alternative-compliance pathway for the Community Assembly program (SMMC § 9.31.196), including a nonprofit-developer partner waiver and Community Land Trust ground-lease standards for congregation-owned parcels.

The Commission flags for Council’s attention that several of these components — notably the transportation fee restructuring — could have wider application and extend citywide, independent of a missing middle housing program. Council may wish to direct staff to consider them on that broader basis.

Transmittal
Commissioner Landres is available to represent the Commission before Council on this item and to answer questions on Exhibit A. The Commission stands ready to provide additional analysis or to take the matter

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: Planning Commission Missing Middle Memo to Council (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle 4 up again at Council’s request, and notes that the staff work contemplated above would in the ordinary course return to the Commission for refinement before any codification is transmitted back to Council.

Respectfully submitted,
Josh Hamilton
Chair, Planning Commission
Exhibit A: Commissioner Landres’s memorandum and PowerPoint presentation on missing middle housing (attached separately).

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: Planning Commission Missing Middle Memo to Council (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle

1. AB 1070, which would study “shifting 3- to 10-unit residential developments from regulation under the California Building Standards Code (Building Code) to the California Residential Code (CRC),” has replaced AB 6, with the same purpose and initial text. It currently is pending in the California State Senate. The Commission’s April recommendation regarding legislative support now should become a recommendation for support for AB 1070, and the presentation now reflects that change.

2. NB: The Commission’s supporting documentation for its recommendation is based on the FY2025 limits for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale HUD Metro FMR Area. As Council is aware, HUD published the FY2026 limits in May. The Area Median Income for a four-person household rose by 1.4% to $108,100, placing the 200% threshold at$216,200 for a four-person household.

City of Santa Monica
Planning Commission
ADDENDUM - JUNE 24, 2026
Date: For the City Council meeting of July 14, 2026
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Josh Hamilton, Chair, Planning Commission and Shawn Landres, Planning Commissioner Re: Missing Middle Addendum to the Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: Planning Commission Missing Middle Memo to Council (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle

EXHIBIT A
Contents:
1) Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan Presentation 2) Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan: A Policy
Package for Santa Monica
3) Supplemental Addendum: Four Reforms to Extend
MMHRP Reach

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Missing Middle Housing
Realignment Plan
Shawn Landres, Planning Commissioner
Presentation to City Council
July 14, 2026

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Who Is Missing from Santa Monica
Firefighter + Teacher
$100,700 + $62,500
Police Officer + Spouse
$110,484 + working spouse
Nurse raising children
$110,000

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission The Cottage Court 6–7 detached cottages
7 on R-2 (7,500 SF), 6 on R-1 (6,000 SF), around a shared courtyard 850 SF each, 28–30 feet
Type V-A wood frame, two stories, R-3 per building
Unified street facade
neighborhood scale preserved
At least 1 deed-restricted at 200% AMI
the workforce covenant

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission A Recognized Building Form
The MMHRP establishes the cottage court as a permitted building form across every pathway where missing middle housing belongs.

R-1
Single-family parcels
R-2
Small multifamily parcels
MHO
Moderate Income Housing
Overlay
§9.31.196
Community assembly parcels

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Eight Policy Updates
Density at 1 per 800 SF RHNA-compatible across every eligible parcel size AHPP tiered fee trade Reduced fee in exchange for 200% AMI workforce covenant Disaggregated transportation fee Unbundled from parking; zero-parking projects pay less Pre-approved plans + 90-day ministerial review 30-day expedited for pre-approved plans; modeled on SB 684 and SB 1123
R-3 building code classification Per building, not per project. Saves ~10% on hard costs.

Revolving Capital Fund Bridges the financing gap created by the workforce covenant Lot consolidation via existing courtyard exception Leverages SMMC §9.08.030(F) for family assemblies of adjacent parcels AB 1070 advocacy State-level reform to normalize the cottage court form

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission The Community Assembly Pathway
Congregation-owned parking lots. Zero units in three years.

The Mix
50%
Market-rate sale
congregational discretion
30%
Workforce sale
at 200% AMI
20%
Affordable rental
at 80% AMI
Land stays in tax-exempt hands.

Congregation retains fee title; cottages conveyed as improvements only on a 99-year ground lease.

Net profit to the congregation helps finance parking replacement or access as needed.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Community Assembly: What's Different
Three amendments that apply only to §9.31.196 projects. 1 §9.31.196 Alternative Compliance
50/30/20 mix replaces the 50% at 80% AMI requirement that has produced nothing. Lot tie permits adjacent-parcel community assembly retention.
2 Nonprofit Developer Partner Waiver
Waivable where the congregation (or an affiliated 501(c)(3)) demonstrates operational capacity through facility management and fiduciary governance.
3 CLT Ground Lease Standards
99-year renewable term. Formula resale for the workforce tier. Land may not be transferred out of tax-exempt ownership.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission New Housing for Working Santa Monicans
R-1 and R-2 Owner-Occupants ~150 cottages
Original program scope, Portland-matched buildout
Family Assemblies (consolidation) 20–40 cottages
Adjacent parcel assemblies under courtyard exception
Community Assembly Parcels 120–160 cottages
Three-tier mix on §9.31.196 parcels, no public subsidy

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission TO: Planning Commission, City of Santa Monica
FROM: Shawn Landres, Planning Commissioner
RE: Missing Middle Housing in Santa Monica — A Policy Package DATE: For the Planning Commission meeting of April 15, 2026 Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan:

A Policy Package for Santa Monica
What Is Missing Middle Housing, and Who Is Missing from Santa Monica American housing production has organized itself around two poles. At one end, the subsidized pipeline: LIHTC-financed apartment complexes, public housing, and project-based vouchers serving households below 80% of Area Median Income. At the other, the unassisted market: single-family homes, luxury condominiums, and market-rate apartments priced for households above 200% AMI. Between those two systems is a gap where neither one reaches. The households in that gap earn too much to qualify for subsidized housing and too little to afford what the market builds. The housing types that historically served them (duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, small apartment buildings) largely stopped being built after the mid-20th century, eliminated by single-family zoning, parking requirements, and building codes that treat a fourplex the same as a 200-unit tower.

The term “missing middle housing” names this gap. Coined by the architect Daniel Parolek of Opticos Design in 2010, it refers to residential buildings of 2 to 12 units in forms compatible with single-family neighborhoods: townhouses, cottage courts, courtyard housing, small multiplexes. In a coastal California city where new-construction 2-bedroom rents start at $3,850 and a 6,000 SF lot with a house sells for $3 million, the missing middle is the income band where a firefighter married to a teacher, a police officer with a working spouse, or a dual-income nurse household earns enough to live with dignity but not enough to live here.

Santa Monica illustrates the consequences of that gap. SMMUSD enrollment fell from 11,300 (2014) to 8,623 (2024–25): 24% in a decade. The 25–44 cohort, the prime family-formation years, shrank from 40.1% of the population (2000) to 33.4%. Residents 65+ grew from 14.4% to 19.2%. Median age climbed from 39 to 42.7. Children under 15 constitute 11.8% of the population. Average household size is 1.8, 36% below LA County’s 2.8.

The racial displacement preceded and shaped the housing crisis. African-American families constituted roughly 25% of certain Santa Monica neighborhoods through the mid-20th century. The Belmar neighborhood was razed by eminent domain in the 1950s. I-10 bisected Pico. African-American residents as a proportion of the city population fell to 3.78% by 2000; recent ACS data shows 5.2%.

Roughly 90% of Santa Monica’s workforce commutes into the city to work: more than 70,000 people daily, for approximately 90,000 jobs. A starting teacher would need to spend 58% of gross income on a one-bedroom apartment; a restaurant worker, 100%. New-construction 2BR rents average $3,850–$4,430. Median condos sell at approximately $1.2 million ($1,060–$1,540/SF). A 6,000 SF lot with a 2,800 SF home sells for $3 million or more; 7,500

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 2 of 30
2 SF R2 lots command $3.75–$4 million or higher. Without intervention, market-rate missing middle housing serves only households above roughly 200% AMI ($170,560 for a couple, $213,200 for a family of four).

Santa Monica’s zoning nominally permits missing middle housing. The R2 zone allows duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, and courtyard housing. SB 9 applies to R-1 lots. The density bonus is available. Yet SB 9 has generated two applications in Santa Monica. The emergency interim SB 1123 ordinance generated zero. The zoning permits the housing in the same sense that a restaurant menu permits a meal no one can afford: the listing exists, but the price is prohibitive. This is performative zoning: rule changes that rhetorically indicate reform but produce nothing, because the rules never were what stood in the way.

This memo proposes the Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan (MMHRP), a local missing middle housing program that produces more affordable units and a more competitive developer return than any pathway currently available under state law. SB 9 yields a maximum of 4 units, requires the owner to occupy one for three years, and produces zero deed-restricted affordable housing; it has generated two applications in Santa Monica. SB 1123 yields up to 10 units with an average size of 1,750 SF, requires no affordability covenant, and serves households above 200% AMI.

The program proposed here yields 6–7 2-bedroom units of 850 SF on the same lots (paralleling the 850 SF 2-bedroom unit type that Portland’s Residential Infill Project has produced at scale), requires deed-restricting at least one unit (two on larger lots), and produces $360,000–$725,000 more profit than SB 1123 on the same parcel.

The affordable housing is not a cost the developer bears. It is a byproduct of a better development envelope that the city controls: reduced setbacks, R-3 building code classification, fee reductions, and pre-approved plans. These concessions are available only through the local program; a developer who uses SB 9 or SB 1123 builds under existing standards and receives none of them. The concessions make the local pathway more profitable, and the affordability covenant is how the city captures a share of the value that the concessions create.

Proposed Definition
The following draft definition is recommended for adoption by resolution as the basis for subsequent code amendments, fee modifications, and legislative advocacy.

Missing Middle Housing means residential development of 2 to 12 dwelling units on a single lot, in building forms compatible with single-unit neighborhoods, including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, courtyard housing, and cottage courts. Missing middle housing is designed for long-term occupancy (minimum 31 consecutive days per tenancy) and serves households earning between 80% and 200% of Area Median Income as defined by the U.S. Department

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 3 of 30
3 of Housing and Urban Development for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale HMFA.

Missing middle housing is distinguished from conventional multifamily development by four characteristics: (1) building form scaled to the surrounding neighborhood; (2) a sliding floor area ratio that rewards additional units over larger units; (3) affordability achieved through reduced per-unit costs rather than public subsidy; and (4) ownership structures (fee-simple small-lot subdivision, townhouse condominium, or cooperative) that minimize construction defect liability exposure and maximize long-term wealth building for occupants.

In Santa Monica, 80–200% AMI means $85,280 to $213,200 annually for a couple, $106,600 to $266,500 for a family of four. A starting SMMUSD teacher at $62,500 (59% AMI) falls below this range and needs the subsidized housing pipeline. A mid-career firefighter at $100,700 (94% AMI), a police officer at $110,484 (104% AMI), or a nurse at $110,000 (103% AMI) sits squarely within it. Two of those salaries in the same household reach 200% AMI.

The upper bound marks the threshold below which new-construction housing in Santa Monica does not pencil without intervention. The lower bound marks the ceiling of the deeply subsidized pipeline, where LIHTC and the Housing Trust Fund already operate. The missing middle is the space between those two systems, where neither one reaches.

Executive Summary
The MMHRP is a local missing middle housing program that produces more affordable housing and a higher developer return than SB 9 or SB 1123. The program applies to both R1 and R-2 lots. It consists of six interventions, all within local authority. • Create a local MMH pathway on R-1 and R-2 lots that outcompetes state pathways on both affordability and profit. Amend §§9.07 and 9.08 to allow up to 1 unit per 1,000 SF on lots of 6,000 SF or more, with reduced setbacks (15’ front, 10’ rear) and a sliding FAR (850 SF max on 6,000 SF lots; 1,100 SF max on 7,500 SF+).

Condition the additional density on at least one deed-restricted unit at or below 200% AMI (two on 7,500 SF+ lots building 850 SF units). The building form is a detached cottage court that reads as a large single-family home from the street: two stories, 30- foot height limit, 42–45% lot coverage, residential massing and materials. Each cottage classifies as R-3 per building under the California Building Code. The concessions (setback reduction, fee trades, R-3 classification, pre-approved plans) are exclusive to this pathway; they are not available to SB 9 or SB 1123 projects. A developer who builds 7 × 850 SF cottages under the local program and deed-restricts two units produces $360,000 more profit than the same developer building 6 units under SB 1123 with no covenant. The affordable housing is not a cost the developer bears; it is a byproduct of a better development envelope that only the local pathway provides.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 4 of 30
4 • Use the R-3 townhouse pathway. Townhouses with separate ground-floor entries already qualify as R-3 under the California Residential Code regardless of unit count.

No code change is needed. This avoids $25,000–$30,000 per unit in R-2 commercialgrade building code requirements: $90,000–$156,000 on a 6-unit project. • Disaggregate the transportation impact fee. Replace the flat $3,607–$4,578/unit fee with a per-parking-space vehicle component and a per-bedroom multimodal component. Zero-parking projects save $1,600–$2,900/unit ($9,600–$17,400 on a 6- unit project). Revenue-neutral. Requires a nexus study ($150,000–$250,000, 14–18 months).
• Trade AHPP fees for affordability covenants. Tiered fee reductions (25%–100%) in exchange for recorded deed restrictions at income levels from 200% AMI down to 80% AMI. On a 6-unit mixed-tenure project, estimated savings of $90,000–$100,000.

Rental projects have a straightforward compliance pathway; ownership projects of 4+ units in multifamily zones require modification of on-site affordable unit requirements rather than fee reductions.
• Commission pre-approved cottage court plans. Standardized architect-designed plans for 6–7 unit R-3 cottage court configurations on R-1 and R-2 lots, with 30-day ministerial processing. Saves $8,000–$11,000/unit in soft costs ($48,000–$66,000 on a 6-unit project). No U.S. city has been sued for defects from pre-approved plans; California Government Code §818.4 and AB 253 provide statutory immunity. • Establish a rotating capital pool restricted to projects that maximize deedrestricted units. At higher construction costs ($475/SF), homeowner developers who choose to deed-restrict multiple rental units face a financing gap where restricted rental income cannot quite service the remaining mortgage. A city-funded revolving loan pool of $2–$4 million would bridge this gap, but only for projects that produce at least two deed-restricted units at ≤200% AMI or at least one at ≤150% AMI. The pool loan is limited to the “covenant gap”: the difference between the remaining mortgage and what restricted income can support. Projects that retain units at market rents need no public capital and should not receive it. The cost per deed-restricted unit ($80,000– $190,000, revolving) is comparable to or less than what the Trust Fund spends per deeply affordable unit ($250,000–$290,000, non-revolving), and produces units immediately.

A seventh intervention, statewide building code reform (AB 6), would extend R-3 treatment to stacked configurations and is not within local control. The six local interventions are designed to work without it. AB 6 would expand the range of building types that qualify for R-3 savings, benefiting institutional-scale production on large parcels more than homeowner-scale townhouse projects.

At 200% AMI, the homeowner pro forma pencils on both lot sizes at $350/SF construction costs and is feasible with a modest city capital pool ($37,000–$64,000 per project) at $475/SF. At 150% AMI, it pencils at $350/SF and at $475/SF on 7,500 SF lots with favorable

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 5 of 30
5 sale prices. At 120% AMI, it requires supplemental measures at higher construction costs. On large institutional parcels (100,000 SF+) with fully depreciated land, the economics are fundamentally different: the volume of market-rate sales absorbs the cost of restricted units, and 80–120% AMI is achievable without public subsidy. A feasibility study should confirm these thresholds before adoption.

The Barriers
Six barriers prevent production:

1. The density cap. R2 zoning limits density to 1 unit per 2,000 SF (§9.08.030). A 6,000 SF lot gets 3 units by right. At 3 or 4 units, the homeowner pro forma does not pencil.

Six units is the minimum at which a homeowner can live in one, sell enough to cover construction costs, and rent one at an affordable level while generating positive cash flow.

2. The building code threshold. At 3+ dwelling units, the California Building Code reclassifies a project from R-3 (residential) to R-2 (commercial), adding $25,000– $30,000 per unit. Townhouses with separate ground-floor entries avoid this under the existing R-3 pathway, but the density cap prevents building enough of them.

3. The transportation fee structure. A flat per-unit fee charges the same amount regardless of whether the building includes parking. Buildings without parking generate 30–50% fewer vehicle trips.

4. The AHPP compliance pathway. Eighty-five percent of small-project developers pay the in-lieu fee rather than provide affordable units. The fee generates Trust Fund revenue; it does not maximize affordable housing production.

5. Soft costs and permitting timelines. Every project requires bespoke architectural design and full plan review, adding $8,000–$11,000/unit and months of processing time to small projects that could use standardized designs.

6. The financing gap created by affordability restrictions. At $475/SF, a homeowner developer who retains deed-restricted rental units faces a gap between the remaining mortgage and what restricted rental income can service. A permanent lender will not issue the loan. The gap does not exist for projects that retain units at market rents; it is created specifically by the affordability covenant. Public capital should bridge the gap that the public restriction creates, but only for projects that produce a significant number of deed-restricted units. Without that restriction, the pool is a profit subsidy.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 6 of 30
6 Policy Discussions and Preliminary Financial Estimates The proposals below are preliminary. The pro formas use a range of construction costs ($350–$475/SF), standard assumptions for operating expenses (35% of gross rent including management, maintenance, insurance, and property tax on improvements), and current Santa Monica sale prices ($1,100–$1,200/SF for new-construction cottages). The affordability analysis uses HUD FY2025 income limits for the LA-Long Beach-Glendale HMFA. All assumptions should be tested in the economic feasibility study before adoption. The purpose of presenting them here is to demonstrate that the proposed code and fee changes can produce viable projects under realistic conditions, to identify where they cannot, and to invite challenge on every number.

Intervention 1: A Local MMH Pathway on R-1 and R-2 Lots That Outcompetes State Law on Both Affordability and Profit
The state provides two pathways for small residential development. SB 9 allows up to 4 units on R-1 lots with owner-occupancy for lot splits. SB 1123 allows up to 10 units on multifamily lots with an average unit size of 1,750 SF. Neither requires an affordability covenant beyond the existing local inclusionary ordinance. SB 9 has generated two applications in Santa Monica. SB 1123’s emergency ordinance generated zero. Both pathways fail because they provide insufficient density to cover Santa Monica land costs (SB 9) or because they provide no development incentives beyond ministerial approval (SB 1123).

The local program proposed here is designed to be more profitable than either state pathway at sub-1,000 SF unit sizes, while requiring deed-restricted affordable units that neither state pathway produces. The mechanism is a package of development concessions (reduced setbacks, R-3 classification, fee reductions, pre-approved plans) available exclusively through the local pathway. A developer who uses SB 9 or SB 1123 builds under existing standards and receives none of them.

The program applies to both R-1 and R-2 lots of 6,000 SF or more. On R-1 lots, the building form must read as a large single-family home from the street: two-story detached cottages arranged around an interior courtyard, with the street-facing facade presenting a single unified elevation. Height, lot coverage, and setback standards maintain neighborhood-scale massing.

Four code changes make this possible, all within local authority.

Density. Amend §§9.07 and 9.08 to allow up to 1 dwelling unit per 1,000 SF of lot area for qualifying missing middle housing projects. This yields 6 units on a 6,000 SF lot and up to 7 on a 7,500 SF lot.

Setbacks. Reduce front setbacks from 20 feet to 15 feet and rear setbacks from 15 feet to 10 feet for qualifying MMH projects. Side setbacks remain at 4 feet. This gains 10 feet of

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 7 of 30
7 buildable depth, which is the difference between 6 detached cottages fitting on a 6,000 SF lot and not fitting. SB 9 and SB 1123 provide no setback relief beyond the existing 4-foot sides.

Sliding FAR. Adopt a floor area ratio that rewards additional units over larger units, calibrated to lot size:

Lot Size Max Units Max Unit Size Max FAR
6,000–7,499 SF 6 850 SF 0.85
7,500 SF or more 7 1,100 SF 0.88
Portland’s Residential Infill Project uses this structure. The Santa Monica version tiers by lot size. On a 6,000 SF lot, six 850 SF cottages produce genuine 2-bedroom units; Portland’s program demonstrated the viability of the 850 SF 2-bedroom at scale, and the unit type has become a tested standard for missing middle production. On a 7,500 SF lot, the developer chooses: seven 850 SF 2-bedroom units (maximizing unit count and affordability leverage) or six 1,050–1,100 SF 3-bedroom units. The 850 SF option on 7,500 SF lots allows the city to require two deed-restricted units rather than one while the project still produces over $1.4 million in capital profit at $475/SF. SB 1123, by contrast, permits an average of 1,750 SF per unit, steering developers toward larger, more expensive units that serve households above 200% AMI.

Even the market-rate units diversify the housing stock. An 850 SF cottage at $1,100/SF sells for $935,000: 22% below the median Santa Monica condo ($1.2 million) and 38% below a new-construction townhouse ($1.5 million+). Estimated rent: $3,400–$3,800 per month, 10– 15% below new-construction 2-bedroom apartment rates ($3,850–$4,430). The unit type does not currently exist in Santa Monica’s housing market: a new-construction, fee-simple, ground-floor 2-bedroom with a private entry and courtyard, priced between an ADU and a condominium. The 1,100 SF cottages price comparably to existing condos. The sliding FAR steers developers toward the 850 SF size (more units, more profit, more affordability leverage), which means the market-rate units themselves add supply at a price point the current market does not reach.

R-1 form controls. On R-1 lots, the following additional standards apply to ensure the cottage court reads as a large single-family home:
• Maximum height: 28 feet (matching R-1 limit, below R-2’s 30 feet) • Maximum lot coverage: 40% (below R-1’s current 45–55%) • Street-facing facade: single unified elevation with one primary entry; individual cottage entries face the interior courtyard
• Materials and massing: consistent with the prevailing residential character of the block face
• No more than two visible rooflines from the street
• Courtyard not visible from the public right-of-way

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 8 of 30
8 These controls are objective and ministerially reviewable. They ensure the cottage court is indistinguishable from a large single-family home when viewed from the street while providing six to seven independent dwelling units behind the facade.

Parking on R-1 lots. R-1 and R-2 lots within the AB 2097 transit radius (half-mile of a major transit stop) provide zero required parking. R-1 lots outside the transit radius provide 1 space per unit, accommodated within the site as a shared parking court accessed by a single driveway. On a 7,500 SF lot, seven surface spaces require approximately 2,100 SF including circulation; the courtyard is less generous but all seven cottages fit. On a 6,000 SF lot outside the transit radius, the parking court may compress the site plan to five units. The additional project cost of parking (construction plus the higher vehicle-infrastructure component of the disaggregated transportation fee) is approximately $40,000–$45,000 on a 7-unit project: a

1.7% reduction in profit that does not change the program’s advantage over SB 9 or SB 1123.

Building Form: The Detached Cottage Court
Each cottage is a separate building with one dwelling unit, classified as R-3 per building under CBC §310.4 regardless of how many buildings occupy the lot. San Diego’s Information Bulletin 125 (June 2025) reflects this framework. With California-mandated NFPA 13D sprinklers, detached cottages separated by 6 feet require no fire-rated walls. The R-3 pathway avoids $15,000–$26,000 per unit in R-2 commercial-grade requirements: $90,000– $156,000 on a 6-unit project.

On a 6,000 SF lot (42’ × 95’ buildable with proposed setbacks): three rows of 2 detached cottages at 14’ × 30’ per floor, two stories, 6’ separation between buildings. Total depth: 92’ against 95’. Six units at 840–850 SF each, with a central courtyard between rows. Lot coverage: approximately 42%.

On a 7,500 SF lot (42’ × 125’ buildable with proposed setbacks): at 850 SF per unit, seven cottages in a 3-2-2 or 4-3 row configuration. At 1,050 SF per unit, six cottages at 16’ × 33’ per floor with generous courtyard space.

Why the Concessions Must Be Exclusive to the MMH Pathway This is the most important design principle in the program, and the easiest to get wrong. If Santa Monica applies setback reductions, fee trades, or streamlined permitting to all residential projects, including SB 9 and SB 1123, every rational developer will take the concessions and build under state law. State law requires no affordability covenant. State law permits units up to 1,750 SF average. State law provides ministerial approval. The concessions would reduce costs and increase profit on projects that produce zero deedrestricted units. The city would have given away its only leverage and received nothing in return.

This is not a theoretical risk. It is what happens every time a city offers development incentives without tying them to a specific public benefit. Santa Monica’s own SB 1123 emergency ordinance illustrates the dynamic: the city adopted standards that went further

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 9 of 30
9 than state law required (allowing up to 20 units, 1.5 FAR, 3 stories) and generated zero applications, because the standards were available to projects with no affordability obligation and no developer chose to build affordable housing voluntarily.

The concessions in this program (reduced setbacks, AHPP tiered fee trade, R-3 detached cottage classification, pre-approved plans, capital pool access) exist for one purpose: to make the affordability covenant more profitable for the developer than building without one.

They accomplish this by creating a development envelope that state law cannot match (10 additional feet of buildable depth, one to two additional units per lot, $200,000–$350,000 in fee and cost reductions). The envelope is the city’s asset. The covenant is the price of access.

Every future action that extends these concessions to SB 9 or SB 1123 projects, whether by ordinance amendment, resolution, or administrative interpretation, eliminates the program’s affordability production. The ordinance language must prohibit this explicitly, and the implementation guidelines must ensure that no subsequent administrative action applies MMH development standards to non-MMH projects.

The Three-Pathway Comparison (7,500 SF Lot, 850 SF Units, $400/SF, Land Already Owned)
SB 9 (R-1) SB 1123 (R-2) Local MMH (R-1 or R-2)
Maximum units 4 6 7
Owner-occupancy required Yes (3 years) No No
Setback relief None None 15’ front, 10’ rear
R-3 classification Per building Per building Per building AHPP Full Full Tiered trade (reduced)
Pre-approved plans No No Yes
Deed-restricted units 0 0–1 2
Pre-tax profit $679,000 $2,205,000 $2,565,000
Profit advantage over SB 1123 — +$360,000
Affordable units advantage — +1 to +2
The local program is more profitable because the setback reduction creates capacity for a seventh unit whose revenue ($935,000) exceeds its construction cost ($594,000) plus the covenant discount on the second restricted unit ($110,000). The developer accepts the covenant not out of civic virtue but because the local pathway, with the covenant, is the better deal. If AB 6 advances and extends R-3 treatment to stacked configurations, the profit advantage widens to approximately $725,000 because stacking doubles the unit yield from each additional building footprint that the setback reduction creates.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 10 of 30
10 Draft Ordinance Language
Amend SMMC §§9.07 and 9.08 to add:

Section 9.07.030(d) / 9.08.030(d). Missing Middle Housing Density and Development Standards.
(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a multiple-unit project on a lot of 6,000 square feet or more in the R1 or R2 district may contain up to 1 dwelling unit per 1,000 square feet of lot area, provided that:
(A) The project meets the definition of Missing Middle Housing adopted by resolution of the City Council;
(B) All dwelling units are constructed as detached structures classified under R-3 occupancy of the California Building Code, with no more than one dwelling unit per building;
(C) At least one dwelling unit is subject to an affordability covenant recorded pursuant to Section 9.64.050(f), restricting maximum housing cost to a household income level at or below 200% of Area Median Income. On lots of 7,500 square feet or more where the project contains seven or more dwelling units with a maximum unit floor area of 850 square feet, at least two dwelling units shall be subject to such covenant;
(D) Maximum unit size and floor area ratio comply with the following schedule:

Lot area Maximum dwelling units Maximum unit floor area Maximum FAR 6,000–7,499 SF 6 850 SF 0.85
7,500 SF or more 7 1,100 SF 0.88
(E) Front setback: 15 feet. Rear setback: 10 feet. Side setbacks per subsection (a); (F) In the R1 district, the following additional standards apply: (i) Maximum height: 28 feet; (ii) Maximum lot coverage: 40%; (iii) The street-facing facade shall present a single unified elevation with one primary entry; individual dwelling unit entries shall face the interior of the lot; (iv) No more than two rooflines shall be visible from the public right-of-way; (v) Exterior materials and massing shall be consistent with the prevailing residential character of the block face.
(2) The additional density authorized by this subsection is not cumulative with density bonuses granted under Government Code Section 65915.
(3) The development standards in this subsection, including but not limited to reduced setbacks, increased density, and fee reductions under Section 9.64.050(f), apply exclusively to projects qualifying under this subsection. These standards shall not be applied, by ordinance, resolution, administrative interpretation, or condition of approval, to projects developed under Government Code §65852.21 (SB 9), §66499.40 (SB 684/SB 1123), or any other state-mandated ministerial approval

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 11 of 30
11 pathway. Projects developed under state law shall comply with the development standards otherwise applicable in the R1 or R2 district.

The affordability covenant is the public consideration for the additional density. The development concessions (setback reduction, AHPP tiered trade, R-3 classification, preapproved plans) are available exclusively through this pathway. They are not available to projects developed under Government Code §65852.21 (SB 9) or §66499.40 (SB 684/SB 1123). A developer who builds under state law receives none of the local concessions. A developer who builds under this section receives all of them, in exchange for the covenant.

Intervention 2: Disaggregate the Transportation Impact Fee Santa Monica charges a flat transportation impact fee of $3,607–$4,578 per multifamily unit regardless of whether the building includes parking. Buildings without parking generate 30– 50% fewer vehicle trips (Millard-Ball 2022; Chatman 2013; Caltrans 2018). AB 2097 already has eliminated parking minimums for most of Santa Monica. The fee structure has not caught up.

The Mitigation Fee Act requires a “reasonable relationship” between a fee and the development’s actual impact. A disaggregated fee that charges per parking space for vehicle infrastructure and per bedroom for multimodal infrastructure provides a stronger nexus than the current flat rate. Post-Sheetz v. Cnty. of El Dorado, Cal., 601 U.S. 267, 144 S. Ct. 893 (2024), ABAG/MTC’s September 2025 guidance recommends “more fine-grained analysis.” Draft Resolution Language
Amend SMMC Chapter 9.66:

Section 9.66.040. Fee Calculation.
(a) The Transportation Impact Fee for residential development shall consist of two components:
(1) Vehicle Infrastructure Component. $[amount per nexus study] per parking space provided, funding roadway capacity, traffic signals, pavement maintenance, and vehicle-related capital improvements.
(2) Multimodal Infrastructure Component. $[amount per nexus study] per bedroom, funding transit, bicycle, and pedestrian capital improvements. (b) “Parking space” means any off-street space designated for parking a motor vehicle, including garage, carport, surface, and mechanical lift spaces. Electric vehicle charging spaces are parking spaces.
(c) Fee amounts shall be established by Council resolution following a nexus study meeting Government Code Section 66001 requirements.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 12 of 30
12 Illustrative Revenue-Neutral Rates
Component Rate Basis
Vehicle infrastructure approximately $2,812/parking
space
55% of revenue ÷ 80 spaces
Multimodal
infrastructure
approximately $1,228/bedroom 45% of revenue ÷ 150
bedrooms
Impact on a 6-Unit Missing Middle Project
Project Spaces BR
Current
Fee Proposed
Per-Unit
Savings
6-unit cottage court, 0 parking,
2BR
0 12 $24,558 $14,736 $1,637
6-unit cottage court, 1 space/unit,
2BR
6 12 $24,558 $31,608 ($1,175)
Electric vehicles generate identical VMT, identical congestion, and greater road wear than comparable ICE vehicles. The vehicle infrastructure component should apply equally per space regardless of fuel type.

Nexus Study
Five phases: (1) parking supply inventory and vehicle trip counts across parking ratios; (2) multivariate regression calibrated against Caltrans 2018, Millard-Ball 2022, and the Santa Monica Travel Demand Model; (3) vehicle-CIP/multimodal-CIP cost allocation; (4) financial feasibility analysis per AB 602; (5) documentation, public hearing, adoption. Budget:
$150,000–$250,000. Timeline: 14–18 months. Fee effective 60 days after adoption; 120-day judicial challenge period.

Intervention 3: Trade AHPP Fees for Affordability Covenants The AHPP applies to every multifamily project of 2 or more units (§9.64.030(A)), with no small-project exemption. Rental projects of any size and ownership projects of 2–3 units may pay the in-lieu fee ($45.10/SF for apartments, $52.69/SF for condominiums). Ownership projects of 4 or more units in multifamily zones may not: they must provide affordable units on-site (20%) or off-site (at a 25% penalty).

For rental projects, a tiered fee reduction in exchange for recorded affordability covenants would produce deed-restricted units that the current in-lieu fee does not. A 4-unit rental project currently generates $153,340 for the Housing Trust Fund, which (leveraged at $250,000–$290,000 in local subsidy per unit) might eventually produce half a deeply affordable unit. The same project restricted at 150% AMI with a 50% fee reduction would produce four deed-restricted units immediately, retaining $76,670 in fee revenue.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 13 of 30
13 Under current code, ownership projects of 4 or more units in multifamily zones cannot pay the in-lieu fee; they must provide affordable units on-site. This is the most complex compliance mechanism directed at the least sophisticated developers. A homeowner building six cottages and selling four does not have the legal infrastructure to administer on-site affordable units across decades. The ordinance should extend the in-lieu fee option to ownership projects of 7 or fewer units, and then apply the tiered trade: reduced fees in exchange for affordability covenants, with a full waiver for projects that deed-restrict at least one unit at or below 80% AMI. This produces more naturally occurring affordable housing than the current on-site requirement, because the current requirement is attached to projects that do not pencil and therefore do not get built. The fee waiver lowers total project cost by $90,000–$100,000 on a 6-unit project, closing a meaningful share of the gap at higher construction costs. The Trust Fund revenue loss is minimal, because these 4–7 unit ownership projects were not paying the fee under current code.

The Trust Fund remains essential for the 30–80% AMI band. The tiered structure channels different projects to different affordability levels rather than routing everything through a fee that produces revenue and forgoes housing.

Proposition R (1990) does not prescribe a specific fee amount, compliance mechanism, or income tier. A tiered fee structure requires no amendment to Proposition R and no voter approval.

Draft Ordinance Language
Amend SMMC §9.64.050 to add:

Section 9.64.050(f). Fee Reduction for Deed-Restricted Units. (1) A project recording an affordability covenant meeting subsection (3) requirements shall receive a fee reduction:

Maximum household income Fee reduction
≤80% AMI 100% (full waiver)
81–120% AMI 75%
121–150% AMI 50%
151–200% AMI 25%
(2) The reduction applies to restricted unit(s) only. Market-rate units pay the full fee. (3) Qualifying covenants shall: (A) be recorded in first lien position before certificate of occupancy; (B) run with the land for 55 years (rental) or 45 years (ownership), resetting at each transfer; (C) restrict maximum housing cost to 30% of gross income at the applicable AMI per HUD limits for the LA-Long Beach-Glendale HMFA, adjusted for household size by bedroom count; (D) require annual income certification of rental occupants and resale price certification of ownership transfers, administered by the Housing Division; (E) grant the City a right of first refusal for ownership units at the restricted resale price.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 14 of 30
14 (4) Thresholds shall be adjusted by Council resolution at least every three years, based on current HCD State Income Limits and an economic feasibility analysis.

Rental and Ownership: Different Implementation Challenges Rental deed restrictions are straightforward to administer. The Housing Division already monitors 55-year regulatory agreements, conducts annual recertification, and charges $190.78/year per unit. Rental covenants should account for the majority of early uptake.

Ownership deed restrictions are more complex. Resale price formulas must be calibrated and administered across decades. The City’s right of first refusal must be funded or it will not be exercised. For-sale condominium projects in California face construction defect liability under SB 800 (Civil Code §895 et seq.), adding $8,000–$18,000 per unit. The preferred ownership structure is fee-simple small-lot subdivision, which substantially reduces CDL exposure. The feasibility study should model both tenure types.

Intervention 4: Pre-Approved Plans and Technical Assistance The program serves professional developers, institutional landowners, Prop 19 inheritors, and homeowner-occupants. All of them face the same soft-cost barrier: bespoke architectural design and full plan review add $8,000–$11,000 per unit and months of processing time to projects that could use standardized designs. Pre-approved plans and technical assistance reduce this barrier for every developer type.

Pre-Approved Cottage Court Plans
Santa Monica should commission 3–5 architect-designed plans for 6–7 unit R-3 cottage court configurations on standard R-1 and R-2 lots. All R-3 qualified. Posted publicly at no cost.

Thirty-day ministerial building permit processing.

No U.S. city has been sued or found liable for defects from pre-approved plans. California Government Code §818.4 immunizes permit decisions, §818.6 immunizes inspections, and AB 253 (signed October 2025) adds explicit statutory immunity for residential permits of 1–10 units reviewed by third-party professionals. Plans should be owned by the architect (not the city) to keep professional liability with the licensed design professional, with property owners required to engage licensed engineers for site-specific adaptation. The Lakewood dual holdharmless model provides a tested template.

Documented savings: Bryan TX, $8,000+/unit. Kalamazoo, approximately $11,000/unit.

Technical Assistance and Community Land Trust Pathway
Santa Monica could work with organizations such as the Incremental Development Alliance, which trains non-professional developers to build small multifamily projects. Atlanta selected 15 resident-developers; 5 proceeded to construction. The city should also issue an RFQ for CLT partnership, modeled on the Irvine CLT (nearly 500 units from city land donations and

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 15 of 30
15 low-interest loans). A mission-motivated owner could donate land to a CLT for a charitable deduction at fair market value ($3 million or more on a standard R2 lot) while the CLT develops permanently affordable housing.

Intervention 5: Building Code Reform (Legislative)
The California Building Code treats a triplex identically to a 200-unit apartment complex. At 3+ dwelling units, the classification jumps from R-3 to R-2, triggering $25,000–$30,000/unit in commercial-grade requirements. For detached cottages (which this memo proposes as the primary building form), R-3 classification is already available per building. For stacked configurations, the barrier remains.

Santa Monica cannot change the R-2/R-3 threshold locally (H&S Code §17958). AB 6 (Ward, 2025–26) would require HCD to study allowing 3–10 unit buildings under the CRC. It passed the Assembly 79-0 and was held in Senate Appropriations in August 2025. Santa Monica should send a Council support letter, join the California YIMBY/CNU coalition, request inclusion as an HCD working group case study (citing the 8,895-unit RHNA obligation), and advocate for a California Middle-Income Housing Tax Credit modeled on Colorado’s MIHTC.

What Santa Monica Can Do Without AB 6, and What AB 6 Adds The six local interventions are designed to work without AB 6. The R-3 detached cottage pathway is available under current California code. For 6-unit projects on 6,000–7,500 SF lots, the cottage court form fits well.

The constraint without AB 6 is building form. Stacked flats, garden apartments, and 2-over-2 configurations remain classified as R-2 at 3+ units. For the homeowner-scale cottage court, this is not a limitation. For larger projects (8, 10, 20+ units) on institutional parcels, the townhouse-only or cottage-only constraint limits site utilization: stacked configurations would produce more units per acre.

AB 6, if it advances, would extend R-3 treatment to all small multiplexes of 3–10 units regardless of configuration. The per-unit savings are the same; the difference is the range of building types and lot configurations that qualify. The city should advocate for AB 6 while building a program that does not depend on it.

Preliminary Pro Formas: Who Builds and What They Face
The program serves three constituencies, each with different economics and different motivations.

Professional developers with existing land. A professional developer or small builder who already holds a lot (through long-term ownership, family transfer, or below-market acquisition) is the primary production pathway. This developer does not live on the lot, does not need

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 16 of 30
16 temporary housing, and does not face owner-occupancy constraints. The developer builds, sells, and moves on. At sub-1,000 SF unit sizes, the local MMH pathway is more profitable than SB 1123 because the setback reduction creates capacity for an additional unit whose revenue exceeds the cost of the affordability covenant. The developer accepts the covenant because the local pathway is the better deal.

Institutional and large-lot landowners. A congregation, nonprofit, hospital, city parking lot, or private holder with 20,000–200,000 SF of fully depreciated land is the production engine for deeper affordability. The volume of market-rate sales absorbs the cost of deed-restricted units, and 80–120% AMI is achievable without public subsidy. This pathway is detailed in the Large-Lot Economics section below.

Proposition 19 inheritors. An heir who inherits an R-1 or R-2 lot receives a stepped-up basis and faces Prop 19 reassessment pressure. The lot-split structure (sell the house parcel with the §121 exclusion, develop cottages on the retained parcel) is the only homeowner model that can match or exceed the passive alternative of selling. This is a real but narrow constituency.

Homeowner-occupants. A homeowner who demolishes their house, builds cottages, and lives in one faces a financial sacrifice relative to selling. At every construction cost, the homeowner who simply sells and invests the proceeds ends up with more wealth. The sacrifice is modest at $350/SF and steep above $425/SF. The homeowner-occupant model is viable for owners with other retirement assets who value the housing outcome; it is not a general production strategy. An ADU on the existing lot is a cheaper and lower-risk path to the same civic outcome.

The pro formas below present construction costs excluding land (which is equity at risk for existing owners, not a cash outlay). Temporary housing ($216,000 for 24 months at $9,000/month) applies only to homeowner-occupants who must vacate during construction; professional developers and inheritors using the lot-split model do not incur this cost.

Construction costs for R-3 residential in the Los Angeles metro range from $350/SF (competitive bid, standardized plans, experienced builder) to $475/SF (custom design, prevailing wage, complex site). The feasibility study should index to the California Construction Cost Index at the time of adoption.

Development Budget: 6 × 850 SF Cottages on a 6,000 SF Lot Line Item Low ($350/SF) High ($475/SF)
Hard construction: 6 × 850 SF $1,785,000 $2,422,500
Soft costs (15%) $267,750 $363,375
Demo and site prep $55,000 $55,000
AHPP (tiered trade, 6 units) $100,000 $100,000
Transportation: 0 spaces, 12 BR × $1,228 $14,736 $14,736 Parks: 6 × $8,876 $53,256 $53,256

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 17 of 30
17 Line Item Low ($350/SF) High ($475/SF)
Other permit fees $40,000 $40,000
Utility connections/metering (6 units) $60,000 $60,000
Landscape $25,000 $25,000
Construction loan interest (24 mo, 7.5%) $180,000 $240,000 Loan origination (1.5 points) $18,000 $24,000
Builder’s risk insurance $18,000 $22,000
Property tax during hold $20,000 $20,000
Lease-up/vacancy reserve $15,000 $15,000
Contingency (15%) $415,000 $535,000
Total (professional developer) $3,067,000 $3,990,000
Add: temporary housing (homeowner-occupant only) $216,000 $216,000 For R-1 lots outside the AB 2097 transit radius, add approximately $40,000–$45,000 for 6 surface parking spaces and the higher vehicle-infrastructure fee component.

Development Budget: 7,500 SF Lot Options
The 7,500 SF lot offers a choice that the 6,000 SF lot does not. At 1,050 SF per unit (6 units), it produces larger 3-bedroom cottages. At 850 SF per unit (7 units), it produces more units, more sale revenue, and substantially more affordability leverage.

Option A: 6 × 1,050 SF (3BR)
Line Item
Low
($350/SF)
High
($475/SF)
Hard construction: 6 × 1,050 SF $2,205,000 $2,992,500
Soft costs (15%) $330,750 $448,875
Demo, site, AHPP, fees, utilities, landscape $588,000 $588,000 Carrying costs (loan interest, origination, insurance, tax, reserves)
$307,500 $400,000
Contingency (15%) $497,000 $641,000
Total (professional developer) $3,695,000 $4,837,000
Add: temporary housing (homeowner-occupant only) $216,000 $216,000 Option B: 7 × 850 SF (maximum affordability leverage)
Line Item Low ($350/SF) High ($475/SF)
Hard construction: 7 × 850 SF $2,082,500 $2,826,250
Soft costs (15%) $312,375 $423,938
Demo, site, AHPP, fees, utilities, landscape $616,000 $616,000

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 18 of 30
18 Line Item Low ($350/SF) High ($475/SF)
Carrying costs $340,000 $437,000
Contingency (15%) $478,000 $618,000
Total (professional developer) $3,565,000 $4,640,000
Add: temporary housing (homeowner-occupant only) $216,000 $216,000 For R-1 lots outside the transit radius, add approximately $40,000–$45,000 for 7 surface parking spaces and the higher vehicle-infrastructure fee.

Scenarios That Pencil
All scenarios below require the MMH affordability covenant (at least one deed-restricted unit on 6,000 SF lots; at least two on 7,500 SF+ lots building 850 SF units). Sale prices at $1,100/SF market, $825,000 per covenanted unit. Retained rental units at 200% AMI produce $31,600 NOI per unit. Costs shown are for a professional developer (no temporary housing). 6,000 SF Lot (6 × 850 SF, market unit sale price $935,000) Scenario At $350/SF ($3.1M cost) At $475/SF ($4.0M cost) Sell 5 market + 1
covenanted
Capital profit: +$2,433,000 Capital profit: +$1,510,000 Sell 4 market + 1
covenant, rent 1
+$498,000 cash; NOI
$31,600/yr
NOI $31,600/yr, DS $17,200/yr,
Net +$14,400/yr
Sell 3, rent 3 (2
restricted)
NOI $94,800/yr, DS $12,600/yr,
Net +$82,200/yr
See capital pool table
7,500 SF Lot, Option A (6 × 1,050 SF, market unit sale price $1,155,000) Scenario At $350/SF ($3.7M cost) At $475/SF ($4.8M cost) Sell 5 market + 1
covenanted
Capital profit:
+$2,855,000
Capital profit: +$1,713,000
Sell 4 market + 1
covenant, rent 1
+$700,000 cash; NOI
$31,600/yr
NOI $31,600/yr, DS $12,700/yr, Net
+$18,900/yr
7,500 SF Lot, Option B (7 × 850 SF, market unit sale price $935,000) Scenario At $350/SF ($3.6M cost) At $475/SF ($4.6M cost) Sell 5 market + 2
covenanted
Capital profit:
+$2,760,000
Capital profit: +$1,685,000
Sell 4 + 1 covenant, rent 2 (1
restricted)
+$910,000 cash; NOI
$63,200/yr
NOI $63,200/yr, DS $5,500/yr,
Net +$57,700/yr
The 7-unit / 850 SF option on 7,500 SF lots is the strongest affordability lever in this program.

The city requires two deed-restricted units, and the project still produces $1.69 million in

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 19 of 30
19 capital profit at $475/SF. Every scenario pencils at both cost points with no capital pool needed. A developer who wants to maximize return and minimize covenant exposure builds 7 × 850 SF and sells all seven (five market plus two covenanted): $1.69 million at the high end of the cost range, two deed-restricted units, no ongoing management responsibility.

Who Does Not Pencil Under This Program
A professional developer who acquires a teardown at current market prices ($3M+ for a 6,000 SF lot) cannot produce affordable housing under any pathway, including this one. The land cost consumes all margin. The same developer building under SB 1123 with larger units ($1,200+ SF) at higher per-unit sale prices can produce market-rate housing profitably on acquired land. The local MMH program does not serve that developer; SB 1123 does, and the city collects the full AHPP in-lieu fee on those projects.

The local program serves developers with existing land: long-term owners, inheritors, institutional holders, and CLTs. The economics work because the land is equity at risk (not a cash outlay), the Prop 13 basis is low, and the construction cost per unit is reduced by R-3 classification, pre-approved plans, and the AHPP tiered trade. The program is designed for these developers, and the three-pathway comparison holds for them.

The Land Basis Advantage
The pro formas exclude land cost because land is equity at risk for existing owners, not a cash outlay. This distinction is what makes the program work. A professional developer acquiring a teardown at $3 million faces a total project cost of $6–$7 million against $5.5– $6.3 million in revenue: a loss on every configuration. The same project on land already owned, with a Prop 13 basis reflecting a 1990s purchase, produces $1.5–$2.8 million in capital profit. The entire affordability production of this program rests on the gap between assessed value and market value for long-term landowners. The feasibility study should quantify this gap across the R-1 and R-2 parcel inventory by cross-referencing LA County Assessor data (last sale date, assessed value, title type) with the city’s GIS zoning layer.

Ongoing rental management at this scale costs 8–10% of gross rent for professional property management, plus 5–10% for maintenance reserves. The NOI figures above reflect total operating expenses of 30–35% of gross rent.

A Rotating Capital Pool
When a local homeowner developer retains deed-restricted rental units at $475/SF construction costs, the construction-to-permanent loan conversion can create a financing gap. A permanent lender will issue a mortgage on the rental units only if the net operating income covers the debt service. At $475/SF with $1,100/SF sale prices, the remaining mortgage on deed-restricted rental units may exceed what restricted rental income can support. The permanent lender declines. The project stalls at the finish line, not because the long-term economics are unviable, but because no standard lending product bridges the gap between construction cost and stabilized restricted income.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 20 of 30
20 The pool should finance only projects where the financing gap is a direct consequence of the affordability covenant, not projects where the gap exists because the developer retained too many units at market. A developer who sells four and rents two at market rents does not need public capital; the market rents service the debt. A developer who sells three and rents three with deed restrictions at 200% AMI, or who sells four and rents two at 150% AMI, faces a gap that exists because the covenant reduces income below what the lender requires. That is the gap the city should bridge. Without this restriction, the pool subsidizes private profit rather than producing affordable housing.

Eligibility criteria for pool loans:
• The project must produce at least two deed-restricted units (rental or for-sale) at or below 200% AMI, or at least one unit at or below 150% AMI. • The pool loan amount is limited to the difference between the remaining mortgage and the maximum mortgage supportable by restricted rental income (the “covenant gap”), not the full remaining mortgage.
• The loan is secured by the deed-restricted units and the affordability covenant runs with the land for the full covenant term.

Scenario Lot
Covenant
Gap
Pool
Loan Result With Pool
Sell 3, rent 3 restricted at
200% AMI, $475/SF
6,000
SF
$165,000 $165,000 Breakeven; 3 deedrestricted units
Sell 3, rent 3 restricted at
200% AMI, $475/SF
7,500
SF
$358,000 $358,000 Breakeven; 3 deedrestricted units
Sell 4, rent 2 restricted at
150% AMI, $475/SF
6,000
SF
$190,000 $190,000 Breakeven; 2 deedrestricted units
Sell 4, rent 2 restricted at
150% AMI, $475/SF
7,500
SF
$160,000 $160,000 Breakeven; 2 deedrestricted units
The mechanism: the city lends the covenant gap amount as a subordinate loan secured by the deed-restricted rental units. The loan is interest-only at 1–2% for the first ten years, then converts to a fully amortizing instrument (or deferred-payment until refinancing, sale, or covenant expiration). The city’s security is a deed of trust in second position plus the affordability covenant. The capital rotates as loans are repaid.

The city should fund this pool because the gap is a direct consequence of city-imposed costs and city-required affordability restrictions. The AHPP fee, the transportation impact fee, the parks fee, and the permitting timeline together add $200,000–$250,000 to the cost of a 6-unit project. The density cap and setback standards (which this memo proposes to amend) determine how many sale units are available to cover construction costs. The affordability covenant (which is the public consideration for the additional density) is what reduces the rental income below the lender’s threshold. The city created every condition that produces the financing gap; the city should bridge it, particularly when the cost per deed-restricted unit ($80,000–$190,000, revolving) is comparable to or less than what the Trust Fund spends per

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 21 of 30
21 deeply affordable unit ($250,000–$290,000, non-revolving) and produces units immediately rather than years later.

Three funding sources are realistic for seeding the pool: a dedicated allocation (10–15%) from ongoing AHPP in-lieu fee revenue, capitalized over two to three years; a one-time general fund allocation or set-aside from an existing housing revenue source; or state revolving loan programs such as CalHome. The feasibility study should model the pool size, loan terms, repayment assumptions, and capitalization schedule against the projected volume of MMH projects in the first five years.

For scenarios that pencil without the pool (sell-all-with-covenant, sell-4/rent-2 at market, and all 7-unit Option B scenarios on 7,500 SF lots), no public capital is needed. The pool exists for the narrower set of projects where a homeowner developer chooses to maximize deedrestricted units and needs the city to bridge the gap that the restrictions create.

The Opportunity Cost
For a developer with existing land, the relevant comparison is not the passive return on invested capital. It is the return from building under SB 1123 with no covenant. The threepathway comparison shows that the local MMH program produces $360,000 more profit than SB 1123 at sub-1,000 SF unit sizes. The developer who uses the local pathway is not sacrificing return for affordability; the developer is choosing the more profitable pathway and accepting the covenant as the price of access.

For a homeowner-occupant who demolishes the house and lives in one cottage, the comparison is different: selling the house and investing the proceeds at 5% produces $88,000–$99,000/year in passive income with no construction risk. The development scenario at $350/SF produces $1.5 million in capital profit on the sell-all-with-covenant structure (buy a condo, build 6 cottages on the lot, sell all 6 with one covenant). At $475/SF, the profit is approximately $510,000. The sell-all-with-covenant model is financially rational at both cost points, though the passive alternative produces more annual income. A homeowner who intends to occupy one cottage and retain rental units faces a steeper trade-off: $20,000– $50,000/year in forgone income relative to selling. That model serves owners with other retirement assets; it is not a general production strategy.

Parcel Inventory and Projected Unit Yield
Santa Monica has approximately 2,768 R-2 parcels and over 6,000 R-1 parcels across four neighborhoods (North of Montana, North of Wilshire, Sunset Park, and Expo/Pico). Standard subdivision lots are 50’ × 120’ (6,000 SF); North of Montana and portions of North of Wilshire have wider, deeper lots in the 7,500–15,000 SF range. The precise distribution by lot size requires cross-referencing LA County Assessor parcel data (lot dimensions, last sale date, assessed value, title type) with the city’s GIS zoning layer. Both datasets are publicly available. The feasibility study must produce this analysis parcel by parcel. The estimates below use neighborhood-typical lot patterns and should be treated as a framework, not a count.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 22 of 30
22 Estimated parcel distribution by lot size:

Zone
Total
Parcels
Est. 6,000–
7,499 SF
Est. 7,500+
SF
Sub-6,000 SF
(ineligible)
R-2 2,768 ~1,245 (45%) ~830 (30%) ~693 (25%)
R-1 ~6,200 ~2,790 (45%) ~2,480
(40%)
~930 (15%)
Combined eligible
(6,000+ SF)
~4,035 ~3,310
Total eligible universe: approximately 7,345 parcels across both zones.

The “likely to develop” filter. Not every eligible parcel will develop. Four conditions must converge: long-term ownership with a low Proposition 13 basis (so that land is equity at risk, not a cash outlay that consumes all margin), physical suitability (regular lot shape, adequate street access, no steep grade), owner willingness and access to construction financing, and a developer or builder willing to execute. LA County turnover data suggests 55–65% of residential parcels in Santa Monica have not changed hands in 20 or more years. Of those, perhaps 15–25% would seriously consider development under a well-incentivized program.

Portland’s Residential Infill Project permitted approximately 1,400 middle housing units in three years across roughly 100,000 eligible single-family parcels: 0.5% annual uptake.

Sacramento’s SB 9 saw 32 applications in four months. Santa Monica’s SB 9 produced two.

The local program is substantially more attractive than SB 9 (more profitable, no owneroccupancy lock-in, pre-approved plans, fee reductions), so uptake should exceed SB 9’s near-zero rate. Portland’s rate is the upper bound for R-2 lots, where multifamily development is already familiar. R-1 lots in North of Montana present the widest uncertainty: the largest lots and highest potential yield per parcel, combined with the strongest political resistance and least familiarity with infill development.

Conservative five-year uptake by neighborhood:

Area
Primary
Zone
Est. Eligible
Parcels
Annual
Uptake
5-Year Lots
Developed
Sunset Park / Pico / Ocean
Park
R-1 + R-2 ~2,800 0.8–1.0% 110–140
North of Wilshire R-1 + R-2 ~1,800 0.5–0.8% 45–70
North of Montana R-1 ~2,200 0.2–0.4% 20–45
Total small-lot (R-1 + R-2) ~6,800 175–255
Institutional / very large
parcels (20,000+ SF)
Mixed ~50–80 — 5–10
The institutional parcels (congregations, nonprofits, city-owned parking lots, SMMUSD sites, UCLA-owned lots) are separately analyzed in the Large-Lot Economics section. Their unit

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 23 of 30
23 yield is 30–100 units per parcel; a handful of institutional projects would produce as many units as dozens of small-lot projects.

Projected unit yield (five-year, conservative):

Configuration
Lots
Developed
Units per
Lot
Total
Units
Deed-Restricted at
200% AMI
6,000 SF lots (~55% of
small-lot)
95–140 6 570–840 95–140
7,500+ SF lots (~45% of
small-lot)
80–115 7 560–805 160–230
Small-lot subtotal 175–255 1,130–
1,645
255–370
Institutional / very large
parcels
5–10 30–100 150–600 30–150 (at 80–150%
AMI)
Total 180–265 1,280–
2,245
285–520
The small-lot program produces 255–370 deed-restricted units over five years at 200% AMI:
workforce households earning up to $170,560. The institutional pathway adds 30–150 units at deeper affordability (80–150% AMI) on parcels where the volume of market-rate sales absorbs the cost. Combined, the program produces 285–520 deed-restricted units in five years with no general fund expenditure, no tax-increment financing, and (for the sell-all-withcovenant structure) no ongoing public subsidy.

For context: the Housing Trust Fund spends $250,000–$290,000 per deeply affordable unit, non-revolving. The small-lot MMH program produces deed-restricted units at a public cost of zero (sell-all-with-covenant) to $80,000–$190,000 per unit (capital pool scenarios, revolving).

Even the capital pool scenarios cost less per unit than the Trust Fund, the capital rotates, and the units are produced immediately.

The program pencils at 200%, 150%, and 120% AMI. The constraint is not viability; it is uptake. The next section addresses why the initial covenant level should be 200% and not deeper.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 24 of 30
24 The Affordability Target: A Policy Choice, Not an Economic Constraint The ratio of market-rate to restricted units is 5:1 (on 6,000 SF lots) or 5:2 (on 7,500 SF lots building 850 SF units). The market-rate revenue absorbs the covenant discount at every AMI level:

AMI
Level
Covenant
Discount per
Unit
Revenue Loss per
Project (7,500 SF, 2
restricted)
Developer Profit
at $475/SF
Profit Advantage
over SB 1123
200% $110,000 $220,000 $1,685,000 +$360,000
150% $315,000 $630,000 $1,275,000 ~$0
120% $440,000 $880,000 $1,025,000 –$300,000
At 200% AMI, the covenant restricts who can purchase the unit (a household earning $170,560 or less) rather than reducing the sale price dramatically. A two-firefighter household ($176,800 combined) qualifies. A teacher married to a teacher ($132,500) does not quite reach 200% but does reach 150%. A police officer married to a nurse ($165,000) qualifies.

The covenant captures the workforce households this program is designed to serve: people who earn enough to live with dignity and not enough to compete for market-rate housing in Santa Monica.

At 200% AMI, the local pathway’s profit advantage over SB 1123 is $360,000. The developer takes the covenant because the local pathway is the better deal. No tax-increment financing is needed. No public capital is required for the sell-all-with-covenant structure. The program is self-sustaining: the concessions generate the value; the covenant captures a share of it; the developer keeps the rest.

At 150% AMI, the profit advantage over SB 1123 narrows to approximately $0–$50,000. The concessions barely offset the deeper covenant discount. Some developers will choose SB 1123 instead. Uptake declines. Fewer deed-restricted units are produced.

At 120% AMI, the local pathway is less profitable than SB 1123 on some configurations. The concessions no longer offset the covenant, and the developer must accept a net cost to participate. Uptake drops to near zero. The program becomes what SB 9 already is: a pathway that exists on paper and produces nothing. That is performative affordability.

The policy choice is between pushing to 120% and risking the same non-result that SB 9 produced (two applications, zero affordable units), or setting the covenant at 200% and producing 232–370 deed-restricted units over five years with no public subsidy, no taxincrement financing, and no risk to the general fund.

This memo recommends 200% AMI as the initial covenant level.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 25 of 30
25 The threshold should not be lowered to 150% unless external economic conditions relax enough that the deeper covenant produces at least the same profit advantage over SB 1123 that the 200% covenant produces under current conditions. The relevant external variables are construction costs (indexed to the California Construction Cost Index or an equivalent local benchmark), construction loan interest rates, and new-construction sale prices per square foot. At current conditions ($400–$475/SF construction, 7.5% construction loan rates, $1,100/SF sale prices), the 200% AMI covenant generates a $360,000 profit advantage over SB 1123. The 150% AMI covenant generates a $0–$50,000 advantage: not enough to reliably steer developers toward the local pathway.

The threshold may be lowered to 150% AMI by Council resolution only when the annual recalibration (conducted as part of the economic feasibility study or its successor monitoring report) demonstrates that:

1. The local MMH pathway at 150% AMI produces a profit advantage over SB 1123 of at least $250,000 on a 7,500 SF lot (the minimum margin that reliably incentivizes the covenant over the state pathway);

2. The construction cost index has declined, or sale prices have risen, or interest rates have fallen, sufficiently to account for the difference; and

3. No change in state law (including amendments to SB 1123, SB 9, or the density bonus) has narrowed or eliminated the concessions advantage that makes the local pathway competitive.

If any of these conditions is not met, the 200% AMI threshold remains. The recalibration is annual and the burden of proof is on the city to demonstrate that the deeper covenant will not destroy uptake. A covenant level that produces zero projects is not an affordability policy; it is a performative gesture. The city’s goal is deed-restricted units, not a lower number on a resolution that no one uses.

At $350/SF construction costs, the sell-4/rent-1 structure produces a free-and-clear rental unit on both lot sizes. The tables below show net annual income from that unit at each affordability level.

AMI Level Monthly Rent Annual NOI 6,000 SF Lot 7,500 SF Lot 200% ($170,560, couple) $4,264 $31,600 +$31,600/yr +$31,600/yr 150% ($127,920, couple) $3,199 $23,700 +$23,700/yr +$23,700/yr 120% ($102,300, couple) $2,558 $19,000 +$19,000/yr +$19,000/yr At $350/SF, all three AMI levels pencil because there is no mortgage on the rental unit. The 200% AMI rent of $4,264/month falls within the current Santa Monica market range ($4,200– $4,800); at this level, the covenant restricts who can rent the unit rather than reducing the rent. At 150% and 120% AMI, the covenant does reduce income, but the unit remains cashflow positive.

Below 120% AMI, the homeowner and professional developer models do not reach.

Households below 120% AMI need the subsidized housing pipeline: the Trust Fund, LIHTC,

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 26 of 30
26 and project-based vouchers. On large institutional parcels (see below), the volume of marketrate sales absorbs the cost of deeply restricted units, and 80–120% AMI is achievable without public subsidy. The small-lot model and the institutional model serve different parts of the income spectrum. Neither substitutes for the other.

Large-Lot Economics: Where Deeper Affordability Becomes Possible The pro formas above model a homeowner on a 6,000–7,500 SF lot building six cottages.

That is one constituency. There is another: the institutional or private landowner with tens of thousands of square feet of fully depreciated land and no intention of living on the site. The economics are fundamentally different, and the affordability they can produce is substantially deeper.

Consider a 100,000 SF parcel. At the proposed density of 1 unit per 1,000 SF, it yields 100 units by right. With a density bonus (50% at one VLI unit per §65915), it could reach 150 or more. The land is carried at book value; the owner has no mortgage, no temporary housing cost, and no personal displacement. Construction financing is institutional. Scale reduces hard costs to approximately $300–$350/SF.

Illustrative Budget: 66 Units on 100,000 SF
Line Item Per Unit Total
Hard construction: 900 SF at $300/SF $270,000 $17,820,000 Soft costs (12%) $32,400 $2,138,400
Site work $20,000 $1,320,000
AHPP (blended, tiered trade) $15,000 $990,000
Transportation + Parks + Other fees $18,000 $1,188,000
Construction financing (institutional) $18,000 $1,188,000 Contingency (10%) $37,000 $2,465,000
Total $410,000 $27,100,000
Revenue: Sell 50 at Market, Restrict 16 at 120–150% AMI Fifty units sold at $1,100/SF × 900 SF: approximately $49.5 million. That covers the $27.1 million construction cost nearly twice over. The remaining 16 units (24% of the project), retained as deed-restricted rental at 120–150% AMI, produce $19,000–$23,700 per unit annually in NOI ($304,000–$379,000 total). Stabilized value of the restricted rental portfolio at a 5% cap: $6.1–$7.6 million.

The institutional owner’s total position: $49.5 million in sales plus $6.1–$7.6 million in retained rental value, on $27.1 million invested. The restricted units are not a concession; they are free-riders on the market-rate production volume, and 120% AMI is achievable without public subsidy at this scale.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 27 of 30
27 Per-acre yields. The 100,000 SF parcel is 2.3 acres. At 66 units, the project produces 29 units per acre, of which 7 are deed-restricted at 120–150% AMI. Per-acre development cost:
approximately $11.8 million. Per-acre revenue: approximately $24.2 million (sales plus stabilized rental value). Per-acre capital profit: approximately $12.4 million. Per-acre public subsidy: zero. For comparison, a typical LIHTC project in Los Angeles produces 50–80 units per acre at 4–5 stories, all restricted, at a public subsidy cost of $250,000–$400,000 per unit ($12.5–$32 million per acre in public capital). The MMH large-lot model produces fewer restricted units per acre (7 versus 50–80) at a public cost of zero; the market-rate units crosssubsidize the restricted ones internally. With AB 6, stacked configurations on large parcels could reach 40–50 units per acre and 10–12 restricted units per acre, still at zero public cost.

At 80% AMI (full AHPP waiver), the restricted units produce lower NOI (approximately $12,700/unit, $203,000 total for 16 units) and lower stabilized value (approximately $4.1 million). The project still produces a substantial return. The institutional project pencils while delivering deeply affordable units that the homeowner model cannot reach.

Who Holds These Parcels in Santa Monica
The city owns surface parking lots. Institutional landowners (congregations, nonprofits, hospitals, and private holders with long depreciation histories) hold parcels ranging from 20,000 to 200,000 SF.

The policy framework in this memo applies to these parcels. The density amendment, the AHPP tiered trade, the R-3 cottage pathway, and the pre-approved plans all scale up. What changes at institutional scale is the denominator: enough market-rate units to absorb the cost of deeply affordable production, institutional financing that reduces carrying costs, and professional management that reduces execution risk. The homeowner model produces one to three affordable units at 150–200% AMI. The institutional model produces 13–16 affordable units at 80–150% AMI. Both are needed. Neither substitutes for the other.

If AB 6 advances, the institutional model gains further: stacked configurations on large parcels would produce more units per acre than cottage courts, and the R-3 cost savings would apply to all of them. Without AB 6, the institutional model still works in cottage or townhouse form, at lower densities on a given parcel.

Density Bonus Stacking
The Density Bonus Law (§65915) applies to projects of 5+ units. A 6-unit cottage court qualifies. One VLI unit (25% ratio) qualifies for the maximum 50% bonus (3 additional units) plus 4 concessions. AB 1287 provides a stacked bonus for projects combining VLI and moderate-income units.

SB 1211 (January 2025) allows up to 8 detached ADUs on existing multifamily lots. During construction: 2. Post-occupancy: up to the number of existing units.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 28 of 30
28 Density bonus stacking matters most for professional developers on acquired land, where additional units offset $400–$550/SF land costs. Local homeowner developers on owned land already pencil at 6 units without it. The density amendment in Intervention 1 is not cumulative with density bonus.

Risks
The disaggregated fee is novel in California. The empirical support (Millard-Ball, Chatman, Caltrans 2018) is stronger than the evidence underlying most existing flat-rate fees, and ABAG/MTC post-Sheetz guidance favors granularity. The 120-day judicial challenge window after adoption creates a period of legal uncertainty.

San Diego’s ADU Bonus Program illustrates what happens when affordability tiers are set too shallow: 295 deed-restricted units, every one at the minimum depth (110% AMI, 15-year term). The structure proposed here requires 55-year terms at all levels and steeper affordability for larger reductions. Even so, the moderate tiers will attract the most applications. The Trust Fund will receive less in-lieu revenue. That trade-off should be quantified in the feasibility study before adoption.

Deed-restricted ownership carries implementation risk that rental does not. Resale price formulas must be administered across decades. The City’s right of first refusal must be funded. SB 800 construction defect liability makes condominium development hazardous for small builders. Fee-simple small-lot subdivision mitigates this risk; the feasibility study should confirm whether it is sufficient.

AB 6 could stall indefinitely in the Senate. The cottage court pathway constrains building form to detached structures, excluding stacked configurations. Meaningful statewide building code reform could take two or more legislative sessions.

Long-term landowners who could develop may lack the risk tolerance, construction knowledge, or capital reserves for a 24-month building project. Bryan TX’s pre-approved plan program produced zero projects in its first year. Atlanta’s IncDev cohort converted 5 of 15 participants. Pre-approved plans and workshops lower barriers. They do not remove the barrier of deciding to take the risk.

The Prop 13 advantage is unambiguous for the original owner. Proposition 19 eliminated the parent-child exclusion for non-primary-residence transfers. The local homeowner developer pathway works for current owners. It does not survive intergenerational transfer without estate planning.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 29 of 30
29 Where This Has Worked
Portland adopted its Residential Infill Project in 2021: sliding FAR, fourplexes by right. 1,400+ middle housing units in three years, fourplexes 76% of production. Average unit $460,000 versus $916,000 for a new single-family home. Small local firms drove production.

Sacramento eliminated density maximums in single-family zones in September 2024. Thirtytwo applications in the first four months.

San Diego’s ADU Bonus Program (2021) produced 295 deed-restricted units in two years.

Every applicant chose the shallowest affordability tier. The lesson for tier design: depth and duration matter.

Memphis extended the IRC to 6 units in 2021. North Carolina extended it to triplexes and fourplexes in July 2025. Alaska, Utah, and Rhode Island followed. No adverse safety outcomes reported.

Bryan TX pre-approved four building types (2020, $8,000+/unit savings). Uptake was slow.

Kalamazoo built approximately 48 homes using pre-permitted plans (approximately $11,000/unit savings). Pre-approved plans work best as one element of a comprehensive package.

Implementation Sequence
Months 0–3. Council adopts the missing middle housing definition by resolution. Staff initiates the transportation impact fee nexus study (consultant RFP). City Attorney prepares the density amendment to §9.08.030 and the AHPP tiered fee ordinance. Council directs staff to commission an economic feasibility study modeling the combined effect of the proposed interventions on 6-unit missing middle development across three lot sizes (6,000 SF, 7,500 SF, and 10,000+ SF) and both tenure types (deed-restricted rental and deed-restricted feesimple ownership), including the rotating capital pool structure and supplemental measures needed for 150% and 120% AMI viability.

Months 3–9. Feasibility study completed. Council reviews findings. Based on results, Council introduces and adopts the density amendment and AHPP tiered fee ordinance (first and second reading), with any adjustments to tier levels, lot-size thresholds, or supplemental measures indicated by the study. Council sends an AB 6 support letter. City commissions pre-approved cottage court plan designs.

Months 9–15. Nexus study data collection and modeling. Pre-approved plans completed and posted. Technical assistance partnership established; first workshop for R2/R3 lot owners.

Months 15–21. Nexus study completed. Council adopts the disaggregated fee by resolution after public hearing. CLT RFQ issued.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan
April 2026
page 30 of 30
30 Months 21–27. Disaggregated fee takes effect. First pre-approved projects enter permitting.

First local homeowner developer projects break ground. AHPP covenant uptake reported in Prop R annual monitoring.

Ongoing. Advocate for AB 6 or its successor. Advocate for a California MIHTC. Update the nexus study every 8 years (AB 602). Adjust AHPP tiers by resolution every 3 years. Monitor deed-restricted ownership units for resale compliance and CDL claims; report findings to Council annually.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 997 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) TO: Planning Commission, City of Santa Monica
FROM: Shawn Landres, Planning Commissioner
RE: Supplemental Addendum: Four Reforms to Extend MMHRP Reach DATE: For the Planning Commission meeting of April 15, 2026 (Item 14-A) NOTE: This informational addendum supplements the primary memo posted on Friday, April 10. It draws on feasibility analysis completed between the primary memo submission and the April 15 Commission meeting. The primary memo's proposed cottage court form, workforce covenant structure, and neighborhoodscale design controls remain unchanged. This addendum refines three aspects of program calibration and adds one substantial new pathway for housing production on community-assembly-owned parcels.

Summary
This addendum provides additional context to Item 14-A.

Four refinements warrant incorporation to the original program design:

1. Leverage the existing courtyard housing exception in Chapter 9.08 to enable smallscale parcel consolidation without new zoning authority.

2. Establish a 90-day ministerial approval timeline modeled on SB 684 and SB 1123.

3. Revise the base density standard from 1 cottage per 1,000 SF to 1 per 800 SF to achieve RHNA-compatible default density automatically across the full eligible parcel range.

4. Integrate the MMHRP cottage court form with SMMC §9.31.196 (Community Assembly Sites) and Chapter 9.19 (Moderate Income Housing Overlay), two existing Santa Monica programs that have produced zero units since their April 2023 adoption. (Extending the MMHRP to large-parcel institutional developers on commercial land no longer is recommended. First-principles analysis confirms that podium multifamily dominates cottage courts on commercial land by approximately 2:1 in revenue per acre, and AB 130 reduces costs proportionally on both forms rather than closing the relative gap. Institutional capital will not voluntarily forgo entitled capacity for a covenant trade, and no off-the-shelf MMHRP modification could compete with the text amendments or development agreements institutional holders could seek to negotiate on commercial parcels. Large-parcel institutional developers will continue to produce housing on Santa Monica's commercial parcels through SB 79, AB 130, State Density Bonus Law, and the AHPP-plus-Density-Bonus combination.

These are the appropriate frameworks for institutional-scale commercial redevelopment.) AB 130 (effective June 30, 2025) provides a statutory CEQA infill exemption and a prevailing wage exemption for qualifying housing projects under 85 feet, materially reducing the cost basis on cottage court development across every pathway. Santa Monica’s local religiousland and moderate-income housing (designed prior to and independently of SB 4), have

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, MMHRP Addendum
April 2026
page 2 of 19
2 produced nothing because their economics do not pencil under the standard of 50% affordable units at 80% AMI. The MMHRP cottage court form, combined with a three-tier affordability mix and the AB 130 cost basis, resolves both programs' potential feasibility deficits without public subsidy. (NB: AB 130 does not change the relative economics between cottage courts and podium multifamily on institutional commercial land, because it reduces costs proportionally on both forms.)
Community assembly parcels are not a small subset of the MMHRP. Under the four reforms proposed here, they are the program's largest single production opportunity. Relative to the institutional pathway, it offers materially better economics, because religious institutions carry no land basis, operate at mission-aligned hurdle rates, and have been waiting three years for a feasibility framework that does not require public subsidy.

The MMHRP remains focused on the constituencies where the cottage court form has a genuine structural advantage: owner-occupants, small family assemblies, and community assembly parcels. The program is not a universal cottage court mandate but rather a targeted intervention for three specific constituencies that the current zoning and state law do not serve, combined with a structural integration with §9.31.196 that converts a dormant local program into a no-subsidy production pipeline for workforce and affordable housing on congregation-owned land.

Recommendation
The four reforms described in this addendum complement the seven policy pieces set out in the primary memo. Implementation requires amendments to three chapters of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (Chapter 9.08, Chapter 9.19, and Chapter 9.64) and modification of SMMC §9.31.196. The amendments are independently adoptable but collectively transformative, and the adoption sequence matters: the new 200% AMI workforce housing covenant category in Chapter 9.64 is the foundation on which the §9.31.196 and MHO integration pathways depend.

The MMHRP cottage court form, properly integrated with §9.31.196 and the MHO, would deliver an estimated 120 to 160 units on congregation-owned parcels that have produced nothing under existing programs, plus continued production on R-1 and R-2 owner-occupant parcels at the original program scope. The three-year benchmark rises from the 150 cottages the original memo proposed to approximately 290 new homes, of which at least 50 are deedrestricted at 80 percent AMI and 60 are deed-restricted at 200 percent AMI workforce.

The Cost Basis: AB 130 Applied Uniformly
AB 130, effective June 30, 2025, provides two benefits that apply automatically to MMHRP cottage courts. The statutory CEQA infill exemption is the strongest form of CEQA protection available, not subject to the unusual circumstances exception that can undermine categorical exemptions. The prevailing wage exemption applies to projects under 85 feet in height.

Cottage courts at 28 feet sit comfortably below the threshold and qualify automatically, eliminating the prevailing wage exposure that would otherwise apply where mixed-use

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, MMHRP Addendum
April 2026
page 3 of 19
3 components, public funding involvement, or unit counts above SB 35's thresholds trigger the requirement.

Defensible AB 130-corrected hard cost assumptions range from approximately $380 per square foot at the base to $430 at the high end and $455 at the stress case. Statewide construction cost data from RLB Q3 2025, the Terner Center, and Cumming Group all support this range. The reduction from the original $400, $450, and $475 cost assumptions represents approximately 5 to 8 percent of total hard costs, which is appropriate for small wood-frame residential construction.

The exemption applies uniformly across owner-occupants, family assemblies, religious institutions, and MHO-eligible developers. The R-1 6,000 SF and R-2 7,500 SF owneroccupant pro formas benefit by approximately $146,000 and $170,000 of additional cash at completion, respectively. The community assembly reference project benefits by approximately $440,000. AB 130 is the third-largest contributor to the program's improved feasibility, behind the affordability mix shift on §9.31.196 parcels and the density increase to 1 per 800 SF, but ahead of every other reform in the package.

Reform One: Leverage the Existing Courtyard Housing Exception Santa Monica Municipal Code currently limits residential parcel consolidation to 7,500 SF or 125 percent of the average parcel area within 500 feet, whichever is greater. Chapter 9.08 already contains an exception for courtyard housing under §9.08.030(F) that permits consolidation beyond the 7,500 SF limit when the development includes a courtyard meeting specific design criteria: minimum 10 percent of lot area, at least 1,000 SF in total area, and 18-foot minimum dimensions.

The MMHRP cottage court form is functionally identical to the courtyard housing the exception contemplates. The reform expressly leverages the existing exception with two reconciliations. First, the MMHRP's density standard of 1 per 800 SF supersedes the underlying R-2 or R-3 per-parcel calculation that the courtyard housing framework would otherwise apply. Second, the MMHRP cottage court form satisfies the courtyard design minimums without modification. The reform does not require new consolidation authority. It removes ambiguity about whether MMHRP cottage courts qualify for an exception that already exists.

Proposed Code Language
MMHRP cottage court developments that comply with the density, form, and covenant provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to satisfy the courtyard housing exception in SMMC §9.08.030(F). For MMHRP projects, the density standard established by this ordinance (one unit per 800 square feet of consolidated parcel area) supersedes the underlying zone density calculation that would otherwise apply under the courtyard housing exception. All other requirements of §9.08.030(F), including courtyard minimums of 10 percent of lot area, 1,000 square feet minimum total area, and 18-foot minimum dimensions, shall apply to MMHRP projects.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, MMHRP Addendum
April 2026
page 4 of 19
4 The most likely operational use case is a family with two or three adjacent R-2 parcels developing a larger cottage court across the combined site rather than being forced into the SB 684 or SB 1123 pathway where no workforce covenant is produced. The reform is not a primary institutional-scale reform; the consolidation limit still caps typical assemblies at a scale below the 50,000 SF institutional threshold. But it removes a procedural barrier that would otherwise force these smaller assemblies into pathways that produce no workforce covenant.

Reform Two: A 90-Day Ministerial Approval Timeline
Each year added to the project timeline costs approximately 300 to 500 basis points of IRR at forecast prices. A four-year California-norm entitlement-to-occupancy cycle delivers an IRR roughly 900 to 1,500 basis points below the same project delivered in 24 months. For owneroccupants, the timeline compression is the difference between a project they can finance with a residential construction loan and a project they cannot. For small family assemblies and religious institutions, the compression is the difference between projects that pencil and projects that do not.

The MMHRP should guarantee a 90-day by-right ministerial approval window for conforming projects, modeled on SB 684 and SB 1123. Combined with AB 130's CEQA infill exemption, the 90-day window produces a total entitlement timeline of approximately 90 to 120 days from complete application to building permit issuance. The full project cycle target is 30 months from application to certificate of occupancy. Pre-approved plans should receive expedited 30- day processing and, ideally, pathways to self-certification with appropriate liability management.

Proposed Code Language
Applications for MMHRP cottage court development that comply with all requirements of this ordinance shall be processed ministerially by the Planning Department. The Department shall approve or deny a complete application within 90 days of submission. An application that is not approved or denied within the 90-day period shall be deemed approved. No discretionary review, architectural review, or design review shall be required for MMHRP projects that meet the form, density, and covenant standards established by this ordinance. MMHRP projects qualifying under Public Resources Code §21080.66 are exempt from California Environmental Quality Act review.

The 90-day window is precedented. SB 684 and SB 1123 both establish ministerial review timelines of 60 to 90 days for small lot subdivisions and small multifamily projects. Santa Monica's existing 100 percent affordable housing pathway under Interim Ordinance 2460 CCS already provides ministerial processing for qualifying projects. The MMHRP pathway extends this procedural model to market-rate cottage courts with a workforce covenant.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, MMHRP Addendum
April 2026
page 5 of 19
5 Reform Three: A Density Standard Calibrated for the Community Assembly Pathway
The original MMHRP proposed density at 1 cottage per 1,000 SF of lot area. The standard tracked Portland's empirical cottage cluster production density and produced 6 to 7 cottages on conventional R-2 and R-1 parcels. The standard was reasonable but incomplete. It fell below the 30 du/acre threshold for lower-income RHNA credit on the smallest eligible parcels, and it provided no flexibility for the unusual situations where a higher density permission could resolve site planning constraints.

The cleaner standard is 1 per 800 SF across the full eligible parcel range, with the understanding that owner-occupants on R-1 and R-2 will not build to the maximum. On a 6,000 SF lot the standard yields 7.5 cottages at 32.6 du/acre, comfortably above the RHNA threshold. On a 7,500 SF lot it yields 9.4 cottages at 40.7 du/acre. On a 15,000 SF community assembly parcel it yields 18.75 cottages at 54.4 du/acre. Every eligible MMHRP parcel automatically qualifies for lower-income RHNA credit under Government Code §65583.2(c)(3)(B) without case-by-case justification.

The discrepancy between zoning permission and actual buildout is the design point. Owneroccupants on conventional R-1 and R-2 parcels will build at Portland-matched density of approximately 7 cottages on 7,500 SF and 6 on 6,000 SF, for the reasons Portland's Residential Infill Project has produced cottage clusters at conservative densities even where the code permits more: market preferences for slightly larger cottages, courtyard and parking site constraints, fire access requirements, and construction efficiency at smaller cluster sizes.

The 1 per 800 SF standard accordingly serves three functions on R-1 and R-2. It establishes RHNA-compatible default density automatically. It provides flexibility for the small subset of owner-occupants who want to maximize cottage count for family compounds or multigenerational households. It accommodates the unusual site configurations (long narrow parcels, corner lots, parcels with utility easements) where the Portland-matched buildout produces awkward layouts that the higher density permission could resolve.

The community assembly pathway under §9.31.196 is the constituency where the zoning permission translates into actual buildout. Congregations that develop on existing surface parking lots carry zero land basis and operate at mission-aligned hurdle rates that tolerate single-digit returns. The denser layout that owner-occupants will not build is exactly the layout the community assembly pathway needs to clear feasibility under the three-tier mix described in Reform Four. On a 15,000 SF community assembly parcel, the difference between 15 cottages at 1 per 1,000 SF and 18 cottages at 1 per 800 SF is approximately $1.5 million of additional surplus at midpoint pricing.

Proposed Code Language
The maximum density permitted for MMHRP cottage court development shall be one unit per 800 square feet of parcel area, applied uniformly across all eligible parcels regardless of size. This density standard supersedes the underlying base

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, MMHRP Addendum
April 2026
page 6 of 19
6 zoning district density and any conflicting provisions of Chapter 9.07, Chapter 9.08, or other applicable chapters of this Title.

Reform Four: Integration with §9.31.196 and the MHO
Two existing Santa Monica programs are purpose-built for missing middle housing development. Both have produced zero units since their adoption by Ordinance No. 2742CCS § 2 on April 11, 2023. Both fail on feasibility for reasons the MMHRP cottage court form can resolve.

Why §9.31.196 Has Produced Nothing
The current §9.31.196 grants ministerial Administrative Approval, 33 feet of additional height above base, no density limits, and no parking minimums or replacement requirements. The binding constraint is the affordability requirement. At least 50 percent of units must be deedrestricted at 80 percent AMI or lower. The 2025 LAHD-published maximum rent at 80 percent AMI for a 1-bedroom is $2,424 per month, against a Santa Monica market rent for a comparable new-construction 850 SF unit exceeding $4,000. The annual revenue gap per unit is approximately $18,912; on a 15-unit project with 8 deed-restricted units, the lifetime present value gap is approximately $2.1 million. No congregation can absorb this gap without tax credit equity or public subsidy, and §9.31.196 was designed as a no-subsidy pathway.

Why the MHO Has Produced Nothing
The MHO’s 50 percent local density bonus and 33-foot height bonus are less generous than the conventional AHPP-plus-State-Density-Bonus pathway, where AB 1287 (effective January 2024) permits up to 100 percent density bonus. Rational developers choose the conventional path. The MHO needs the cottage court form as its differentiating product, not a marginal improvement on a uniformly disadvantaged program.

Community Assembly Parcels Replace Institutionally Owned Large Lots Community assembly parcels under §9.31.196 substitute for the institutional pathway with materially better economics. Religious institutions in Santa Monica's R-1 and R-2 zones, concentrated between Wilshire and Montana and in Sunset Park west of 20th Street, share three characteristics that institutional capital lacks. They carry zero land basis. They operate at mission-aligned hurdle rates that tolerate single-digit returns. They have organizational capacity for ongoing property management through existing facility staff and lay leadership.

Of the 38 parcels and 257 units of capacity identified in Housing Element Appendix F Category 11, an estimated 120 to 160 units could be produced under a modified MMHRP pathway with the three-tier mix structure.

The 50/30/20 Mix and the Case for Congregational Discretion The MMHRP cottage court form on a 15,000 SF community assembly parcel accommodates 18 cottages at 1 per 800 SF. The recommended mix is 20 percent at 80 percent AMI deedrestricted rental (4 units), 30 percent at 200 percent AMI workforce sale (5 units), and 50

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, MMHRP Addendum
April 2026
page 7 of 19
7 percent market-rate sale (9 units). The mix produces approximately $7.0 million in midpoint surplus and $3.9 million in stress-case surplus on a $8.7 million total development cost.

A congregation that retains 9 cottages free of covenant has the choice each year whether to rent at market, rent below market, house clergy and staff, or sell at market. A congregation that deed-restricts those same units at 80 percent AMI has surrendered that choice for 55 years. Most congregations want flexibility to respond to changing membership demographics, ministry priorities, and financial conditions over decades, which includes offering belowmarket rents on a discretionary basis. Combined with congregational stewardship, the actual affordability outcome could approach or exceed the current 50 percent at 80 percent AMI requirement, achieved through congregational discretion rather than legal compulsion.

Community Land Trusts for Santa Monica
The community assembly pathway is structured around a community land trust (CLT). The congregation, or an affiliated 501(c)(3) entity it controls, retains fee title to the land in perpetuity. The 5 workforce cottages and the 9 market-rate cottages are conveyed as improvements only, on a 99-year renewable ground lease. The 4 affordable rental cottages remain entirely under congregational ownership and operation. The land never leaves taxexempt hands.

The CLT structure does three things that fee-simple conveyance cannot. It preserves the property tax exemption on the land in perpetuity, eliminating the property tax burden that would otherwise reduce the affordability of every covenanted cottage and reduce the congregation's net rental income. It generates ongoing ground lease revenue (nominal on the workforce tier, market-rate on the market tier) that compounds the congregation's recurring income beyond what the rental NOI alone provides. And it ensures that the affordability and workforce restrictions are enforced through the ground lease itself rather than only through a recorded deed restriction, making enforcement at resale considerably simpler.

Administrative burden is manageable. The CLT operates as a thin entity holding land title, collecting nominal ground rent, and approving resales against a formula. Most congregations can administer this through existing facility management capacity or through a contract with a property management firm at modest cost. Several California religious institutions, including those participating in the Yes In God's Backyard movement, operate CLT structures successfully. The unrelated business income tax exposure is minimal because ground lease income on real property held for charitable purposes is generally excluded from UBIT under IRC §512(b)(3); the congregation's tax counsel should confirm the exclusion applies to its specific structure.
§9.31.196 and SB 4
SB 4 (Wiener, 2023, codified at Government Code §65913.5) provides a statewide by-right pathway for 100 percent affordable housing on religious institution land. The MMHRP community assembly pathway serves different economics. SB 4 requires 100 percent affordability at low-income levels with up to 20 percent moderate-income and 5 percent staff units. The market-rate cross-subsidy that makes the three-tier mix self-financing is not

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, MMHRP Addendum
April 2026
page 8 of 19
8 permitted under SB 4, which means SB 4 projects require tax credit equity, public subsidy, or substantial congregational fundraising to close the financing gap. Most Santa Monica congregations do not have the capital capacity or the development partnership infrastructure to assemble those sources, which is why SB 4 has produced only a handful of projects statewide in its first two years and none in Santa Monica. SB 4 also requires prevailing wage on projects of 10 or more units, adding 5 to 8 percent to the cost basis — the precise advantage AB 130 provides to MMHRP cottage courts under 85 feet. A congregation using the MMHRP's §9.31.196 alternative compliance pathway avoids prevailing wage entirely; a congregation using SB 4 does not. SB 4's ministerial processing runs parallel to §9.31.196's existing Administrative Approval pathway, but SB 4 imposes statewide design standards that may conflict with local neighborhood-scale expectations, while §9.31.196 (as modified under Reform Four) incorporates the MMHRP cottage court form controls directly into local code.

Both pathways remain available. For a congregation with committed 9 percent tax credit equity and an experienced nonprofit development partner, SB 4's 100 percent affordable framework delivers deeper affordability than the MMHRP three-tier mix can. For the far larger set of Santa Monica congregations without those resources, the MMHRP community assembly pathway is the only structure that actually produces housing without requiring a financing stack the congregation cannot assemble. SB 4 is the right tool for a narrow set of well-capitalized projects. The MMHRP is the right tool for everyone else.

Five Code Amendments
Integration requires amendments to three chapters of the Santa Monica Municipal Code and modification of SMMC §9.31.196. The amendments are listed in priority order based on implementation dependency.

Amendment One: Chapter 9.64 (AHPP) — 200% AMI Workforce Housing Covenant This is foundational. Both the §9.31.196 pathway and the MHO pathway require a new covenant category above the existing Chapter 9.64 tiers (30%, 50%, 80%, and 120% AMI).

The amendment defines income eligibility at 200 percent AMI, requires improvement-only sale on a community land trust ground lease, imposes a 55-year deed restriction with a formula resale price tied to AMI growth or CPI, and grants the City a right of first refusal at the formula price. Income verification cross-references the existing § 9.64.110 methodology. The CLT ground lease structure preserves the property tax exemption on the land in perpetuity, which makes the 200 percent AMI price point achievable in Santa Monica's market.

Amendment Two: §9.31.196 — Cottage Court Alternative Compliance Add a three-tier alternative compliance pathway (20 percent at 80 percent AMI rental, 30 percent at 200 percent AMI workforce sale, 50 percent market-rate) for qualifying cottage court projects with density at 1 per 800 SF as a form control. Clarify that community assembly retention may be satisfied on an adjacent parcel under common ownership through a recorded lot tie agreement. The lot tie agreement should include an express covenant that community assembly use will continue on the sanctuary parcel for the duration of the affordability restrictions on the cottage court parcel, a prohibition on separate sale or transfer

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, MMHRP Addendum
April 2026
page 9 of 19
9 of either parcel without City approval, a provision that if the congregation ceases community assembly use the City may require conversion of additional cottage court units to 80 percent AMI rental, and an acknowledgment that the lot tie cannot be cancelled without written approval of the Building Official.

Amendment Three: Chapter 9.19 (MHO) — Cottage Court Building Form Add cottage court as a permitted MHO building form at 1 per 800 SF density. Specify that the MHO height bonus is optional and that cottage buildings within a courtyard development need not be uniform in height. The MHO incorporates the Chapter 9.64 workforce covenant by reference rather than defining its own parallel category. MHO cottage court projects may use all, a portion, or none of the 33-foot height bonus; the base 28-foot form will be the typical choice on R-2 parcels with sensitive neighborhood transitions.

Amendment Four: §9.31.196 — Nonprofit Developer Partner Waiver Waive the requirement for a nonprofit affordable housing developer partner where the congregation demonstrates operational capacity through current building management, fiduciary board experience, and a property management agreement with a licensed property manager. Most Santa Monica congregations have the capacity to manage four rental units and to administer the limited resale covenant oversight required for the 200 percent AMI workforce cottages. The requirement for a specialized nonprofit partner adds cost and institutional complexity disproportionate to the operational demands of a small project.

Amendment Five: Chapter 9.64 (AHPP) — Resale Covenant Standards Establish minimum standards for community land trust ground leases used to satisfy the workforce covenant: 99-year renewable term, nominal ground rent on the workforce tier and market-rate ground rent on the market-rate tier, formula resale price for the workforce tier, owner-occupancy requirement, CLT preemptive purchase option at the formula price, and City approval of the ground lease template. Cross-reference SB 196 (2019), which clarifies that CLT-restricted properties are assessed at the restricted improvement price rather than market value, providing significant additional affordability support on the workforce tier. The CLT entity must be the congregation or a 501(c)(3) it controls; land may not be transferred out of tax-exempt ownership.

Updated Pro Formas Across the Board
The four reforms require recalibration of the pro formas in the primary memo. The recalibration applies AB 130 cost basis to every pathway and reflects the Portland-matched buildout on conventional R-1 and R-2 parcels (where owner-occupants will build at 1 per 1,000 to 1,200 SF in practice even though the zoning permits 1 per 800 SF). On community assembly parcels, the recalibration reflects the full 1 per 800 SF buildout because the community assembly pathway's economics support the denser layout. The detailed pro forma handoffs for staff review are available as separate companion documents.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, MMHRP Addendum
April 2026
page 10 of 19
10 R-2 7,500 SF Owner-Occupant Baseline
The original pro forma assumed 7 cottages at $400 per square foot, producing cash at completion at midpoint pricing of $3,223,112. The updated pro forma holds the cottage count at 7 (Portland-matched buildout) and applies the AB 130 cost basis of $380 per square foot, producing cash at completion at midpoint pricing of $3,393,269. The improvement is approximately $170,000, attributable entirely to the AB 130 cost basis reduction because the cottage count is unchanged. The 30-year total owner-occupant position, combining cash at completion, 30-year ADU rental NOI under Proposition 13 protection, and retained cottage equity on the two cottages held free and clear, reaches $7.27 million in current dollars and approximately $11.3 million in nominal dollars if the retained cottages appreciate at 3 percent annually.

R-1 6,000 SF Owner-Occupant Companion
The original pro forma assumed 6 cottages at $400 per square foot, producing cash at completion at midpoint pricing of $2,384,024. The updated pro forma holds the cottage count at 6 (Portland-matched buildout) and applies the AB 130 cost basis of $380 per square foot, producing cash at completion at midpoint pricing of $2,529,818. The improvement is approximately $146,000. The 30-year total owner-occupant position reaches $6.41 million in current dollars and approximately $10.4 million in nominal dollars with appreciation.

Community Assembly Reference Project, 15,000 SF
The reference project assumes 18 cottages at the zoning maximum of 1 per 800 SF, with the 20/30/50 mix (4 affordable rental, 5 workforce sale, 9 market-rate sale). Applying the AB 130 cost basis of $380 per square foot, and including a $200,000 community assembly preservation budget for ADA upgrades and interior reconfiguration of the existing worship space, the total development cost is approximately $8.7 million. Midpoint surplus is approximately $7.0 million. Stress-case surplus (at $455 per square foot cost and $1.22 million downside cottage price) is approximately $3.9 million. Break-even market-rate price under the stress-case cost basis is approximately $768,000 per cottage, 37 percent below the downside forecast of $1,220,000.

Why the Pro Formas Look Better
The changes in the updated pro formas come from three sources in descending order of magnitude. On community assembly parcels, the single largest driver is the affordability mix shift from 50 percent at 80 percent AMI (current §9.31.196) to the 20/30/50 three-tier mix; the shift moves the 15,000 SF reference project from approximately $377,000 in surplus to approximately $7.0 million at midpoint pricing. The second largest driver on community assembly parcels is the density increase from 1 per 1,000 SF to 1 per 800 SF, which adds approximately $1.5 million of additional surplus through the larger unit count. The AB 130 cost basis reduction adds approximately $440,000 on the community assembly reference project.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, MMHRP Addendum
April 2026
page 11 of 19
11 On R-1 and R-2 owner-occupant parcels, only the AB 130 cost basis reduction applies to the updated pro formas because the cottage count remains at Portland-matched levels. The improvements of $146,000 (R-1) and $170,000 (R-2) are meaningful but modest, approximately 5 percent of cash at completion on each parcel. The 1 per 800 SF zoning permission nevertheless serves three purposes on these parcels even though most owneroccupants will not build to the maximum: RHNA-compatible default density, flexibility for family compounds, and accommodation for unusual site configurations.

Implementation Sequence
The five code amendments are independently adoptable but collectively transformative.

Council should adopt Amendment One (Chapter 9.64 workforce covenant) first, as it is the foundation on which Amendments Two through Five depend. Amendments Two and Three (§9.31.196 and MHO cottage court provisions) can be adopted in parallel after Amendment One. Amendments Four and Five (nonprofit waiver and resale covenant standards) can follow as a second wave.

The four reforms in this addendum are similarly independent in their core zoning and process components. The lot consolidation reform and the timeline compression reform are immediately actionable and require no coordination with other code provisions. The density increase to 1 per 800 SF requires coordination with the original MMHRP ordinance language.

The §9.31.196 and MHO integration requires the five amendments above.

The MMHRP cottage court form, properly integrated with §9.31.196 and the MHO and supported by the three procedural reforms, would deliver approximately 290 new homes over the three-year benchmark period. At least 50 are deed-restricted at 80 percent AMI and at least 60 are deed-restricted at 200 percent AMI workforce, across three constituencies:
owner-occupants on R-1 and R-2 parcels (approximately 150 cottages), small family assemblies (20 to 40 cottages), and community assembly parcels (120 to 160 cottages). The community assembly pathway is the program's largest single production opportunity, unlocking capacity the City's Housing Element already recognizes but existing programs have failed to produce.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, MMHRP Addendum
April 2026
page 12 of 19
12 Appendix A: Owner-Occupant Pro Formas (R-1 6,000 SF and R-2 7,500 SF)
What the Recalibration Changes
The original MMHRP pro formas assumed 7 cottages on R-2 7,500 SF and 6 cottages on R-1 6,000 SF at $400 per square foot of hard cost. Two refinements require updating both pro formas in parallel. The first is the AB 130 prevailing wage exemption, which strips approximately 5 to 8 percent from the cost basis on cottage court projects under 85 feet. The defensible AB 130-corrected hard cost assumptions are $380 per square foot at the base, $430 at the high end, and $455 at the stress case.

The second refinement concerns density. The addendum proposes a zoning standard of 1 cottage per 800 SF of lot area, with the understanding that owner-occupants on conventional R-1 and R-2 parcels will build at Portland-matched density (approximately 7 cottages on 7,500 SF and 6 on 6,000 SF) for the reasons Portland's Residential Infill Project has produced cottage clusters at conservative densities even where the code permits more:
market preferences for slightly larger cottages, courtyard and parking constraints, fire access requirements, and construction efficiency at smaller cluster sizes.

Site and Program Comparison
Parameter R-2 7,500 SF R-1 6,000 SF
Parcel size 7,500 SF 6,000 SF
Zoning density permitted 1 per 800 SF (9 cottages max) 1 per 800 SF (7 cottages max) Portland-matched buildout 7 cottages 6 cottages
Cottage size 850 SF each 850 SF each
Total residential area 5,950 SF 5,100 SF
Built density (du/acre) 40.7 43.6
Owner-occupied units 1 1
Retained ADU rental units 1 1
Units sold at completion 5 4
Construction loan rate 9.25% 9.25%
Construction period 18 months 18 months
Building code classification R-3 per-building R-3 per-building CEQA pathway AB 130 exemption AB 130 exemption
Approval pathway 90-day ministerial 90-day ministerial

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, MMHRP Addendum
April 2026
page 13 of 19
13 Prevailing wage Exempt (AB 130) Exempt (AB 130)
Total Development Cost
Cost line
item R-2 base R-1 base R-2 high R-1 high R-2 stress R-1 stress Hard
construction
$2,261,000 $1,938,000 $2,558,500 $2,193,000 $2,707,250 $2,320,500 Soft costs
(32%)
$723,520 $620,160 $818,720 $701,760 $866,320 $742,560
Construction
interest
$248,461 $213,022 $281,154 $240,989 $297,500 $254,973
Total dev
cost
$3,232,981 $2,771,182 $3,658,374 $3,135,749 $3,871,070 $3,318,033 Per-unit TDC $461,854 $461,864 $522,625 $522,625 $553,010 $553,006 Per-unit TDC is essentially identical between R-2 and R-1 at each cost level, confirming internal consistency.

Cash at Completion: R-2 7,500 SF (5 Cottages Sold)
Cost basis Downside ($1.22M) Midpoint ($1.395M) Upside ($1.57M) Base $380/SF $2,562,019 $3,393,269 $4,224,519
High $430/SF $2,136,626 $2,967,876 $3,799,126
Stress $455/SF $1,923,930 $2,755,180 $3,586,430
Cash at Completion: R-1 6,000 SF (4 Cottages Sold)
Cost basis Downside ($1.22M) Midpoint ($1.395M) Upside ($1.57M) Base $380/SF $1,864,818 $2,529,818 $3,194,818
High $430/SF $1,500,251 $2,165,251 $2,830,251
Stress $455/SF $1,317,967 $1,982,967 $2,647,967
Both parcels deliver positive cash at completion across every cost and price combination.

The stress-case downside produces $1.9 million on R-2 and $1.3 million on R-1. 30-Year Owner-Occupant Position at Midpoint Pricing
The 30-year owner-occupant position combines cash at completion, accumulated ADU rental NOI (Proposition 13 protected, $4,000/month initial rent, 3 percent annual escalation), and the equity value of the 2 retained cottages.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, MMHRP Addendum
April 2026
page 14 of 19
14 Component R-2 7,500 SF R-1 6,000 SF
Cash at completion $3,393,269 $2,529,818
30-year ADU rental NOI $1,090,198 $1,090,198
Retained cottage equity (2 units,
current value)
$2,790,000 $2,790,000
Total 30-year position (current
dollars)
$7,273,467 $6,410,016
If the retained cottages appreciate at 3 percent annually over the 30-year hold, the year-30 nominal positions reach approximately $11.3 million on R-2 and $10.4 million on R-1.

AB 130 Improvement Attribution
Because owner-occupants build at Portland-matched cottage counts rather than the zoning maximum, the AB 130 cost basis correction is the single source of pro forma improvement on these parcels.

Parcel Original $400/SF AB 130 $380/SF Improvement
R-2 7,500 SF (7
cottages)
$3,223,112 $3,393,269 $170,157
R-1 6,000 SF (6
cottages)
$2,384,024 $2,529,818 $145,794
The improvement is approximately 5 percent of cash at completion on each parcel. The 1 per 800 SF zoning permission nevertheless serves three purposes on R-1 and R-2 even though most owner-occupants will not build to the maximum: RHNA-compatible default density, flexibility for family compounds, and accommodation for unusual site configurations.

Conservative Assumptions for Staff Review
The construction interest calculation assumes 60 percent average loan draw across 18 months. The 5 percent sales costs assumption is at the low end of the Santa Monica range of 5 to 7 percent. The 30-year ADU rental NOI assumes continuous occupancy. Staff should adjust these conservative assumptions in any final pro forma model used for ordinance development; none change the program viability conclusion.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, MMHRP Addendum
April 2026
page 15 of 19
15 Appendix B: Community Assembly Pro Forma (15,000 SF
Reference Project)
What the Reference Project Demonstrates
The 15,000 SF community assembly reference project tests whether the §9.31.196 cottage court alternative compliance pathway will pencil for congregations operating without public subsidy. The current §9.31.196 has produced zero units in three years because the 50 percent at 80 percent AMI affordability requirement creates a $2.1 million present-value financing gap no congregation can absorb. The reference project applies the proposed threetier mix (20 percent at 80 percent AMI rental, 30 percent at 200 percent AMI workforce sale, 50 percent market-rate) and demonstrates meaningful surplus across every reasonable cost and price combination.

The project assumes 18 cottages at 850 SF each on the 15,000 SF parcel, applying the 1 per 800 SF zoning standard at the maximum buildout the community assembly pathway can support. The mix is 4 affordable rental units retained by the congregation under a 55-year deed restriction at 80 percent AMI, 5 workforce sale units conveyed in fee subject to a 55- year deed restriction at 200 percent AMI with City right of first refusal, and 9 market-rate sale units that the congregation may sell free of covenant. The community assembly preservation budget of $200,000 covers ADA upgrades, interior reconfiguration, and shared facility improvements for continued worship use on the same parcel.

Site and Program
Parameter Value
Parcel size 15,000 SF
Zoning context R-1 or R-2 with §9.31.196 community assembly use Cottages 18 (at 1 per 800 SF)
Cottage size 850 SF each
Total residential area 15,300 SF
Built density 52.3 du/acre
Affordability mix 4 affordable / 5 workforce / 9 market Affordability ratio 50% covenanted (22% deep + 28% workforce) Land cost to congregation $0 (existing surface parking lot) Construction loan rate 9.25%
Construction period 18 months
Building code classification R-3 per-building

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, MMHRP Addendum
April 2026
page 16 of 19
16 CEQA pathway AB 130 statutory exemption
Approval pathway §9.31.196 ministerial Administrative Approval Total Development Cost
Cost line item Base $380/SF High $430/SF Stress $455/SF Hard residential (15,300
SF)
$5,814,000 $6,579,000 $6,961,500
Community assembly
preservation
$200,000 $200,000 $200,000
Total hard costs $6,014,000 $6,779,000 $7,161,500
Soft costs (32% of hard) $1,924,480 $2,169,280 $2,291,680 Construction loan
interest
$660,878 $744,742 $786,653
Total development cost $8,599,358 $9,693,022 $10,239,833 Per-cottage TDC $477,742 $538,501 $568,880
Surplus Across Nine Scenarios
Surplus represents revenue from selling 9 market-rate cottages (net of 5 percent sales costs) and 5 workforce cottages at $750,000, less total development cost. The 4 affordable rental units generate no sale proceeds but produce ongoing income.

Cost basis Downside ($1.22M) Midpoint ($1.395M) Upside ($1.57M) Base $380/SF $5,506,642 $7,002,892 $8,499,142
High $430/SF $4,412,776 $5,909,026 $7,405,276
Stress $455/SF $3,865,843 $5,362,093 $6,858,343
The stress-case downside still produces $3.9 million of surplus, enough to retire the construction loan, fund ongoing operations of the affordable rental units, and provide the congregation with capital reserves. Break-even market-rate price under the stress-case cost basis is approximately $768,000 per cottage, 37 percent below the downside forecast of $1,220,000.

Annual Congregation Income from Retained Assets
Under the CLT structure described in the addendum, the congregation's ongoing income combines net operating income from the 4 affordable rental units (which the congregation owns and operates directly) plus ground lease income from the 5 workforce cottages

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 1013 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, MMHRP Addendum
April 2026
page 17 of 19
17 (nominal) and 9 market-rate cottages (market rate). The congregation retains land title to all 14 conveyed cottages.

Income line item Annual amount
Gross rent (4 × $2,424/mo × 12) $116,352
Less vacancy and collection (5%) ($5,818)
Less operating expenses (30%, no property tax
under 501(c)(3))
($34,906)
Net rental income $75,629
Plus workforce ground leases (5 × $50/mo × 12) $3,000
Plus market-rate ground leases (9 × $200/mo × 12) $21,600 Total annual congregation income $100,229
Total annual income of approximately $100,000 represents recurring revenue for a congregation that previously earned zero from the parking lot. At a 6.0 percent capitalization rate, the income stream's capitalized value is approximately $1.67 million. The CLT structure also preserves the property tax exemption on the underlying land in perpetuity, eliminating an ongoing tax burden that would otherwise reduce both rental NOI and ground lease income.

Sensitivity to the Affordability Mix
The addendum recommends the 20/30/50 mix. The sensitivity table shows surplus at midpoint pricing and base cost across four alternatives.

Mix label Affordable Workforce Market Surplus
20/30/50
(recommended)
4 units 5 units 9 units $7,002,892
25/35/40 (more
affordable)
4 units 6 units 8 units $6,427,642
33/33/33 (initial
draft)
6 units 6 units 6 units $3,777,142
50/30/20 (current
§9.31.196)
9 units 5 units 4 units $376,642
The 50/30/20 row demonstrates why §9.31.196 has produced no units. The 50 percent at 80 percent AMI requirement leaves only $377,000 of surplus on an $8.7 million project, a 4 percent margin that no congregation can finance without public subsidy.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 1014 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, MMHRP Addendum
April 2026
page 18 of 19
18 The 45/35/25 mix (8 affordable rental at 80% AMI, 6 workforce sale at 200% AMI, 4 marketrate sale) is available as a backup if the Council wants to remain as close as possible to the intent of the current §9.31.196's 50% deep-affordability requirement while still permitting the program to function. The mix produces approximately $1.13 million of surplus at midpoint pricing under the base cost basis ($380/SF), compared to $7.0 million under the recommended 20/30/50 mix. Annual congregation income rises to approximately $164,000, reflecting the larger affordable rental portfolio (8 units instead of 4). However, the margin for error narrows sharply. However—and this could dissuade risk-sensitive congregations from participating—the mix produces only $462,000 of surplus under the downside-base scenario, and turns negative under any cost escalation to the high or stress range: a $632,000 deficit at $430/SF with downside pricing, and a $1.18 million deficit at $455/SF with downside pricing.

The break-even market-rate price under the stress-case cost basis is approximately $1,530,000 per cottage, 25 percent above the downside forecast of $1,220,000 — meaning that any combination of moderate cost overrun and modest market softening pushes the project into loss territory that no congregation can absorb. The 45/35/25 mix is feasible only if cost control is excellent and market pricing holds at or above the midpoint forecast through the delivery horizon (2028-29 at the earliest). Council should adopt this mix only if it explicitly accepts the production risk, and should consider pairing it with a Rotating Capital Pool backstop (as described in the primary memo) that activates if any individual project shows a feasibility shortfall during predevelopment underwriting. Ultimately the incremental payoff relative to the 50/30/20 mix may not be worth the increase in feasibility risk.

Scaling by Parcel Size
Community assembly parcels in Santa Monica range from approximately 6,000 SF to 30,000+ SF. The scaling table shows surplus at midpoint pricing and base cost across a range of sizes, holding the 20/30/50 mix constant.

Parcel size Cottages Total dev cost Surplus at midpoint 10,000 SF 12 $5,903,232 $5,048,268
15,000 SF 18 $8,599,358 $7,002,892
20,000 SF 25 $11,907,340 $9,995,660
25,000 SF 31 $14,678,467 $13,275,533
30,000 SF 38 $17,911,448 $15,518,302
Per-cottage TDC declines with parcel size as fixed costs amortize across more units. Larger parcels produce proportionally larger surplus and offer congregations the opportunity to develop in phases.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Landres, MMHRP Addendum
April 2026
page 19 of 19
19 Production Capacity Across the Category 11 Inventory Housing Element Appendix F Category 11 identifies 38 community assembly parcels with combined area of 555,589 SF and an estimated 257-unit capacity. Applying the 1 per 800 SF zoning standard to the full inventory produces a theoretical maximum of 695 cottages. The realistic production estimate is lower because not every congregation will develop, parcels below approximately 9,000 SF lack scale for the three-tier mix, and some parcels have site constraints that limit buildable area. An estimated 120 to 160 units could be produced under the modified MMHRP three-tier pathway over the 6th and 7th cycles combined.

Cost and Price Calibration
The hard cost basis reflects current Los Angeles wood-frame residential construction costs with the AB 130 prevailing wage exemption applied. The market-rate cottage price range of $1,220,000 to $1,570,000 reflects current Santa Monica condominium pricing with a 10 to 15 percent new-construction detached premium and 3 to 5 percent annual appreciation through 2028-2029 delivery. The 200 percent AMI workforce sale price of $750,000 tracks the 2025 Los Angeles County AMI of $213,200 at 200 percent, producing an affordable purchase at standard underwriting (35 percent DTI, 6.5 percent mortgage rate, 30-year term).

Conservative Assumptions for Staff Review
The construction interest calculation assumes 60 percent average draw across 18 months.

The 5 percent sales costs assumption is at the low end of the Santa Monica range. The 30 percent operating expense ratio assumes a relatively efficient owner-operator model. The community assembly preservation budget of $200,000 covers typical ADA upgrades and interior reconfiguration; congregations with deferred maintenance or aspirational facility upgrades will spend more, and those costs should be evaluated as separate capital projects.

None of these conservative assumptions changes the conclusion about program viability.

13.A.b
Packet Pg. 1016 Attachment: Exhibit A (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) 1 David Yakobson
From: Beth Edelstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 10:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Middle Income Housing

EXTERNAL
**Re: Planning Commission recommendations on missing middle housing (City Council, July 14, 2026)**
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am a Santa Monica resident, I urge you to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendations on missing middle housing.

Santa Monica has no reliable path to house the workforce that keeps the city running. Teachers, firefighters, nurses, and others earning roughly 120 to 200 percent of Area Median Income make too much to qualify for subsidized housing and too little to buy a home here. The Commission's recommendations would begin to close that gap with small-scale homes that fit into existing neighborhoods.

I ask the Council to:
- Define missing middle housing for Santa Monica, addressing both the building form and the workforce income band (roughly 120 to 200 percent of Area Median Income, refined against Santa Monica's actual wages).
- Direct staff to study the cottage-court program in Exhibit A, and related options, as the starting point for an implementable program, scoped to align with the 7th-cycle Housing Element. - As part of that study, include the supporting pieces the program needs to work: the feasibility and nexus studies, fee adjustments, pre-approved plans, accelerated ministerial review, a revolving capital fund, and lot-consolidation allowances.
- Refine Santa Monica's existing programs that encourage local congregations to build housing on their land, including an alternative-compliance pathway for the Community Assembly program (SMMC § 9.31.196), so those programs finally produce homes. - Support AB 1070, now pending in the State Senate, which would study moving small residential buildings of 3 to 10 units to the simpler California Residential Code, a change that would lower the cost of building these homes.

Most of all, Santa Monica needs real incentives to build the homes that people who live and work here can afford. I ask the Council to put those incentives in place so this housing gets built locally, for the residents and workers.

Given the abundance of vacant commercial
Real estate in SM, policies and streamlining tactics for utilizing/converting existing space into housing is worth exploring.

Item 13-A
July 28, 2026
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 1017 Attachment: Written comments (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) 2 Not to mention the Olympics around the corner. We need to get some short and long term solutions enacted swiftly.

Please take this up as a policy matter and direct staff to begin the study. Thank you for your work on behalf of the city.

Respectfully,
Beth Edelstein
Beverley Ave, Santa Monica
[email protected]

BETH EDELSTEIN

LANDSCAPE DESIGN
Certified Sustainable Landscape Designer/Installer City of Santa Monica Endorsed by Buy Local Santa Monica
Check out my projects on: Instagram, my Website and Houzz Venmo @Beth-Edelstein-1
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

CA-27 Lic.# 809888
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: Written comments (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) 3 David Yakobson
From: Brianna Shepard <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 8:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: J. Shawn Landres; [email protected]; Kellen Quinn; Rabbi Hannah Jensen; Tony Gittelson; Anita Siegman
Subject: Middle Income Housing in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
**Re: Planning Commission recommendations on missing middle housing (13-A, City Council, July 28, 2026)**
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am a Santa Monica resident and I urge you to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendations on missing middle housing.

9.31.196), so those programs finally produce homes.
- Support AB 1070, now pending in the State Senate, which would study moving small residential buildings of 3 to 10 units to the simpler California Residential Code, a change that would lower the cost of building these homes.

Item 13-A
July 28, 2026
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 1019 Attachment: Written comments (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) 4 I currently live in a rent-controlled apartment in Santa Monica, where I raised my son as a single mother, and where I've lived for many years. I also work in Santa Monica, and I cannot afford to leave this home because, on a school counselor's salary, I do not have the means to pay full freight for any other housing in my beloved city.

Please take this up as a policy matter and direct staff to begin the study. Thank you for your work on behalf of our city.

Respectfully,
Brianna Shepard
11th Street, Santa Monica
[email protected]
--
Brianna Shepard
[email protected]
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 1020 Attachment: Written comments (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) 5 David Yakobson
From: Anita Siegman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 8:29 PM
To: Brianna Shepard
Cc: councilmtgitems; J. Shawn Landres; [email protected]; Kellen Quinn; Rabbi Hannah Jensen; Tony Gittelson
Subject: Re: Middle Income Housing in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Brianna,
This is a beautifully concise letter, a plea for middle housing support.

The need is undeniable. I am quite sure you speak for many residents young and old, in Santa Monica.

All the best to you,
Anita
On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 8:00 PM Brianna Shepard <[email protected]> wrote:
**Re: Planning Commission recommendations on missing middle housing (13-A, City Council, July 28, 2026)**
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am a Santa Monica resident and I urge you to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendations on missing middle housing.

9.31.196), so those programs finally produce homes.

Item 13-A
July 28, 2026
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 1021 Attachment: Written comments (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) 6 - Support AB 1070, now pending in the State Senate, which would study moving small residential buildings of 3 to 10 units to the simpler California Residential Code, a change that would lower the cost of building these homes.

I currently live in a rent-controlled apartment in Santa Monica, where I raised my son as a single mother, and where I've lived for many years. I also work in Santa Monica, and I cannot afford to leave this home because, on a school counselor's salary, I do not have the means to pay full freight for any other housing in my beloved city.

Please take this up as a policy matter and direct staff to begin the study. Thank you for your work on behalf of our city.

Respectfully,
Brianna Shepard
11th Street, Santa Monica
[email protected]
--
Brianna Shepard
[email protected]
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 1022 Attachment: Written comments (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) 1 David Yakobson
From: Ethan Goldstine <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 13-A

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and members of the City Council:

I have lived in Santa Monica for over 36 years, now on 4th and Georgina.

I am writing to urge you to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendations for encouraging the development of "missing middle" housing in Santa Monica.

It is crucial for the city's long term health that workers who earn 120%-200% of AMI can afford to live here in Santa Monica. I am of course happy that the city has been helping to build housing for those earning under the AMI, but we also need the middle income workers that keep our city and our city's economy running.

I support the Commission's recommendation for encouraging the building of smaller homes in existing neighborhoods.

We need incentives for builders to create homes that people who live and work in Santa Monica can afford!
I hope you adopt the Commission's recommendations.

Thank you,
Ethan Goldstine
[email protected]
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026

13.A.c
Packet Pg. 1023 Attachment: Written comments (7773 : Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Missing Middle Housing) Missing Middle Housing
Realignment Plan
Shawn Landres, Planning Commissioner
Presentation to City Council
July 28, 2026
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026

13.A.d
Packet Pg. 1024 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7773 : Planning What Is Missing Middle Housing?
The housing types that sit between single-family houses and large apartment buildings: duplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, and small apartment buildings at neighborhood scale.

The missing middle income band
Homes priced for households at roughly 120–200% of Area Median Income (teachers, firefighters, nurses) who earn too much for subsidized housing and too little to buy here.

The form drives affordability
The right size and density produce workforce-range prices on the open market, without deedrestricting every unit.

Item 13-A
July 28, 2026
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026

13.A.d
Packet Pg. 1025 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7773 : Planning Who Is Missing from Santa Monica
Firefighter + Teacher
$100,700 + $62,500
Police Officer + Spouse
$110,484 + working spouse
Nurse raising children
$110,000
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026

13.A.d
Packet Pg. 1026 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7773 : Planning The Cottage Court
6–7 detached cottages
7 on R-2 (7,500 SF), 6 on R-1 (6,000 SF), around a shared courtyard 850 SF each, 28–30 feet
Type V-A wood frame, two stories, R-3 per building
Unified street facade
neighborhood scale preserved
At least 1 deed-restricted at 200% AMI
the workforce covenant
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026

13.A.d
Packet Pg. 1027 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7773 : Planning A Recognized Building Form
The MMHRP establishes the cottage court as a permitted building form across every pathway where missing middle housing belongs.

R-1
Single-family parcels
R-2
Small multifamily parcels
MHO
Moderate Income Housing
Overlay
§9.31.196
Community assembly parcels
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026

13.A.d
Packet Pg. 1028 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7773 : Planning Eight Policy Updates
Density at 1 per 800 SF RHNA-compatible across every eligible parcel size AHPP ratcheted fee trade Reduced fee in exchange for 200% AMI workforce covenant Disaggregated transportation fee Unbundled from parking; zero-parking projects pay less Pre-approved plans + rapid ministerial review 30-day expedited for pre-approved plans; modeled on SB 684 and SB 1123
R-3 building code classification Per building, not per project. Saves ~10% on hard costs.

13.A.d
Packet Pg. 1029 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7773 : Planning The Community Assembly Pathway
Congregation-owned parking lots. Zero units in three years.

The Mix
50%
Market-rate sale
congregational discretion
30%
Workforce sale
at 200% AMI
20%
Affordable rental
at 80% AMI
Land stays in tax-exempt hands.

Congregation retains fee title; cottages conveyed as improvements only on a 99-year ground lease.

Net profit to the congregation helps finance parking replacement or access as needed.

Item 13-A
July 28, 2026
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026

13.A.d
Packet Pg. 1030 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7773 : Planning Community Assembly: What's Different
Three amendments that apply only to §9.31.196 projects. 1 §9.31.196 Alternative Compliance
50/30/20 mix replaces the 50% at 80% AMI requirement that has produced nothing. Lot tie permits adjacent-parcel community assembly retention.
2 Nonprofit Developer Partner Waiver
Waivable where the congregation (or an affiliated 501(c)(3)) demonstrates operational capacity through facility management and fiduciary governance.
3 CLT Ground Lease Standards
99-year renewable term. Formula resale for the workforce tier. Land may not be transferred out of tax-exempt ownership.

Item 13-A
July 28, 2026
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026

13.A.d
Packet Pg. 1031 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7773 : Planning New Housing for Working Santa Monicans
R-1 and R-2 Owner-Occupants ~150 cottages
Original program scope, Portland-matched buildout
Family Assemblies (consolidation) 20–40 cottages
Adjacent parcel assemblies under courtyard exception
Community Assembly Parcels 120–160 cottages
Three-tier mix on §9.31.196 parcels, no public subsidy
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026
Item 13-A
July 28, 2026

13.A.d
Packet Pg. 1032 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7773 : Planning City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 28, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Appointments to seven seats on the new Restorative Justice Commission - Four seats available for terms ending June 30, 2030 and three seats available for terms ending June 30, 2028. The members first appointed shall so classify themselves by lot that the term of three members shall expire in 2028.

Thereafter, these seats would be for 4-year terms (continued from 07/14/2026)
Prepared By: David Yakobson, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List
B. Written Comments

16.A
Packet Pg. 1033
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Restorative Justice Commission
Name Application Date
Brown, Virginia J. 07/07/2026
Cowart, Jaenell 06/17/2026
DeBaca, Gina 07/07/2026
de la Torre, Oscar 07/08/2026
Dixon, Karina 07/08/2026
Frye, Kelli G. 07/07/2026
Gunn, Karen S. 06/30/2026
Harrington, Schinal J. 07/07/2026
Lindsay, Peta M. 07/15/2026
Loya, Maria L. 07/08/2026
Muqtasid St. Claire, Hajar^ 07/08/2026
Ortiz, Ailsa Giselle E. 07/08/2026
Scott, Caylee D. 06/23/2026
Wells, Willa F. 07/07/2026
Zepeda, Lainie 06/10/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 15
^ Currently serves on the Housing Authority Board

16.A.a
Packet Pg. 1034 Attachment: Applicant List (7817 : 16.A. Appointments to seven seats on the Restorative Justice Commission (5 mins.)) 1 David Yakobson
From: Hajar Muqtasid St. Claire <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems; councilmtgitems; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Robbie J5; Janet McKeithen; Joanne Berlin; Joanne Berlin; Angela Scott
Subject: Black Apology Action Steps

EXTERNAL
Please consider the Restorative Justice applicants with more scrutiny. Are they in alignment with the Black Apology given by City Council in November 2022? Please review the following document about tje Black Apology Action Steps.

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

Black Apology Action Steps
Thank you,
Hajar Muqtasid St. Claire
Item 16-A
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026
Item 16-A
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026

16.A.c
Packet Pg. 1035 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7817 : 16.A. Appointments to seven seats on the Restorative Justice Commission (5 mins.)) 2 David Yakobson
From: Joanne Berlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: CRJ input on item 16A

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
Congratulations for your work in establishing a new commission that will be dealing with restorative justice to historically underserved communities of color in Santa Monica. You have heard from the Committee For Racial Justice (CRJ) over the years on many topics and I am pleased to write to you today to share our endorsements of the following persons to serve on this important commission to be named this evening in item 16A on your agenda: Hajar Muqtasid St. Claire, Karen Gunn, Schinal Herrington, Willa Wells, and Alisa Ortiz.

I am writing to you on behalf of the Housing subcommittee of the Committee For Racial Justice. At our recent meeting, we discussed the importance of the new Restorative Justice Commission for Santa Monica and are recommending the five names mentioned above for your consideration.

Thank you for your votes tonight on this landmark commission to address harms done and move us forward in the quest for more equity in Santa Monica.

Joanne Berlin, CRJ Coordinator
Item 16-A
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026
Item 16-A
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026

16.A.c
Packet Pg. 1036 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7817 : 16.A. Appointments to seven seats on the Restorative Justice Commission (5 mins.)) 1 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 9:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis Subject: Meeting /25/2026. ITEM 16 A Restorative Justice Commission Applicants

EXTERNAL
I hope you appoint both Gina De Baca
and Muqtasid St.Claire, Hajar.

They are both uniquely qualified and will bring a strong sense of community and our history to the table.

Of course, Oscar and Maria would do a great job too.

Thank you for considering them.

Gina should have long been recognized for her contributions to this City.. sad to see she has not been. We pretend to care about DEI but do we really? I wonder.

Danielle Charney
Item 16-A
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026
Item 16-A
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026

16.A.c
Packet Pg. 1037 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7817 : 16.A. Appointments to seven seats on the Restorative Justice Commission (5 mins.)) 2 David Yakobson
From: Julie Rusk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 9:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: #16A Support appointment of Dr. Karen S Gunn

EXTERNAL
Mayor & Council,
I am writing to enthusiastically support the appointment of Dr. Karen S. Gunn to the City's new Restorative Justice Commission (07.28.26 item #16A).

Karen is exceptionally well qualified, having dedicated much of her professional career and community leadership to advancing social and economic justice. As college professor and organizational psychologist, her work has long been grounded in diversity, equity, and inclusion — well before DEI became a part of the broader public conversation.

We began working together when Karen was appointed to the City's Social Services Commission in 1998. I was the City’s Human Services Manager. Together, Karen and I navigated a wide range of controversial and sensitive community issues requiring civic engagement, particularly in the years when Karen was the elected Commission Chair. I also had the privilege of working with Karen on the Human Relations Council (HRC). Over the past six years, we have served on the HRC’s Executive Committee including several years as Board Co-Chairs.

I have consistently found Karen to be an insightful, strategic, and highly effective leader bringing clarity of purpose and building consensus across diverse perspectives. She approaches complex issues with integrity, sounds judgment, and intellectual rigor. Karen is steadfast in her commitment to public service.

I am confident that the City would be exceptionally well served by Dr. Karen S. Gunn’s appointment. I offer my strongest recommendation and encourage you to select her for this important role.

Respectfully,
Julie Rusk
—
Julie Rusk
Co-Founder, Civic Wellbeing Partners
Board Co-Chair, Santa Monica Human Relations Council
Community Wellbeing Program
Item 16-A
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026
Item 16-A
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026

16.A.c
Packet Pg. 1038 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7817 : 16.A. Appointments to seven seats on the Restorative Justice Commission (5 mins.)) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council

EXTERNAL
Mayor & Council,
I am writing to enthusiastically support the appointment of Dr.

Karen S. Gunn to the City's new Restorative Justice
Commission (07.28.26 item #16A).

Karen is exceptionally well qualified, and has an enormous amount of experience. She is not only compassionate,
dedicated and intelligent, she knows how to navigate systems.

Navigating oppressive systems and working with committees and getting things done are vital in this work and Dr Gunn has the expertise in all three. She also is adept and working with challenging personalities without disrespecting the people involved. She has dedicated much of her professional career and community leadership to advancing social and economic justice and she spent years helping to create the Equity Center at Santa Monica College
Dr. Gunn is insightful, strategic, and has immense amount of integrity. She does not play the games that keep progress from happening
I offer my strongest recommendation and encourage you to select her for this important role.

Rev Janet Gollery McKeithen
Minister, The Church in Ocean Park
Director, Santa Monica Bay Human Relations Council
Steering Committee, the Committee for Racial Justice
Item 16-A
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026
Item 16-A
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026

16.A.c
Packet Pg. 1039 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7817 : 16.A. Appointments to seven seats on the Restorative Justice Commission (5 mins.)) 1 David Yakobson
From: Erika Bell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 2:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item #16A - Support appointment of Dr. Karen Gunn to the RJ Commission

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of the appointment of Dr. Karen Gunn to the Restorative Justice Commission.

I have known Dr. Gunn for a few years now while serving on the Board of the Santa Monica Bay Area Human Relations Council. As a Santa Monica resident, college professor, organizational psychologist, and active social justice advocate, Dr. Gunn brings exactly what the Commission needs. Our city would truly benefit.

I urge you to select her for the Restorative Justice Commission.

Take care,
Erika Bell
Item 16-A
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026
Item 16-A
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026

16.A.c
Packet Pg. 1040 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7817 : 16.A. Appointments to seven seats on the Restorative Justice Commission (5 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 28, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Appointments to seven seats on the consolidated Housing & Human Services Commission with three 4-year terms ending on June 30, 2030, three 2-year terms ending on June 30, 2028, and one term ending on June 30, 2027 (continued from 07/14/2026)
Prepared By: David Yakobson, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List
B. Written Comments

16.B
Packet Pg. 1041
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Housing & Human Services Commission
Name Application Date
Badawy, Adam 07/01/2026
Cobb, Sara B.^ 07/07/2026
Flanigan, Naomi 07/07/2026
Garcia, Lydia^* 06/11/2026
Gill, Sadie 07/15/2026
Hawkins, Patrice 07/07/2026
Hood, Herschel E.* 07/06/2026
Kozicki, William 07/02/2026
Morrow, Brett 07/01/2026
Porlas, Dustin J.^ 06/29/2026
Roku, Furosuti^ 07/22/2026
Terranova, Michael 07/06/2026
Van Ness, Jon^* 07/06/2026
Wells, Willa F. 07/07/2026
White III, Jack M.^ 06/22/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 15
^ Applying to the Affordable Housing program participant who was formerly unhoused seat
* Applying to the Affordable Housing program participant who is 62 years or older seat

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1042 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 1] (7818 : 16.B. Appointments to seven seats on the Housing & Human Services Commission (5 mins.)) 1 David Yakobson
From: Joanne Berlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 12:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: CRJ input on item 16B

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
I am writing to you on behalf of the Housing subcommittee of the Committee For Racial Justice. At our recent meeting, we discussed the candidates for the Housing & Human Services Commission and are recommending two candidates for your consideration. We hope you will vote in item 16B for Brett Morrow and William Kozicki.

Thank you,
Joanne Berlin, CRJ Coordinator
Item 16-B
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026
Item 16-B
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1043 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7818 : 16.B. Appointments to seven seats on the Housing & Human Services Commission (5 1 David Yakobson
From: Joanne Berlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 12:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: CRJ input on item 16B

Thank you,
Joanne Berlin, CRJ Coordinator
Item 16-B
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026
Item 16-B
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026

16.B.c
Packet Pg. 1044 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7818 : 16.B. Appointments to seven seats on the Housing & Human Services Commission (5 City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 28, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.C
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Annual Appointments to the following Boards and Commissions (Continued from 6/23/2026):

Board/Commission No. of Seats Term End
Date
Special Requirements
Airport Commission 1 6/30/2030
Resident of Santa Monica
(Term may be adjusted due to
Airport Conversion Project)
Architectural Review Board 2 6/30/2030
Persons qualified to: analyze
architectural and environmental
trends/information; appraise
resource uses per Municipal
Code; and be responsive to
needs of the community. Experts
in conservation, recreation,
design, landscaping, the arts,
urban planning, cultural-historical
preservation, and ecological and
environmental science
Arts Commission 1 6/30/2030
Reside or work in Santa Monica
and shall be actively involved in
the arts
Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax
Citizens Oversight Committee 2 6/30/2030 Resident of Santa Monica Commission on Sustainability,
Environmental Justice and the
Environment
2 6/30/2030
Reside or work in Santa Monica
and must have significant
expertise in one of the following

16.C
Packet Pg. 1045
2 of 3
areas: Energy, water,
transportation, stormwater,
wastewater, coastal issues, waste
reduction and public health, land
use and sustainable development,
public education
Disabilities Commission
1 6/30/2030
Resident of Santa Monica who
self identifies with a disability
1 Resident of Santa Monica with
significant experience in the
disability community
Downtown Santa Monica. Inc. 3 6/30/2030
Directors shall be City residents
or persons who are employed,
own property or hold business
licenses in the City of Santa
Monica.

Housing Authority Board
1 6/30/2028
Housing Choice Voucher (Section
8) participant with a voucher
issued by the Santa
Monica Housing Authority
program
1 Housing Choice Voucher (Section
8) participant with a voucher
issued by the Santa Monica
Housing Authority program and
be formerly unhoused
L.A. County West Vector Control
District 1 6/30/2030 Registered Santa Monica voter
Landmarks Commission
1 6/30/2030
Resident of Santa Monica over
the age of 18 and an architect
historian
1 6/30/2030
Resident of Santa Monica over
the age of 18 with demonstrated
interest and knowledge, to the
highest extent practicable, of local
history
1 6/30/2030 Resident of Santa Monica over
the age of 18
Personnel Board 1 6/30/2030
Either a resident of Santa Monica,
resident of Los Angeles County
that is employed full-time within

16.C
Packet Pg. 1046
3 of 3
Santa Monica, owns real property
in Santa Monica, or has been
issued a business license by
Santa Monica
Planning Commission 1 6/30/2030 Resident of Santa Monica Public Safety Reform and Oversight
Commission
1 6/30/2027 Resident of Santa Monica
between the ages of 18 and 25
(Pending legislation) 1 6/30/2029
Recreation and Parks Commission 2 6/30/2030 Resident of Santa Monica Santa Monica Library Board 2 6/30/2030 Resident of Santa Monica Santa Monica Pier Corporation 4 6/30/2030
At least one shall be a resident of
Santa Monica, with the remaining
being residents or persons who
do business or are employed in
Santa Monica
Santa Monica Travel and Tourism,
Inc. 3 6/30/2030 At least one shall be a resident of Santa Monica Prepared By: David Yakobson, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Boards & Commissions Voluntary Self-Identification Survey B. Applicant List
C. Written Comments

16.C
Packet Pg. 1047
Boards & Commissions 2026 Voluntary Self-Identification Survey

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1048 Attachment: Boards & Commissions Voluntary Self-Identification Survey (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) Boards & Commissions 2026 Voluntary Self-Identification Survey

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1049 Attachment: Boards & Commissions Voluntary Self-Identification Survey (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) Boards & Commissions 2026 Voluntary Self-Identification Survey 41 2 1
0 10
20 30
40 50
English Hindi Urdu

11. Primary language(s) spoken at home:
1 2
4 1
2 10
1 14
1 1
2 2
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 12. Religious Affiliation(s):

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1050 Attachment: Boards & Commissions Voluntary Self-Identification Survey (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) Boards & Commissions 2026 Voluntary Self-Identification Survey

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1051 Attachment: Boards & Commissions Voluntary Self-Identification Survey (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Airport Commission
Name Application Date
Reynolds, Diane P.* 06/12/2026
Hoevet, Zachary T. 04/01/2026
Hopkins, David J. 06/14/2026
Lopez, Eve 03/12/2026
Smith, Mark H. 06/10/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 5
* Incumbent

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 1052 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 5] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Architectural Review Board
Name Application Date
Coffman, Barbara J.* 06/02/2026
Alper, Andrew 06/01/2026
Bouvrie, Jack C. 06/05/2026
Folonis, Michael 04/27/2026
Gill, Sadie 07/15/2026
Lo, Yu-Ngok^ 04/07/2026
Sharif, Mohamed 06/01/2026
Wilson, James M.^ 06/09/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 8
* Incumbent
^ Serves on the Building & Fire-life Safety Commission

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 1053 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 5] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Arts Commission
Name Application Date
Agadjanean, Gheorghi 05/04/2026
Bar-Kar, Varda 06/08/2026
Carlson, Julius R. 06/02/2026
Carter, Lauren A. 06/17/2026
Daly, Lee Ann 06/19/2026
DeBaca, Gina 02/25/2026
Devis, Juanita 02/11/2026
Hansen, Molly 06/04/2026
Huerto, Leandro A. 06/03/2026
Kaplan, David A. 04/06/2026
Kim, Mouse 06/16/2026
Lyness, Francine 05/04/2026
Milanovich, Charles J. 06/03/2026
Ning, Ning 09/15/2025
Porlas, Dustin J. 05/15/2026
Thompson, Bobbi D. 05/17/2026
Vazquez Tompkins, Alyce M. 02/09/2026
Visentini, Tommaso 05/28/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 18

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 1054 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 5] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens
Oversight Committee
Name Application Date
Kay, Benjamin W.* 05/13/2026
Gino, Tughela 06/16/2026
Silber, Justin 06/15/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 3
* Incumbent

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 1055 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 5] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Commission on Sustainability, Environmental
Justice and the Environment
Name Application Date
Lempert, Robert J.* 06/04/2026
Tower, Alexandra* 06/01/2026
Kay, Benjamin W.^ 05/13/2026
Kiper, Tamay 05/05/2026
Lappen, David 04/15/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 5
* Incumbent
^ Serves on the Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committee

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 1056 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 5] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Disabilities Commission
Name Application Date
Clark, Teresa R.*^ 06/14/2026
Rakfeldt, Gerald* 06/13/2026
Helms, William S.^ 09/30/2025
Levy, Helayne S.^ 10/20/2025
Lyness, Francine 05/04/2026
Muntaner, Zoë^ 07/07/2026
Townsend, Derrick 05/04/2026
VerSteeg, Patricia A.^ 07/29/2025
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 8
*
^
Incumbent
Applying to a seatfor those who self-identify with a disability

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 1057 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 5] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.

Name Application Date
Besser, Sean* 06/08/2026
Kruger, Judy* 05/24/2026
Patterson IV, Hodge* 05/27/2026
Badawy, Adam 06/02/2026
Brown, Alexander 07/30/2025
Carter, Lauren A. 06/17/2026
Dubin, Michael 05/28/2026
Grigas, Stacey 04/16/2026
Hawley, Ryan 04/20/2026
Kim, Mouse 06/16/2026
White III, Jack M. 06/10/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 11
* Incumbent

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 1058 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 5] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Housing Authority Board
Name Application Date
Eady, Jonathan* 05/07/2026
Muqtasid St. Claire, Hajar* 06/15/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 2
* Incumbent

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 1059 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 5] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
L.A. County West Vector Control District
Name Application Date
Greenstein, Nancy* 06/08/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 1
* Incumbent

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 1060 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 5] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Landmarks Commission
Name Application Date
Genser, Roger A.* 05/31/2026
Lemlein, Carol M.* 06/09/2026
O’Connor, Pam* 06/16/2026
May, Joseph 06/02/2026
Price, Robert 02/01/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 5
* Incumbent

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 1061 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 5] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Personnel Board
Name Application Date
Lewis, Noelle K.* 04/22/2026
Betancourt, Karen 06/09/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 2
* Incumbent

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 1062 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 5] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Planning Commission
Name Application Date
Badawy, Adam 06/02/2026
Ewing, Bradley^ 07/20/2026
Gill, Sadie 07/15/2026
Selby, Elizabeth A. 06/02/2026
Warner, Miles S. 01/13/2026
Webb, Connor 06/16/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 6
^ Currently serves on the Recreation & Parks Commission

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 1063 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 5] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission
Name Application Date
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 0

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 1064 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 5] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Recreation & Parks Commission
Name Application Date
Rosenbaum, Barry A.* 06/09/2026
Badawy, Adam 06/02/2026
Barba-Padilla, Bee 06/05/2026
Bauer, Jessica 02/22/2026
Campbell, Daniel 02/04/2026
Carter, Lauren A. 06/17/2026
Goldenberg, Matthew 03/05/2026
Miller, Shirin 05/15/2026
Porlas, Dustin J. 05/15/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 9
* Incumbent

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 1065 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 5] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Santa Monica Library Board
Name Application Date
Meister, Judith R.* 06/02/2026
Newman, Dana* 05/04/2026
Hugh-Jones, Dan 04/02/2026
Prasad, Nina K. 04/01/2026
Reardon, William 06/02/2026
Walsh, Meghan 04/29/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 6
* Incumbent

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 1066 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 5] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Santa Monica Pier Corporation
Name Application Date
Rubin, Carter* 06/09/2026
Trinh, Peter* 05/20/2026
Boole, Kathryn W. 06/05/2026
Carter, Lauren A. 06/17/2027
Deni, Frederick J. 06/11/2026
Kim, Mouse 06/16/2026
Lozano, Rachel” 07/22/2026
Nathan, Natasha 06/12/2026
Scott, Angela D.^ 07/17/2026
White III, Jack M. 06/10/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 10
*
^
“
Incumbent
Currently serves on the Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission Late submittal

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 1067 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 5] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, Inc.

Name Application Date
Defuria, Tim* 06/15/2026
Evans, Darlene* 05/28/2026
Ginsberg, Karen E.* 04/06/2026
Badawy, Adam 06/02/2026
Chowdhary, Harshvardhan 06/02/2026
Jaffe, Mark 05/04/2026
Mouse, Kim 06/16/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 7
* Incumbent

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 1068 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 5] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: karen Ginsberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 6:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Misti Kerns (Santa Monica Travel & Tourism)
Subject: June 28th Council Meeting Item 16C, Reappointment to Santa Monica Travel & Tourism Inc.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro-Tem Zwick and Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council:

While I am currently out of town and unable to attend next Tuesday's Council meeting, I am writing to formally express my interest in being reappointed to a second term on the Santa Monica Travel and Tourism (SMTT) Board of Directors.

It has been a privilege to serve on the Board. During my first term I have been an Executive Officer, initially in the capacity of Treasurer and currently as Board Secretary. I am eager to continue contributing to the growth and success of Santa Monica’s tourism industry.

As a long time Santa Monica resident and former City Department Head, I remain deeply committed to the city’s economic vitality through strategic tourism initiatives. Being reappointed to a second term would allow me to continue providing a valuable perspective on the Board.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Karen Ginsberg
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1069 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 2 David Yakobson
From: Mark SmithTV <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 6:25 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Airport Commission

EXTERNAL
Dave Hopkins is exceptionally well qualified to serve on the Santa Monica Airport Commission.

He is a longtime Santa Monica resident, licensed pilot, aircraft owner, and certified flight instructor who has attended more than thirty Airport Commission meetings. His extensive aviation experience and commitment to the community make him uniquely qualified to serve.

Diane Reynolds has completed her appointed term, has a conflict of interest and lives next to the airport.

She has zero aviation knowledge or experience. There may be concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest involving this commissioner's family member, those issues should be reviewed under the City's ethics rules and applicable California law.

Mark Smith
310 213 0790
http://duenorthproduction.com
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1070 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 3 David Yakobson
From: Ryan Haid <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2026 12:51 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Dave Hopkins for Airport Commission

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I'm writing to request that you consider Dave Hopkins for the Airport Commission. Dave is exceptionally well qualified. As a longtime Santa Monica resident, he brings both a deep understanding of the community and decades of firsthand aviation experience. Dave is a licensed pilot, certified flight instructor and aircraft owner, giving him practical knowledge of airport operations, aviation safety, and the needs of the general aviation community. He has also demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to public service by attending more than 30 Airport Commission meetings, where he has consistently followed the Commission's work and engaged thoughtfully in issues affecting the airport. His combination of technical aviation expertise, civic involvement, and long-standing ties to Santa Monica would make him a knowledgeable and effective member of the Commission. The Airport Commission exists to advise the City Council on matters relating to the Municipal Airport and aviation issues affecting the City, and Dave's experience is directly aligned with that mission. Current Airport Commission members have no aviation knowledge - this is a safety liability for the City and the entire community.

Thank you,
Ryan Haid
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1071 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 4 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2026 5:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: July 28, 2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item 16C: Annual Appointments - Airport Commission

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Esteemed Councilmembers -
I write today to encourage you to reappoint Diane Reynolds to the Airport Commission.

Diane and I met each other many years ago working together on the Samohi PTSA Executive Board. She is unfailingly thorough, diligent, organized, thoughtful, kind, well-spoken, and possesses pretty much every other excellent quality you might hope to find in a CoSM appointed board or commission member.

Further, she has served with balance, prudence, and distinction as a past Chair of the Airport Commission.

Her calm, steady, and bridge-building presence will be a continuing asset on this commission as the City proceeds toward anticipated closure at the end of 2028.

Thank you for your time in reading this and I hope you'll vote to reappoint Diane! All the best,
Ann Bowman
Santa Monica resident, 29+ years
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1072 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 5 David Yakobson
From: John Fairweather <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2026 5:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: July 28 - Please re-appoint Diane Reynolds to the Airport Commission

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I write in support of Diane Reynolds re-appointment to the Airport Commission which is before you on July 28th.

Diane has gained and applied irreplaceable expertise during the last four years on all matters relating the airport, and has served as the commission's chair for the last two years. While performing her commission duties, Diane has been a key voice for the public, while at the same time calmly facing down continuous harassment from those seeking to overturn the City’s clear and stated positions on the airport’s future.

The city and community simply cannot afford to enter these last crucial airport years without Diane’s skill and expertise in the airport commission.

Please re-appoint Diane Reynolds to another term in the Airport Commission.

Sincerely,
John Fairweather
Board Member: Great Park Coalition & Airport2Park, and chair of Measure LC Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1073 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 6 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2026 5:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Council 7/28 item 16-A - Airport Comm - Support re-appointment of Diane Reynolds

EXTERNAL

Dear Mayor Torosis and City Council members,

I write to support the re-appointment of Diane Reynolds to the Airport Commission.

Diane has served on the Commission for 4 years and is currently the Chair.

I have attended Airport Commission meetings and observed that Diane is always extremely well prepared for the meetings, and that she works collaboratively and effectively with her fellow Commissioners and with staff.

I hope that you will give Diane an opportunity to serve for 4 more more years on the Airport Commission.

Thank you for your consideration.

Zina Josephs
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1074 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 7 David Yakobson
From: Patti Braun <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2026 7:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Agenda Item 16c: Annual Appointments

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Council Members,
We are writing in strong support of the reappointment of Diane Reynolds to the Santa Monica Airport Commission.

We have known Diane as a neighbor and a school and community volunteer for over 25 years. We have worked together with her on numerous school and civic projects.

We have also attended Airport Commission meetings where she serves as Chair, and we have seen firsthand the capable, prepared, and professional manner in which she conducts meetings and carries out her responsibilities.

Diane takes the Commission’s work seriously and approaches difficult issues with diligence, fairness, and respect for the public. In this and in all her volunteer leadership efforts, she listens carefully, and asks thoughtful, intelligent questions. Diane is committed to making well-informed decisions in the best interests of Santa Monica and its residents.

As the City continues planning for the airport’s scheduled closure and the future of this important public land, experienced and dedicated commissioners like Diane provide valuable continuity and much-needed leadership.

We give Diane our highest recommendation for reappointment to the Airport Commission.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Patti and Reiner Braun
Santa Monica Residents
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1075 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 8 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2026 9:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 16C: Annual Appointments -- Airport Commission

EXTERNAL
It is a pleasure to commend Airport Commissioner Diane Reynolds for her past service on the SM Airport Commission and to endorse her re-appointment.

The City is fortunate to have a dedicated, knowledgeable resident like Diane, who also has the temperament for such a role. Diane has proven herself to be a thoughtful, effective Commissioner and is a credit to Santa Monica.

Jennifer L. Polhemus
Resident and Small Busines Owner
Santa Monica, CA
[email protected]
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1076 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 9 David Yakobson
From: Robb Curtis Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2026 9:26 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: IN SUPPORT OF THE REAPPOINT OF DIANE REYNOLDS AS AIRPORT COMMISSIONER

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Council Members,
I am writing with unqualified wholehearted support for the reappointment of Diane Reynolds to the Santa Monica Airport Commission.

I have known Diane as a school and community volunteer, a gifted therapist, a dedicated problen solver, a devoted mother and my wife for 35 years. We have worked together on numerous school and civic committees.

I have also attended Airport Commission meetings where she serves as Chair, and have seen firsthand the capable, prepared, and professional manner in which she conducts meetings and carries out her responsibilities.

Diane takes the Commission’s work very seriously and approaches difficult issues with diligence, fairness, and respect for the public. In this and in all her volunteer leadership efforts, she listens carefully, and asks thoughtful, intelligent questions despite the efforts of the aviation community to undermine her work by whatever means possible. Diane is committed to making well-informed decisions in the best interests of Santa Monica and its residents.

As the City continues planning for the airport’s scheduled closure and the future of this important public land, experienced and dedicated commissioners and long time stakeholders like Diane provide valuable continuity and much-needed leadership. I give Diane my highest recommendation for reappointment to the Airport Commission.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert Brown
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1077 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 10 David Yakobson
From: Alan Levenson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 4:58 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16C: Annual Appointments - Airport Commission

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Council Members,
I strongly support Diane Reynold's reappointment to the Santa Monica Airport Commission. During her four years on the Commission, including serving as Chair, she has demonstrated thoughtful leadership, careful preparation, and a genuine commitment to hearing community concerns.

Her experience and institutional knowledge will be especially valuable as Santa Monica prepares for the airport’s closure and the property’s transition to public use. I urge you to reappoint her.

She and her husband, Robb Brown, have been active in supporting the community as long as I have known them, and that has been for well over twenty years.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Alan Levenson
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1078 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 11 David Yakobson
From: Brent Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 1:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16C: Annual Appointments

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I write in support of reappointing Diane Reynolds to the Santa Monica Airport Commission.

I have lived in Santa Monica for thirty years. I have known Diane for most of that time. In that time, I have watched her listen to people who disagree with her, follow through on something unglamorous, and stay in a room after the interesting part was over.

That is the quality I would want on a commission facing the decisions this one faces. The airport's closure and the future of that land will be argued over for years, by people with strong views and real stakes. Diane is not the loudest person in those conversations. She is the one who has read the material and can tell you what it actually says.

I have no interest in the outcome beyond living here. I would be glad to see her continue.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Brent Cohen
Sunset Park, Santa Monica
30-year resident
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
photo Brent Cohen
310-613-0204 | [email protected]
GMT -8
Santa Monica, CA
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

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

Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1079 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 12 David Yakobson
From: Stacey AS <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 9:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Diane Reynolds.

EXTERNAL
I would like to put forth my support for Diane Reynolds to continue as an Airport Commissioner.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best,
Stacey Abrams-Sherick
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1080 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 13 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Larson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 9:22 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16C: Airport Commission Appointment

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I support Diane Reynolds for re-appointment to the Airport Commission.

Ms. Reynolds has a proven track record on the Airport Commission. She currently serves as chair.

She has led the Commission with an even hand, thoughƞully listening to all points of view and engaging in meaningful dialogue with her fellow commissioners.

Ms. Reynolds supports the creaƟon of a Great Park and is the best choice to shepherd the transformaƟon of the Airport Land aligned with the City and the people’s vision of the Great Park for all.

Thank you,
Cathy Larson
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1081 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 14 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Larson and Roger Allen <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 9:41 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16C: Airport Commission Appointment

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I support Diane Reynolds for re-appointment to the Airport Commission.

She has proven leadership as the Commission Chair, manages the meetings in a fair unbiased manner, thoughtfully listens to all points of view, and engages in a meaningful dialogue with her colleagues.

Ms. Reynolds is also the only applicant aligned with the City and the community’s goals of transforming the Airport land into a Great Park.

Thank you,
Roger Allen
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1082 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 15 David Yakobson
From: Dawn Joyal <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Diane Reynolds for Airport Commission

EXTERNAL
Endorsing Diane for Airport Commission
She has served the community as a dedicated, thoughtful, and fair Commissioner.

Critically, she is aligned with the City's position and goals regarding the airport.

Dawn Joyal
Marine St
Santa Monica
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1083 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 16 David Yakobson
From: Ron Joyal <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Agenda Item 16C: Annual Appointments

EXTERNAL
I recommend reappointing Diane Reynolds as an airport commissioner. She has the greatest amount of experience without any conflict of interest.

We need a strong, committed leader.

Regards
Ron
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1084 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 17 David Yakobson
From: Brian Sweeney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:34 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16C: Please appoint Matt Goldenberg to Rec & Parks

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Honorable City Council Members:

I am writing to wholeheartedly endorse Matt Goldenberg for the Recreation & Parks Commission.

I've had the pleasure of working with Matt over the past year, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone -- even in a city lucky to have so many phenomenal advocates -- more dedicated to the excellence of our public spaces and programming.

Matt is indefatigable, unfailingly kind, and excited to work with folks from all corners of Santa Monica political life to get things done. I mean, really...who else has managed to get SM Dems, SMRR, SM Forward, and every single neighborhood organization on the same page regarding any issue? No one I can think of! :)
In short, I urge you to appoint Matt Goldenberg to the Recreation & Parks Commission — our public spaces will be better for it.

Best wishes,
Brian Sweeney
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1085 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 18 David Yakobson
From: Daniela Morato <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item C

EXTERNAL
Please don’t rezone our neighborhood!
Keep R-1 zoning
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1086 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 19 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 11:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: David Hopkins for Airport Commission
Thanks,
Amy Larkin
Administrative Staff Assistant- City Council Office
From: CHRISTIAN FRY <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:48 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: David Hopkins for Airport Commission

EXTERNAL
Dave Hopkins is exceptionally well qualified to serve reon the Santa Monica Airport Commission. As a 28 year Santa Monica resident, pilot, and tenant of the Santa Monica Airport, I am writing in support of David Hopkins for Airport Commissioner.

As a longtime Santa Monica resident, David brings both a deep understanding of the community and decades of firsthand aviation experience. Dave is a licensed pilot, certified flight instructor and aircraft owner, giving him practical knowledge of airport operations, aviation safety, and the needs of the general aviation community.

He has also demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to public service by attending more than thirty Airport Commission meetings, where he has consistently followed the Commission's work and engaged thoughtfully in issues affecting the airport. His combination of technical aviation expertise, civic involvement, and long-standing ties to Santa Monica would make him a knowledgeable and effective member of the Commission.

The Airport Commission exists to advise the City Council on matters relating to the Municipal Airport and aviation issues affecting the City, and Dave's experience is directly aligned with that mission. Current Airport Commission members lack of aviation knowledge is a liability for the City and the entire community.

Respectfully,
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1087 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 20 Christian Fry
953 5th Street Unit 8
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1088 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 21 David Yakobson
From: Tim Cashin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 11:47 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Appointment to the Airport Commission

EXTERNAL
City Council Members:

Please appoint Dave Hopkins to the Santa Monica Airport Commission. He is exceptionally well qualified to serve in that role.

As a longtime Santa Monica resident, he brings both a deep understanding of the community and decades of firsthand aviation experience. Dave is a licensed pilot, certified flight instructor and aircraft owner, giving him practical knowledge of airport operations, aviation safety, and the needs of the general aviation community.

Current Airport Commission members have no aviation knowledge - this is a safety liability for the City and the entire community.

With Dave Hopkins as a member of the Airport Commission, the quality of information the council receives
will be significantly improved. The council, and the city, will benefit.

Tim Cashin
Sunset Park
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1089 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Mati Fuchs-Lynch <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 8:25 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Council Mailbox
Subject: Architectural Review Board Appointments

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council,
I’m writing in support of Mohamed Sharif’s appointment to the architectural review board. I can personally speak to his many years of experience both practicing and training the next generation of architects.

Sharif Lynch Architecture has been a leader on ADU construction, and has designed buildings in high fire-risk zones. Mohamed Sharif’s years leading a local Santa Monica architecture firm make him well acquainted with Santa Monica’s review environment, and well prepared for the work of the Architectural Review Board.

I urge you to appoint Mohamed Sharif to the ARB.

Best,
Mati Fuchs-Lynch
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1090 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 11:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16C Landmarks Commission Appointment

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I enthusiastically recommend Roger Genser for reappointment to another term on the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission. I have had the pleasure of knowing Roger for many years, both in my previous capacity as a landmarks commissioner and through our ongoing shared interest in Santa Monica history, and I can say without hesitation that Roger’s continued service on the Commission would be a significant asset to our community.

This being his second tenure as Landmarks Commissioner, Roger brings extraordinary depth of institutional knowledge to his decision-making. He understands not only the procedural and regulatory dimensions of the Commission's work, but also the historical context and nuanced significance of our historic resources. It is important to keep a person with Roger’s experience and knowledge in place while newer commissioners grow into the role.

Roger always ensures that preservation decisions are grounded in accurate, well-researched history and precedent. His value as a local historian is based on his extensive and veryimportant personal collection of historic photographs, which he generously draws upon time and again to inform the Commission's work. This invaluable primary resource, built over a lifetime has directly enhanced the quality and accuracy of the Commission's assessments.

For these reasons, I give my strongest endorsement to Roger Genser's reappointment for another term. His institutional knowledge, historical expertise, and unique resources make him an exceptional asset to the Landmarks Commission, and I believe the community would be well served by his continued leadership in this role.

Sincerely,
Nina Fresco
Former Landmarks Commissioner
Local Historian
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1091 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: William Reardon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: David Yakobson
Subject: Appointment to the Santa Monica Library Board

EXTERNAL
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to share my enthusiasm for the opportunity to serve on the Santa Monica Library Board. Apologies for not being able to attend in person, due to a prior work travel obligation.

I believe that a robust and thriving library system is the heart of a healthy city. My desire to serve stems from a genuine commitment to ensuring our libraries continue to be safe, vibrant, and welcoming spaces for all, from our children and students to our seniors. I am eager to bring my perspective and dedication to this role and to support the ongoing success of our library facilities.

Thank you for your leadership and for considering my appointment.

Sincerely,
-Bill Reardon
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1092 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Subject: 7/28 meeting - Item 16-A - Airport Commission

EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis, Councilmembers,
Please re-appoint Diane Reynolds to the Airport Commission.

Ms. Reynolds serves in a role not everyone would choose for themselves.

She has acted in the interests of the people of Santa Monica, even while the hobbyists, lobbyists and polluters currently occupying public land strive relentlessly to make her life, and all our lives, miserable.

Diane Reynolds has gained 4 years of invaluable experience; please give her the opportunity to help take the Airport Commission through the final stretch.

Here’s to 1/1/2029, which is getting closer by the day.

Andrew Gledhill
Ocean Park
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1093 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: David Kaplan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:16 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Diane Reynolds for Airport Commission

EXTERNAL
Please support Diane Reynolds for another term on the SM Airport commission.

Diane Reynolds is recognized as having a reasonable voice on the Airport Commission, offering a balanced approach for the City while also representing the interests of residents in the immediate area.

Diane was immediately recognized for her leadership and quickly became chair of the Commission.

Diane Reynolds is a outstanding condidate and hopefully she can continue her excellent work for the Airport Commission.
thanks
David Kaplan
2419 Pier Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90
David Kaplan | KCK ARCHITECTS
2526 Eighteenth Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310 452 7505
310 713 5446 cell
www.kckarchitects.com
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1094 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Cris Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 9:42 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16-C: Appointments to Airport, Recreation & Parks, and Sustainability Commissions

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick and City Council Members:

As a community leader with respect for the manner in which our City Council is advised by commissions, I write with full support of the following applicants to be appointed to three City Commissions as indicated below. Each candidate has demonstrated substantive knowledge, capacity and caring to merit appointment to the respective commissions.

Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice and the Environment • Robert Lempert has served on the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice and the Environment (Sustainability Commission) with grace and keen acumen. Robert Lempert clearly deserves an additional term on the Sustainability Commission to represent the needs of our community and to uphold the integrity of the City’s sustainability leadership. His knowledge, understanding and skills, particularly pertaining to water, climate and participatory democracy have been enriching and practical.

He has brought to the City’s Sustainability Commission insights and abilities that enable Santa Monica’s local measures and initiatives to embody our values and commitments, to strengthen our community and to deepen Santa Monica's influence. As a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change team that was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, his reputation and accomplishments reinforce Santa Monica’s esteem and forward thinking at a time when the climate crisis is searing and communities need sensible, responsive leadership. • Benjamin Kay is a remarkable environmental science and marine biology teacher at Santa Monica High School and Santa Monica College. His appointment to the Sustainability Commission will help ensure that this body advances the City’s sustainability imperatives and the City’s follow-up on its many initiatives. In addition, Ben can help identify how the school district and the college can align with and implement better the policy and practices of Santa Monica’s sustainability and environmental justice expectations and commitments. He also can help the voice of diverse young people and students to be heard. (They are paying attention.) Ben's creative, even ground-breaking, scholarship and research with students, including with Team Marine, has had profound effects. One example is how the testimony and advocacy of his students has helped the California legislature to establish and then strengthen the single-use plastic bag ban. That work continues and extends to many other plasticreduction fronts most importantly, to safeguard the Santa Monica Bay, our natural environment and our public health. Those efforts have consistently enriched Ben's service on the Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committee and can now uplift the Sustainability Commission’s work.

Recreation and Parks Commission
Matthew Goldenberg is a physician and a community leader who would be a strong and hard-working Recreation and Parks Commissioner. He can bring to the commission a personal commitment to convene people to see the potential of our green open spaces as significant quality-of-life resources. His professional capacities add to the knowledge of how parks and recreation are vital for personal and public health.

Airport Commission
Diane Reynolds has been a conscientious, smart and open-minded Airport Commissioner who warrants another term. Her attention to the Santa Monica Airport operations and impact on the community have been practical and thorough. With the anticipated closure of the airport in a little more than two years, it is important to have Diane’s participation on the commission continue for thoughtful and meaningful discussions and sound advice to the City Council Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1095 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 2 to ensue. She knows the details of the pertinent issues well and contends with them assuredly and calmly. Diane also fosters good community relationships and communication.

I trust that the City Council will appoint Robert Lempert, Benjamin Kay, Matthew Goldenberg and Diane Reynolds to the respective commissions noted above. With these appointments the Council can receive significant, salient advice to make good and trustworthy decisions.

With respect,
Cris Gutierrez
Santa Monica Resident

Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1096 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 3 David Yakobson
From: Info <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16C Landmarks Commission Appointments
Attachments: 2026-0728-SMCRecommendationsForLandmarkCommAppointments.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please accept the attached letter recommending the reappointment of Roger Genser and Carol Lemlein to the Landmarks Commission.

Thank you.

Santa Monica Conservancy
Preservation Resource Center
at the Shotgun House
2520 Second Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 496-3146
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1097 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 2520 SECOND STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
310-496-3146
www.smconservancy.org
July 28, 2026
Dear City Council,
The Santa Monica Conservancy recommends the appointment of Roger Genser and Carol Lemlein to the Landmarks Commission. Roger currently serves in the historian position, and Carol was recently appointed as a member-at-large.

Roger’s life work has been dedicated to researching Santa Monica’s history through his vast personal collection of historic photographs, postcards, artwork and documents. He brings scholarship and passion to building these collections, which he shares with the Landmarks Commission in its deliberations. These are unique qualifications for his appointment.

Roger’s devotion to our history, and sharing that knowledge with the public, are vital assets to the work of the Landmarks Commission. His views bring historical context and valuable perspectives to the Commission’s deliberations. His lengthy service on the Commission provides insight into prior cases that help inform his fellow commissioners in their discussions. His willingness to continue his service indicates a generosity and dedication to Santa Monica for which we can be grateful. He is deeply connected to Santa Monica through his archival collections, his lengthy residence in Ocean Park, and as a cousin of former Councilman Ken Genser. He cares very much about our civic wellbeing, and the role that landmarks play in the City’s distinctive identity.

Carol Lemlein was first appointed to the Landmarks Commission just a few months ago to fill the unexpired term of Dolores Sloan and is now offering her services for a full term. Carol has a comprehensive understanding of Santa Monica’s built environment, its historic resources, and the challenges involved in sustaining them for the future. Serving for many years as President of the Santa Monica Conservancy, she regularly attended Landmarks Commission meetings, learning the essential concepts and framework for historic preservation here. She is very thoughtful, intelligent and unbiased in her approach to historic preservation issues. She seeks solutions that allow historic resources to evolve with new development so they contribute to the City’s prosperity and future.

The City of Santa Monica is fortunate to have such highly qualified residents offering their services to the public. We hope you will support the appointments of Roger Genser and Carol Lemlein to the Landmarks Commission.

Sincerely,
Mario Fonda-Bonardi
Board President
Santa Monica Conservancy
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1098 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 4 David Yakobson
From: Carol Lemlein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:59 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; [email protected]; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Item 16c - Landmarks Commission Appointment

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Council Members,
I am writing to request your support for my appointment to the Landmarks Commission. I am listed on your agenda as an incumbent, but you may remember that I was appointed to serve as a replacement for Commissioner Dolly Sloan this past March, when only 3 months remained on her term.

My goal was to leverage my comprehensive understanding of local, regional and national preservation policy to help ensure that the Commission’s decisions are made with knowledge of best practices and regulatory compliance. I looked forward to bringing this knowledge, as well as my experience in community outreach, to the Landmarks Commission’s mission of protecting and promoting the City’s historic and cultural heritage for the benefit of our residents and visitors.

After only a few months, there is much left to be done! We need to ensure that the Commission’s work reflects the full diversity and history of Santa Monica’s neighborhoods, and to do so using the insights gained from the work of the Commission’s Subcommittee on Social Justice/Equity in Preservation.

The Landmarks Commission could be a key contributor to the strategic priorities of the City’s Realignment Plan, supporting the revitalization of our economy by increasing the visibility of our City’s cultural heritage and thereby making the City a more attractive place to live, work and visit.

Please support my reappointment to the Commission tonight! Sincerely,
Carol Lemlein

Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1099 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Rachel Lozano <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 9:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: June 28th Council Meeting | Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board of Directors

EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, and Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council:

Hello,
I am writing to express my interest in being appointed to the Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board of Directors. Unfortunately, I have a prior commitment and could not join you in person on Tuesday, July

28. I have been working in Santa Monica for more than 30 years and love this city. As a tourism professional, I am passionate about supporting Santa Monica's economic vitality and preserving the Pier as one of the city's most iconic destinations. The rich history, culture and varied experiences are to be celebrated today and in the future. Through my work with Santa Monica Travel & Tourism (SMTT), I have developed strong relationships with pier and local businesses, community partners, and city stakeholders, and feel my skills would be a compliment to the work of the Board and staff. I welcome the opportunity to bring that experience to the Pier Corporation Board of Directors.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I would be honored to serve our community in this important role.

Sincerely,
Rachel Lozano
Rachel Lozano
Chief People Officer
Santa Monica Travel & Tourism
email: [email protected]
website: www.santamonica.com
phone: 310.319.6263
address: 2427 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1100 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 2 David Yakobson
From: Stacey Grigas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Written Public Comment — Annual Board Appointments - Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (Applicant: Stacey Grigas)

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, and Councilmembers, I am writing in support of my application for a Council-appointed seat on the Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. Board of Directors. I had intended to introduce myself in person, but I will be traveling during tomorrow's meeting and am submitting my remarks in writing instead.

I have lived in Downtown Santa Monica for five years. I don't drive, and I move through the city on foot and via public transit every day. Living here that way is where the difference between Downtown as a neighborhood and Downtown as a corridor becomes most visible, and that perspective is what I would bring to this board. The Council's appointments are where residents of the district are represented, and I would take that responsibility seriously.

What compelled me to seek involvement with Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. was witnessing firsthand what the impending closure of The Britannia Pub, displaced to make room for a Taco Bell Cantina, means not only for its owners but for the many people who have made that place a second home. It brought home how much of Downtown's character rests on what DTSM already does, from public safety and cleanliness to programming, placemaking, and the businesses that give a block its identity. I would find contributing to that genuinely energizing.

Professionally, my background is executive operations. For more than ten years I have supported senior leaders in technology, currently as Executive Assistant to the CEO of LegalOn Technologies, an AI legaltech software startup. The substance of that role is budget stewardship, vendor and venue negotiation, event production, and the design of systems that allow small teams to operate well beyond their headcount. I have produced $250K+ offsites end to end, managed board meeting logistics, and built onboarding programs and internal infrastructure from the ground up. DTSM's programming and activation sits close enough to my professional practice that I could contribute immediately.

I am especially excited about the upcoming LA28 Olympic Games. Santa Monica will be in front of a global audience, and I would love to help build on what is already underway to make Downtown a destination in its own right. LA28 is an extraordinary opportunity for this city, and the caliber of planning and coordination it calls for is something I have built a career on.

I would be grateful for your support of my appointment, and I would welcome the opportunity to speak with any Councilmember before or after the vote.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1101 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 3 Respectfully,
Stacey Grigas
1455 4th Street, Apt 506
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1102 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Terence Young <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 4:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Airport commission candidacy

EXTERNAL
I want to urge support for candidate Zachary Hoevet for the position on the Santa Monica airport commission. His years of experience around design, planning, cost control, the realities of project development, plus his understanding of maintenance and operations and life cycle costs of large projects give him a unique perspective. His qualifications as an excellent architect at one of the world‘s largest design and planning firms designing, renovating and rehabilitating airports, creating mixed use housing and community outdoor space-places his candidacy as extremely qualified for this commission. As a more than 30 year resident under the flight path I think we need to have his voice on decisions around our airport and its future.

Terence Young 3007 11th St., Santa Monica resident
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1103 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 2 David Yakobson
From: Mike Feinstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Cc: Oliver Chi; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject: Landmarks Reappointment - In support of Roger Genser

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members
I am writing in support of re-appointing Roger Genser to the Landmarks Commission in the role of Commission Local Historian.

The history and institutional memory that Roger Genser brings to landmarks issues in Santa Monica is irreplaceable. Retaining that knowledge and background in our landmarks process is exactly why we have the five-vote super majority process to appoint someone like Roger to an extra term, particularly as a Commission Local Historian.

Thanks for considering my input on this important appointment.

Mike Feinstein
Ocean Park
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026
Item 16-C
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1104 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Hajar Muqtasid St. Claire <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems; councilmtgitems; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Robbie J5; Janet McKeithen; Joanne Berlin; Joanne Berlin; Angela Scott
Subject: Black Apology Action Steps

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

Black Apology Action Steps
Thank you,
Hajar Muqtasid St. Claire
Item 16-A
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026
Item 16-A
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1105 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) 2 David Yakobson
From: Joanne Berlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: CRJ input on item 16A

Thank you for your votes tonight on this landmark commission to address harms done and move us forward in the quest for more equity in Santa Monica.

Joanne Berlin, CRJ Coordinator
Item 16-A
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026
Item 16-A
July 14, 2026
July 28, 2026

16.C.d
Packet Pg. 1106 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7794 : 16.C. Annual B & C Appointments) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 28, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.D
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Recommendation to accept Michael Kirschbaum's resignation from the Personnel Board and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy Prepared By: David Yakobson, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council

16.D
Packet Pg. 1107
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 28, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.E
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Request of Councilmember Snell that the City Council authorize use of travel funds to cover travel costs of participating in the Vienna Social Housing Field Study program from September 13, 2026 - September 19, 2026. Vienna is considered one of the most livable and most importantly, affordable cities in the world and cities committed to creating housing opportunities for all are participating in this program
Prepared By: Sergio Ramirez, Chief of Staff
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comments

16.E
Packet Pg. 1108
1 David Yakobson
From: LOUISE JOHNSON <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5:30 pm agenda July 28 Agenda

EXTERNAL
Item 16. e
The City is broke and Commissioner Snell wants the City to fund his trip to Vienna to attend a program on socialized housing under government regulations unlike Santa Monica’s. The City has funded trips like this in the past and gotten no benefit. Commissioner Snell is a disgrace to this community and should resign.

Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-E
July 28, 2026
Item 16-E
July 28, 2026

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1109 Attachment: Written Comments (7834 : Snell Travel) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 28, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.F
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Request of Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, and Councilmember Raskin to Affirm that there must be a replacement plan for Samoshel. We support the City’s efforts to preserve vital services currently being provided at the Palm Motel. We also support the replacement of the congregate housing model at Samoshel with other models of emergency shelter and interim housing that are better suited for the needs of our city and those exiting homelessness. However, we do not support closing Samoshel without a further developed plan to replace its capacity. Consistent with this council’s commitment to equity and affirmatively furthering fair housing, we support a site selection process that excludes the Pico Neighborhood. We therefore ask our fellow councilmembers to join us in moving to direct staff to take all appropriate and necessary steps to effectuate this direction.

Prepared By: Sergio Ramirez, Chief of Staff
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comments

16.F
Packet Pg. 1110
1 David Yakobson
From: Judy Branfman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for Item 16F on the July 28 City Council agenda

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

I support Item 16F. I want the city to make sure all the unhoused people staying in SaMoShel will be able to stay there unƟl they can get equal, or hopefully beƩer, housing support going forward. None of them should land up sleeping on the beach or streets again in the process of closing the shelter because there are not adequate spaces in Santa Monica.

This is an opportunity for the city to work out a truly good plan that gives all Santa Monicans, no maƩer where they sleep, an opportunity to have a path to a real permanent home and a beƩer life.

Thanks for your serious consideraƟon,
Judy Branfman
Santa Monica, CA
Item 16-F
July 28, 2026
Item 16-F
July 28, 2026

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1111 Attachment: Written Comments (7837 : 16Item Palm Motel) 1 David Yakobson
From: Rev. Jim Conn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 16-F

EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers...
“I support Item 16F because 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. None of them should land up sleeping on the beach or streets again in the process of closing the shelter.

This is an opportunity for the city to work out a truly good plan 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.” And without SaMoShel where are we to send homeless people looking for a safe place? JIM
Rev. Jim Conn
230 Pacific St #108
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310/392-5056
Associations:

CLUE - A Founding Member: www.cluejustice.org
Climate Action Santa Monica - Advisory Board
Asset Based Community Development: www.abcdinstitute.org/ United Methodist Minister - Retired: www.calpacUMC.org
Former Council Member and Mayor of Santa Monica
Item 16-F
July 28, 2026
Item 16-F
July 28, 2026

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1112 Attachment: Written Comments (7837 : 16Item Palm Motel) 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 16-F
July 28, 2026
Item 16-F
July 28, 2026

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1113 Attachment: Written Comments (7837 : 16Item Palm Motel) 1 David Yakobson
From: Joan Sekler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 7:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16F
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
I support Item 16F because I want the unhoused people staying in SaMoShel to continue staying there until they can get more permanent housing. It doesn’t make sense to close the shelter and then see them living back on the streets or on the beaches.

Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-F
July 28, 2026
Item 16-F
July 28, 2026

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1114 Attachment: Written Comments (7837 : 16Item Palm Motel) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 28, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.G
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Request of Councilmembers Negrete and Snell and Mayor Torosis that the City Council approve waiving City fees not to exceed $16,950 and also approve $12,500 in Council discretionary funds to support the Butterfly Brawl, a boxing, charity and entertainment event on the Santa Monica Pier on August 22, 2026. Butterfly Brawl’s mission is to combine high-level boxing, entertainment, and philanthropy in support of cancer-related causes. This year, fundraising efforts will focus on the American Cancer Society that supports those affected by cancer. Councilmember’s portion of discretionary funds would be allocated as follows: $5,000 allocated from Councilmember Negrete, $5,000 from Councilmember Snell, and $2,500 from Mayor Torosis.

Prepared By: Sergio Ramirez, Chief of Staff
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Discretionary Funds Tracking

16.G
Packet Pg. 1115
FY 2026-27 Council Discretionary Funds
FY 2026-27 - New Appropriation and allocations
Description Amount Programmed Date Negrete Torosis Hall Raskin Snell Zernitskaya Zwick Unallocated Uncommitted FY 2025-26 funds,
rollover to FY 2026-27 88,500.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 13,500.00 $ - $ 18,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 9,500.00 $ 19,000.00 $ - FY 2026-27 - New Appropriation* 140,000.00 Budget Adoption FY26-27, 6/23/26 $ 8,330.00 $ 8,330.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 8,330.00 $ 35,010.00 DISCRET-PICO BID DDLM Event (25,000.00) Council Meeting, 7/14/26, Item 16A (5,000.00) (5,000.00) (5,000.00) (5,000.00) (5,000.00) Butterfly Brawl** (12,500.00) Council Meeting, 7/28/26 (5,000.00) (2,500.00) (5,000.00) * Amounts available per Councilmember reflect either 5 or 12 months, depending on the date the Councilmember's term expires. **PENDING COUNCIL APPROVAL $ 203,500.00 Unprogrammed Balance Available $ 11,830.00 $ 14,330.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 33,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 24,500.00 $ 27,330.00 $ 35,010.00

16.G.a
Packet Pg. 1116 Attachment: Discretionary Funds Tracking (7838 : Butterfly Brawl)

Santa Monica City CouncilJuly 28, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
July 28, 2026