Written comments — Santa Monica City Council, July 28, 2026

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

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

My daughter grew up here and attended Santa Monica schools.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
2 Sincerely - Janet Krelle, 1807 19th Street, Apt. A, Santa Monica, CA 90404 (
Contact info: email [email protected]; telephone (310) 266-1261 Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 12:25 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Oliver Chi
Subject: 7/28 City Council Agenda Item 11.C (7/28) - Oppose R1 Upzoning; Return to Option 3

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

I also want to raise an environmental impact this report does not mention at all: the at-grade rail crossing on our streets. At peak traffic hours, cars back up behind the arm, sometimes two blocks long, idling the entire time the crossing is down. That is not a minor inconvenience. That is concentrated vehicle exhaust, sitting and accumulating, in a residential neighborhood, on a daily basis. Before this Council adds density to these streets, I am asking you to answer a direct question: how does further densification near this crossing affect the health and wellbeing of the families who already live here and already breathe that air every day? This is just one example of cars idling and being backed up. It also happens Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
2 consistently on Virginia Avenue at Centinela. This report analyzes displacement risk parcel by parcel. It does not analyze this. It should, before any option is adopted. I recognize the report before you on July 28 frames Options 1 and 2 as the lower-displacement-risk choices because the R1 parcels are largely owner-occupied and SB 79's displacement protections apply only to sites with three or more units. But ownership status is not the same as absence of harm. Renters in single-family homes in this neighborhood are just as real, and just as vulnerable, as renters anywhere else in this city, they are simply not counted, because SB 79's protections were not written with this neighborhood in mind. A policy that avoids displacement on paper by shifting density onto a historically overburdened, environmental-justice community is not a neutral planning choice. It is a continuation of a pattern this neighborhood has lived through for generations: when a hard choice has to be made, it gets made here, quietly, and after the fact. I am asking this Council to do the following: Return to Option 3, the Planning Commission's recommendation, and give it the genuine consideration it was owed before this Council redirected staff away from it.

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

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

Respectfully,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh, Chair
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Gene Nishina <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 4:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: My Protest against up-zone of R-1 neighborhood plan

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

I urge SM City Council et.al to :

1. reject option 1 and option2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
2 This is the neighborhood you have now targeted for increased density, with less process, less notice, and less consideration than was given to the option the Planning Commission actually recommended.

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

I am asking this Council to do the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
3 I stand in solidarity with my Gandara Park neighbors on this. We will continue to fight, together, for our right to equality, to real investment, and to a quality of life this city has too often decided we can do without.

Respectfully,
Christine Parra
Pico Neighborhood Resident
Former Santa Monica City Councilmember
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Lina Ara <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Lina Ara
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Doyle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Catherine Doyle
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Alan Levenson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Alan Levenson
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: Tregg Rustad <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Tregg Rustad
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
5 David Yakobson
From: David Abramis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

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

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

Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
6 David Yakobson
From: Estelle G. Mednick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Estelle Mednick
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
7 David Yakobson
From: Jacquelyn Lawson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Jacquelyn Lawson
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
8 David Yakobson
From: Betty Mednick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Betty Mednick
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
9 David Yakobson
From: Toby Berlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Toby Berlin
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
10 David Yakobson
From: LUCY F STONE <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME) Lucy Frances Stone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
11 David Yakobson
From: Chad Mountain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Chad Mountain
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
12 David Yakobson
From: Lynn Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Lynn Murdock
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
13 David Yakobson
From: Joseph Lilli <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Joe Lilli
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
14 David Yakobson
From: Amanda O'Brien <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Amanda OBrien
Owner 1744 Bryn Mawr Ave
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
15 David Yakobson
From: Hilary Galanoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 11-C

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

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

Sincerely,
Hilary Galanoy
2636 32nd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
16 David Yakobson
From: Dan Halperin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Dan Halperin
1030 Cedar St. Santa Monica, CA 90405
(33 year resident of Santa Monica, 28 years at this location as homeowner) Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
17 David Yakobson
From: Lisa Test, OTD, OTR/L <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 11c

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

Sincerely,
Lisa A Test
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
18 David Yakobson
From: mwdobbs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
In agenda item 11-B, the city proposes spending $9 million to bring homeless housing to the Sunset Park neighborhood. Residential neighborhoods should not be the default location for increasingly intensive social services. Families, seniors, children, and longtime residents deserve neighborhoods that are safe, stable, and designed for the people who live there.

Before the City Council approves $9 million to lease the Palm Motel at 2020 14th Street, and to contract with the People Concern to manage a homeless program there, the City and the People Concern should sign a Good Neighborhood Agreement, plus a detailed Management Agreement that includes rigorous screening for mental illness and drug addiction.

The July 25, 2026 beating death of a woman living at The Manor at 1905 Pico Blvd., which provides room, board, and supervision for adults with mental illness, reinforces concern over agenda item 11-B.

Sincerely,
Michael W Dobbs.

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
19 David Yakobson
From: mwdobbs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Michael W Dobbs.

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
20 David Yakobson
From: Shane Murphy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Shane Murphy
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Tina <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:39 PM
Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Tina Cox
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Michael Ishler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Mike Ishler
2314 Pearl Street
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Dennis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Dennis Granelli
Concerned Citizen and Neighbor
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: CHERI DICKINSON <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Cheri Dickinson
2268 22nd Street
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
5 David Yakobson
From: Dalila Fuentes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Dalila Fuentes
36 years resident in Sunset Park
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
6 David Yakobson
From: Gail Gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

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

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

STOP! This fallacy of SB 79 is one part of the ‘ABUNDANT HOUSING’ begun by Billionaires to buy up various STATES. STARTS WITH WEINER AND ENDS WITH displacing families so the area can be controlled. And the Billionaires will make more money Sincerely,
Gail Gordon
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
7 Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
8 David Yakobson
From: Jerry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Jerry Nodiff
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
9 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman; Oliver Chi Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: FOSP: City Council 7/28/26 item 11-C -- OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
July 27, 2026

To: Mayor Torosis and City Council members

From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
10 Again, we ask that you return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and 2. Please make the smallest change is that meets the state’s requirement. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm.

Thank you for your consideration.

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
11 David Yakobson
From: Christine Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Christine Thomas
A 76 year resident of Sunset Park
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
12 David Yakobson
From: Todd Sherman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Please Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Todd Sherman
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
13 David Yakobson
From: Laura M. Gallant <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Opposition to Item 11-C

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Laura Gallant
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
14 David Yakobson
From: Brad Segal <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME)
———> iPhone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
15 David Yakobson
From: janet rt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Janet Tunick
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
16 David Yakobson
From: MELISSA FEINBERG <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

PROPERTY MASTER
[email protected]
(818) 612-1654
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
17 David Yakobson
From: MELISSA FEINBERG <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Melissa Feinberg
Sent from my iPhone
Melissa Feinberg

PROPERTY MASTER
[email protected]
(818) 612-1654
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
18 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Agenda item 11-c
FYI.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Tom Richards
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
19 David Yakobson
From: JORDAN ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Jordan Ellis
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
20 David Yakobson
From: Mindi Shank <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

If you do not live here yourself, imagine yourself doing so! Sincerely,
Mindi Shank
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
21 David Yakobson
From: Jeanette Schachtner <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Jeanette Schachtner
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
22 David Yakobson
From: Merle Newman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Merle Newman
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
23 David Yakobson
From: David Rock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:40 PM
To: Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Natalya Zernitskaya Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
David W Rock
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
24 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Item 11-C: Oppose!
FYI
Sarah Almendarez (she/her)
O: (310) 458-8303
From: Katherine Reuter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:35 PM
To: Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Katherine Reuter
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
25 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Item 11-C: Oppose!
FYI
Sarah Almendarez (she/her)
O: (310) 458-8303
From: David Rock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:40 PM
To: Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
David W Rock
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
26 David Yakobson
From: Chris Rowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Chris Rowe
2442 22nd St
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
27 David Yakobson
From: Bronwyn Barkan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Bronwyn Barkan
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
28 David Yakobson
From: Danielle Borgia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Danielle Borgia
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
29 David Yakobson
From: nancykless <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Nancy Kless
Sent from my Galaxy
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
30 David Yakobson
From: oesr <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: RE: Agenda item 11C

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

Sincerely,
Jane Dempsey
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Elaine Becker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers, Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 single-family homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. It would allow the construction of 10 to 12 unit apartment buildings on a typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcel. Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires. In 2021, Councilmember Raskin was quoted by the Daily Press as follows: “The demographic in our city that’s at the single greatest risk of displacement is workingclass families who rent single-family homes." Please return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and 2. Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm. Sincerely, Elaine Becker
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Clare
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Karen Fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Karen M. Fisher
Mobile: 310-600-1040
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: Mary <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Mary Hubbell
Sent from my iPad
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Danielle Charney
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: ALICE ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Alice Ellis
Santa Monica resident
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Debbie Millar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Debbie Millar
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Britt Johansson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Britt Johansson
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Pearl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Nancy Pearl
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Linda Mansolillo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Linda
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: s. g. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: 11-C

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

Sincerely,
Susan Grant
1030 Cedar St
30+ year Sunset Park Resident
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Jeremiah Knight <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
3 Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires.

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

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: MICHAEL OSMENT <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Michael Osment

MICHAEL OSMENT
Osment Productions & Photography
[email protected]
310-291-1272
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
5 David Yakobson
From: Holly Silvers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Cc: Dennis Granelli
Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Holly Silvers-Granelli
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
6 David Yakobson
From: Leslee Mickshaw <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME)
Leslee Mickshaw
Leslee Mickshaw
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
7 David Yakobson
From: KENNY GRANT <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Kenny Grant
Sunset park resident since 1986

K E N N Y G R A N T
[email protected]
310.422.9393
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
8 David Yakobson
From: Roni Crichton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Roni Crichton
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
9 David Yakobson
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 11-C Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Phyllis Chavez
Sunset Park
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
10 David Yakobson
From: Ann Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Cc: Brendan Kelly
Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Ann Kelly
Resident of Santa Monica
Parent of 3 school-aged children attending Grant Elementary & JAMS --
Ann Kelly | [email protected]
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
11 David Yakobson
From: Rosie Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Rosie Lee
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
12 David Yakobson
From: Mayra Herrera <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Mayra Herrera
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
13 David Yakobson
From: Geraldine Kennedy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Geraldine Kennedy
More than 50 year Sunset Park homeowner Former Santa Monica Planning Commissioner Sent from my iPad
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
14 David Yakobson
From: TARYN FORDES <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Taryn Fordes
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
15 David Yakobson
From: Shawn Landres
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11.C — Options for Increased Development Standards within the Expo/Bundy Transit-Oriented Development Zone to Qualify for Temporary Exclusion from Senate Bill (SB) 79 Implementation
Dear Mayor Torosis and Members of the City Council,
I am writing as an individual Planning Commissioner to recommend that your direction on Item 11.C consider pairing the proposed standards with a minimum density that ratchets up with floor area. In summary, you could adopt 1.25 FAR and 40 du/ac as by-right base zoning, preserve the existing singleunit envelope for anyone building a single home, and require that any project using the increased standards contain more units as it uses more floor area, with ADUs counting toward the minimum.

An illustrative schedule for a typical 6,500-square-foot parcel follows:
 Within existing R1 envelope: 1 unit (no change); unit size per existing code  Above existing envelope to 0.75 FAR (4,875 SF): minimum 5 units; ~975 SF average  0.75 to 1.00 FAR (6,500 SF): minimum 6 units; ~1,085 SF average  1.00 to 1.25 FAR (8,125 SF): minimum 6 units; ~1,355 SF average (40 du/ac on a 6,500-square-foot parcel yields 5.97 units; six units follows the rounding in the staff report's Table 1. The 1.25 FAR / 40 du/ac figures equal 50 percent of SB 79's standards for the quarter-tohalf-mile band; any affected parcel within one-quarter mile of the station would require 1.5 FAR and 50 du/ac to count.)
With no ratchet, 1.25 FAR permits an 8,000-square-foot single-family residence; but a ratchet would convert the same envelope into homes at roughly 1,000 square feet each through 1.00 FAR. (Holding the full 1.25 FAR step to that size would require eight units, or one unit per 800 square feet of lot area, which exceeds the 40 du/ac base and is addressed below.)
In my reading, keeping the FAR itself unconditional strengthens the parcels' qualification under Government Code section 65912.161(b)(1)(B)(i), which counts what zoning "permits"; HCD has not yet interpreted that term in this context, and its SB 79 determinations to date do not address it. No covenant or affordability condition is needed at the base, and SB 9 and ADU projects proceed under their own state standards regardless.

State law permits a minimum unit count above the existing single-unit envelope. Zoning minimums rest on the same police power as zoning maximums, and no court appears to have invalidated a minimumdensity standard; the Court of Appeal has treated minimum densities as substantive requirements (People for Proper Planning v. City of Palm Springs (2016)). Los Angeles adopted such a minimum in 2025, requiring one dwelling unit, accessory dwelling units included, for every 2,000 square feet of lot area, rounded up, on housing element sites and in specified higher-density multifamily zones (Ordinance No. 188479; Municipal Code section 16.70); and HCD credits adopted minimums toward housing Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
16 element site capacity. There are three constraints, and the recommended structure satisfies each: the Housing Accountability Act poses no obstacle, because a single-family home is not a protected housing development project (Reznitskiy v. County of Marin (2022)) and objective minimums are permissible standards; the Housing Crisis Act bars reducing capacity below the January 1, 2018 baseline (Yes In My Back Yard v. City of Culver City (2023)), and because a minimum attaching only to the new increment above a preserved legacy envelope adds rather than reduces intensity, it should not offend that bar, though no published case has squarely decided the structure; and SB 9 and ADU law set floors the minimum cannot override.

The ratchet also keeps open a pathway for the Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan, which I will present at a later agenda item, and the top step shows why. The baseline upzoning caps a typical parcel at six homes; the MMHRP would permit more. Its density standard of one unit per 800 square feet of lot area allows eight homes on the same 6,500-square-foot parcel, the level at which the full 1.25 FAR yields homes of roughly 1,000 square feet, in exchange for a recorded workforce covenant. The base ratchet produces homes through 1.00 FAR; the MMHRP pathway completes the schedule at the top. The specifics belong with that item.

As staff notes, a flat FAR increase would qualify these parcels for the SB 79 exclusion. Adding a ratcheting minimum could help ensure that anyone seeking to take advantage of the window of opportunity before the postponement and alternative plans take effect would have to produce housing accessible to a broader range of incomes.

Respectfully submitted,
Shawn Landres
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
17 David Yakobson
From: Lea LeBlanc <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Lea LeBlanc
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
18 David Yakobson
From: Maury Pearl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 11-C

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

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. Reject 11-C! This is a neighborhood killer! Sincerely,
Maury Pearl
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
19 David Yakobson
From: Lynn Karz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Lynn Karz
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
20 David Yakobson
From: Kathy Kane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 7:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
The Cody Family - Kathy, Phil, Cameron and Spencer
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
21 David Yakobson
From: Jenny Blum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 7:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-B: Oppose!

Sincerely,
Jennifer Blum
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
22 David Yakobson
From: Jenny Blum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 7:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Jennifer Blum
Sunset Park Resident
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
23 David Yakobson
From: Emily Davidson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 7:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Emily Davidson
Resident of Sunset Park
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
24 David Yakobson
From: Darlene Vogel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 7:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
darlene vogel
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
25 David Yakobson
From: Alisa Bunting <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 8:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Alisa Bunting
Alisa Bunting
[email protected]
310-569-5499 Cell
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
26 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 8:14 PM
To: Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11.C - Support Option 2

EXTERNAL
Hello Mayor and Council Members,
Santa Monica is writing in support of Option 2, for item 11.C, that would apply increased development standards to all R1 parcels within a half-mile of Expo-Bundy.

Santa Monica's housing crisis isn't just a shortage of units, it's a shortage of homes where families can put down roots through ownership. For decades, our zoning has overwhelmingly favored the preservation of single-family houses whose prices have spiraled out of reach of the vast majority of residents. This crisis is deeply unjust, and demands immediate action wherever possible. Tonight, spurred by SB79 you have one of those opportunities for action.

Allowing for the creation of new townhomes around Expo-Bundy through option 2 is an outstanding way to create new opportunities for residents to buy homes, while at the same time protecting renters. By affecting only R1 parcels, this change would allow for the city to welcome new residents while affecting a limited number of rent-controlled units, who are protected by Santa Monica’s robust existing anti-displacement laws.

Best,
Sam Shapiro-Kline and Brad Ewing
Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward
--
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.

SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
27 David Yakobson
From: Chris Chang <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 8:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME)
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
28 David Yakobson
From: Peter Davidson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 8:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: PETER DAVIDSON
Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Peter Davidson
Residential Property Owner
3011 Linda Ln
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
29 David Yakobson
From: Cydney Kirschbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 8:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
cydney and Kenneth kirschbaum
Cydney Kirschbaum
[email protected]
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
30 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 9:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Megan FitzGerald
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
31 David Yakobson
From: Janis Flax <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 9:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Janis Flax
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
32 David Yakobson
From: E Lerner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 9:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 11-C

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

Sincerely,
Ellyn Lerner
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
33 David Yakobson
From: Jedd Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Jedd thomas
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
34 David Yakobson
From: Brent Thompson <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Agenda Item 11.C: Return to Option 3 and Study a Commercial-Corridor Alternative

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I'm writing about Item 11.C, the proposal to raise development standards near the Expo/Bundy Metro station to qualify the zone for temporary exclusion from SB 79. My wife and I have rented in the Gandara Park neighborhood, near 34th and Delaware, for five years now, and we have a young toddler. I won't be able to attend in person tomorrow, so I wanted to put this in writing ahead of the noon deadline.

I want to be clear up front: I'm not opposed to added density near transit. My objection is that staff is recommending the least creative path to the legal threshold, on a rationale that doesn't hold up, when a better and less destructive path hasn't even been studied.

On July 14, Council moved away from the Planning Commission's recommendation (Option 3: upzoning 66 existing R2/R3 parcels) specifically over concern for displacing renters, and directed staff to look at R1 parcels instead on the premise that those lots are owner-occupied. My household is a direct counterexample to that premise, and we're not alone; neighbors have identified renter households, including ADU tenants and families with young children, throughout the R1 parcels on Delaware, Centinela, and Urban. The report's own numbers confirm the pivot backfired: Option 3 leaves only 4 unprotected parcels out of 66, because most already qualify for SB79's tenant-protection carve-out.

Options 1 and 2, the R1 alternatives, leave 5 and 15 parcels unprotected respectively. This gap exists because SB79's displacement protection only applies to sites with three or more units; most R1 parcels today have far fewer, so raising their density does not bring them under that protection the way it does for the R2/R3 buildings that already qualify. The option chosen to protect renters protects fewer of us than the one it replaced.

Meanwhile, 54 parcels in this same zone are already commercially zoned and already meet or exceed SB79's density standards. The report treats that as a solved input rather than a lever worth pulling further. Upzoning commercial land to close the remaining gap displaces zero current residents, a claim none of the three options on the table can make. Gandara Park already contains a real mix of townhomes and multifamily buildings alongside a shrinking stock of single-family homes; spending down what's left of it, on a rationale the report's own data contradicts, isn't a necessary tradeoff.

I'm asking Council to return to Option 3 for now, and to direct staff to formally study a commercialcorridor upzoning alternative before any further R1 rezoning moves forward.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
35 Brent Thompson
LinkedIn
[email protected]
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
36 David Yakobson
From: Lauren Marie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Please stop allowing 4k 1 bedroom to be build under the guise of “low income housing” or “affordable housing.” It’s quite the joke,
Sincerely,
Lauren Wyka
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
37 David Yakobson
From: Amy Taylor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Subject: Agenda Item 11.C: Return to Option 3 (URGENT)

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I’m writing to share my thoughts on Item 11.C because this proposal directly impacts my family. I rent a single family home in the Gandara Park neighborhood near Delaware and 34th, where I’m raising a two year old daughter.

I support building more housing near transit. What concerns me is that the proposed R1 rezoning doesn’t seem to be the onlyor the best way to accomplish that goal. The reasoning that R1 parcels are primarily owner-occupied doesn’t reflect the reality of our neighborhood. My family rents an R1 home, and many of our neighbors do as well, including families and ADU tenants.

What stood out to me in the staff report is that the previous R2/R3 approach actually appears to leave fewer properties without SB 79 tenant protections than the R1 alternatives. At the same time, there are already many commercially zoned properties in this area that meet or exceed the required density standards. It seems worth exploring whether additional commercial upzoning could achieve the City’s objectives while avoiding unnecessary displacement of residents.

I respectfully ask the Council to reconsider Option 3 or, at a minimum, direct staff to fully evaluate a commercial-focused alternative before rezoning additional R1 neighborhoods.

Thank you for your time and for considering the perspective of those of us who already rent here and call this neighborhood home.

Sincerely,
Amy Taylor
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
38 David Yakobson
From: Chuck Abbott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Charles Abbott
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
39 David Yakobson
From: Will Finch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 12:05 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 11C (SB 79)

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I would like to push back on the council’s reasoning for delaying SB 79. While the nominal reason given by the council for the delay is preventing displacement, SB 79 has protections against using the law to demolish any rentcontrolled buildings where renters have lived for the last 7 years. Additionally, a UCSF study in 2023 found that new housing DECREASES the risk of displacement. The discussion also does not acknowledge that the zones in the SCAG map extend beyond the Pico neighborhood.

SB 79 was well thought out and contingencies for communities at risk for displacement were extensively accounted for. It is bad policy to try to negate the effects now when we desperately need new housing. We are hurting - not helping - people being priced out of their communities.

Please don’t delay any longer in implementing transit-oriented development allowed by SB 79! Sincerely,
Will Finch
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
40 David Yakobson
From: Roger Director <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Roger Director
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
41 David Yakobson
From: Peter A Donald <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!
Attachments: PastedGraphic-5.tiff

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

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

Sincerely,
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
42 David Yakobson
From: William Schoene <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Item 11-C would increase development standards (density, floor area ratio, and height) for 212 singlefamily homes in the parts of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood that are within a 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station, well beyond what SB 79 has mandated. It would allow 10 to 12-unit apartment buildings on typical 6,500-square-foot single-family parcels. We live in Sunset Park and 10 years ago our neighbors to the west added a 2-story apartment building to their backyard, under the government-approved "granny flat" rule. We cannot imagine remaining where we are had they been able to replace their home
with a 10-unit building.

Furthermore, the R1 lots most likely to be converted house the least economically secure families -- an unwelcome form of gentrification. In 2021, Councilmember Raskin was quoted by the Daily Press: “The demographic in our city that’s at the single greatest risk of displacement is working-class families who rent single-family homes."
Please return to Option 3, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reject Options 1 and 2.

Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements, and why should Santa Monica densify beyond what is mandated by a state law that steamrollers over all our control of local zoning? You owe it to Santa Monica residents to minimize both forced rezoning and the amount of displacement harm.

Sincerely,
William and Mary Lou Schoene
1519 Oak Street Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
43 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 6:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 11.C - The numbers don't lie - Option 3 is the only option that actually delivers

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I'm writing about Item 11.C on Tuesday's agenda, the proposal to adjust development standards near the Metro Bundy station so this area can qualify for a temporary exclusion from SB79. I've owned my home here for years and before that was a renter in Santa Monica for 20+ years. I have watched the Gandara Neighborhood change slowly and steadily long before SB79 ever came up, and I want to make sure the choice you make on Tuesday actually holds up.

On July 14, the Council moved away from the Planning Commission's original recommendation, Option 3, which would have upzoned 66 R2/R3 parcels, and directed staff toward the R1 options 1 & 2 instead, covering either 89 or all 212 single-family parcels. The stated reason was to "protect renters", since the report describes the R1 parcels as "ownership" housing with "unlikely displacement risk." I understand the instinct. But the report's own numbers cut the other way. SB79's tenant protections apply only to buildings with three or more units that already carry rent control or affordable housing. Most R1 lots don't have three units today, so upzoning them doesn't bring them under that protection. That's why Option 3 leaves just 4 of 66 parcels unprotected, while Option 1 leaves 5 and Option 2 leaves 15. The options 1 & 2 meant to protect renters protects fewer of them than the recommended option #3. I ask Council to reject Options 1 and 2, return to Option 3, or direct staff to model a commercial-parcel alternative before adopting any option that unprotects more renters than the one it replaced.

I've lived here long enough to know this neighborhood already has townhomes and multifamily buildings woven in among the single-family homes, and that the single-family stock has been shrinking for years, not growing. I also know this area has carried more than its share of the city's burdens for generations: the I-10 Freeway was routed through here, the city's old dump was sited here, and the Metro rail yard still operates here. We've absorbed a lot already.

There is a better path. 54 parcels in this zone are already commercially zoned and already meet or exceed the state's density targets. That underused land could take on real growth without displacing a single renter or demolishing a single home.

I'm asking you to choose the recommended option #3 that actually delivers on the goal you stated on July 14.

Do the right thing!
Thank you for your consideration,
Christian Kennel & Meagan Westhoven
3007 Delaware Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
44 ____________________________________
Christian Kennel
US Mobile/WhatsApp: 1-310-614-4070
EU Mobile: +34 658 048 233
E: [email protected]
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
45 David Yakobson
From: Maria Faillace <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 6:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Seriously! Stop this being in the developer’s pocket!!
Sincerely,
Maria Faillace
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
46 David Yakobson
From: terri williamson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 6:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Teresa Williamson
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
47 David Yakobson
From: Karen Pinto <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 6:56 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME) Karen M Pinto
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
48 David Yakobson
From: colette herbstman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Colette Herbstman
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
49 David Yakobson
From: Ramesh Ramalingam <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Ramesh Ramalingam
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
50 David Yakobson
From: Richard Daum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose! - Does it address Ownership vs. Renting

EXTERNAL
Three additional factors seem to be missing:
1) Encouragement of Condominium Ownership vs Rentals.
2) Home Size requirements that will encourage families to locate into Santa Monica. 3) Architectural requirements that lessen burdens of more density; that include, sunlight & air in units, aesthetics of buildings and neighborhoods and parks and open spaces for kids and adults alike.

I trust the evaluation of the Friends of Sunset Park and Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow.

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

Richard Daum
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
51 David Yakobson
From: K Ponthier S Devine <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Subject: Subject: Agenda Item 11.C - Reject Options 1 and 2

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am Kevin Ponthier a homeowner and long-time resident of the Gandara Park/Pico neighborhood, near the Metro E Expo/Bundy and Bergamot stations. I am writing on Agenda Item 11.C, the staff report proposing higher development standards on parcels near the station to qualify the zone for temporary exclusion from SB79.

On July 14, Council moved away from Option 3, the Planning Commission's June 17 recommendation, because of displacement risk to R2/R3 renters, and directed staff to look at R1 parcels instead, on the premise that R1 parcels are ownership housing with unlikely displacement risk. That premise does not hold up against the report's own numbers. SB79's displacement carve-out only protects sites with three or more units that carry rent control or affordable housing. Most R1 parcels today have fewer than three units, so raising their density does not bring them under that protection the way it does for R2/R3 buildings that already qualify.

Option 1 has 5 rent-controlled R1 parcels, all single-unit, so none are protected. Option 2 has 20 rent-controlled parcels, and 15 remain unprotected. Option 3 has 44 rent-controlled and 4 affordable parcels, with only 4 unprotected. Moving away from Option 3 to protect renters produces an option that protects fewer of them.

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
52 As a homeowner, I do not think the R1 designation in this neighborhood means what the report assumes it means. I know renter households on R1 parcels near Delaware, Centinela, and Urban, including ADU tenants and families with children. Treating R1 as uniformly owner-occupied is not accurate here.

I also note that 54 parcels in the zone are already commercially zoned and already meet or exceed SB79 standards. The report does not present or model an option to further upzone those commercial parcels, even though that is the only path to the 33% threshold that displaces no current resident.

I ask Council to reject Options 1 and 2, return to Option 3, or direct staff to model a commercial-parcel alternative before adopting a plan that leaves more renters unprotected than the plan it replaced.

Respectfully,
Kevin Ponthier
3003 Delaware Avenue
310.866.2478
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
53 David Yakobson
From: Ido Gruberger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Ido Gruberger
Sent from my phone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
54 David Yakobson
From: Kevin Ponthier <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Subject: Agenda Item 11.C - Reject Options 1 and 2

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am Sarah Devine a homeowner and long-time resident of the Gandara Park/Pico neighborhood, near the Metro E Expo/Bundy and Bergamot stations. I am writing on Agenda Item 11.C, the staff report proposing higher development standards on parcels near the station to qualify the zone for temporary exclusion from SB79.

Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
55 As a homeowner, I do not think the R1 designation in this neighborhood means what the report assumes it means. I know renter households on R1 parcels near Delaware, Centinela, and Urban, including ADU tenants and families with children. Treating R1 as uniformly owner-occupied is not accurate here.

Respectfully,
Sarah Devine
3003 Delaware Avenue
310-601-0483
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
56 David Yakobson
From: Jose Parra <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:07 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems; info
Subject: Agenda Item 11.C (7/28) - Oppose R1 Upzoning; Return to Option 3

EXTERNAL
On July 14, 2026, this Council had the Planning Commission’s recommendation to focus density increases on the 66 R2/R3 multi-unit parcels already identified in the Expo/Bundy TOD zone. Instead, you departed from that recommendationn with no notice to the residents who stood to be affected, no outreach to our neighborhood, and seemingly no accounting for what this community has already been through. You instructed staff to look instead at rezoning R1 parcels in the Gandara Park neighborhood, as well as Sunset Park, in order to meet SB 79’s exclusion criteria and avoid the risk of displacing renters elsewhere.

This decision shielded renters in multi-unit buildings in other parts of the city by shifting the weight of that decision onto a neighborhood full of multigenerational families and renters who had no opportunity to weigh in. Close to one in five households on our blocks are renter households. It is common here for a single house to hold three generations and five to eight people, because that has always been the reality of this place — and because for a long stretch of this city’s past, ours was one of the few neighborhoods where our families were even permitted to live. That’s not a coincidence of history. This is the same area where Japanese American families, released from wartime incarceration, were allowed to resettle — and that history isn’t distant or theoretical; some of those very families, our next door neighbors included, still live here. This is also the neighborhood that has had the I-10 cut straight through it, that sits next to what used to be a landfill, and that now lies awake to the sound of Metro rail cars being tested at 3 a.m., night after night, with no end date in sight.

And this is the neighborhood you’ve now singled out for more density, with less public process, less advance notice, and less scrutiny than the option your own Planning Commission had actually put forward. It’s especially upsetting that there are 3 Councilmembers (Snell, Raskin, Zernaskaya) who live in our neighborhood and offered zero support knowing all our history of this neighborhood being the casualty of discrimination.

There’s also an environmental consequence unmentioned from this report: the at-grade rail crossing running through our streets. During peak hours, traffic backs up behind the gate arm — sometimes two blocks deep — with engines running the whole time it’s down. That’s not a small annoyance; it’s exhaust accumulating repeatedly, day after day, in a place people live. The same backup happens regularly at Virginia Avenue and Centinela. Before adding more density to these blocks, what will additional density near this crossing mean for the health of the people who already live here and already breathe that air daily? The current report evaluates displacement risk parcel by parcel but says nothing about this. It needs to, before any option moves forward.

I understand the July 28 report presents Options 1 and 2 as lower-risk for displacement, since the R1 parcels are mostly owner-occupied and SB 79’s tenant protections only kick in for buildings with three or Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
57 more units. But being owner-occupied doesn’t mean no one gets hurt. Renters living in single-family homes here are no less real, and no less exposed, than renters anywhere else — they’re just invisible on paper, because SB 79 wasn’t drafted with a neighborhood like ours in mind. Avoiding displacement numbers on a spreadsheet by routing density into a community that has already carried more than its share of environmental burden isn’t a neutral technical decision. It’s the same pattern this neighborhood has absorbed for decades: the hard call gets made quietly, here, after everyone else has been spared it.

I’m asking this Council to:

1. Go back to Option 3 as recommended by the Planning Commission, and actually give it the consideration it deserved before staff was redirected away from it.

2. If Option 3 is off the table, reject Options 1 and 2 outright rather than defaulting to our neighborhood simply because it was the administratively easier path.

3. At a minimum, before taking any further action, carry out genuine, direct outreach to the households who live on these streets — not a report written after decisions are made, but real engagement with the families who will actually live with the outcome.

4. Formally assess the cumulative environmental justice burden this neighborhood already carries — the freeway, the former dump site, the rail yard noise, the history of housing exclusion — as part of any decision to add density here.

I also want this Council to know that we are consulting with an environmental justice attorney about this decision and the process that produced it, in the context of the broader pattern of injustice this neighborhood has faced. I’m doing that because this community deserves the same care, analysis, and public process that every other option in this report received — and because I want to make sure that whatever is decided on July 28 is decided with clear eyes about the history it would be repeating.

This neighborhood has already given this city more than its fair share. I’m asking you not to take more from it without even asking.

I stand with my Gandara and Sunset Park neighbors on this, and we will keep fighting — together — for equal treatment, real investment, and a quality of life this city has too often decided we could go without.

Jose Parra
3027 Delaware Ave
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
58 David Yakobson
From: Jenny Monbouquette <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Jenny Monbouquette
Jenny Monbouquette
(310)266-3665
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
59 David Yakobson
From: Julia Nicholls <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Subject: Agenda Item 11.C

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I'm writing about Item 11.C on Tuesday's agenda, the zoning changes near the Metro Bundy station that are meant to keep our neighborhood from falling under SB79's default rules. I've owned a house in this neighborhood for 7 years and I'm asking you to look again at which option you're choosing, because the one framed as protecting renters may do the opposite.

I understand why the Council moved away from the Planning Commission's original recommendation (Option 3, upzoning 66 R2/R3 parcels) on July 14 and toward the R1 options instead. The staff report called the 212 R1 parcels "ownership" housing with "unlikely displacement risk," and the intent was to shield renters from harm. But the report's own numbers say something different. SB79's tenant protections only kick in for buildings with three or more units that already have rent control or affordable housing. Most R1 lots today don't have three units, so upzoning them doesn't bring them under that protection the way it does for buildings that already qualify. That's why Option 3 leaves only 4 of 66 parcels unprotected, while Option 1 leaves 5 and Option 2 leaves 15. The option chosen specifically to protect renters ends up protecting fewer of us.

I'm not a statistic in this report. I'm one of the homeowners on these blocks, and I know other homeowners and renters nearby on Delaware, Centinela, and Urban, including families with young kids and people living in ADUs. One neighbor got a 30-day eviction notice in 2021 the day a moratorium lifted, with a one-year-old in the house. That is what displacement actually looks like here.

There are very few areas in Santa Monica where a family can buy or rent a 1-story home. This is a neighborhood of bungalows populated by many people of Japanese descent. It’s important to keep historic areas of Santa Monica.

There's also a simpler option sitting right in front of you. 54 parcels in this zone are already commercially zoned and already meet or exceed the state's density targets. That land could absorb real growth without pushing anyone out of their home.

Please choose the option that actually protects renters, not just the one labeled that way.

Julia Nicholls
2934 Delaware Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
60 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Hicks <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Nancy & Wes Hicks
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
61 David Yakobson
From: lmarreola <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: July 28 CC Mtg. ITEM 11C

EXTERNAL
Please Reject Options 1 and 2, Please return to Option 3.

Carol and Larry Arreola
Sunset Park Residents
Sent from my Galaxy
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
62 David Yakobson
From: Faustino Garza <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 9:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Faustino Garza
Sunset Park
Santa Monica
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
63 David Yakobson
From: Alicia Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
Alicia Davis, Santa Monica resident
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
64 David Yakobson
From: PNA90404 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:34 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11-C

EXTERNAL
Subject: Item 11-C: Upzoning of R1 Neighborhoods in the Pico District Date: July 28, 2026
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
As a long time Pico neighborhood resident, I am writing to urge you to reverse the proposed upzoning of Pico’s R1, which would implement SB79 to allow 6-12 homes to be built on a single R1 lot in our historically aggrieved neighborhood. I urge you to pause this radical zoning shift in order to 1) allow for adequate public input and transparency in the process; 2) consider accurate data regarding the number of renters who would be displaced by the proposed upzoning; and 3) appreciate how such an action would once again disproportionately fall on the Pico neighborhood to bear the brunt of the city’s infrastructure and housing policies. 1) CALL FOR GREATER PUBLIC INPUT AND TRANSPARENCY – AN SB79 TOWN HALL!!! Two weeks ago, city staff recommended that SB79 housing densification be targeted in appropriate R2-R3 areas. At the last council meeting on July 14, nearing 1am with little public input, council decided to ignore city staff recommendation and instead shift the focus of SB79 implementation to target R1 neighborhoods. This shift would in effect destroy the residential character of the Pico (and parts of Sunset Park) R1 neighborhoods. While the Planning Commission has recently held an SB79 listening session, there is still widespread confusion in the community about what SB79 allows, what the planning commission's position is, and what exactly the city council’s position is. With such dramatic impacts at play, I call on the city council to hold its own SB79 town hall or listening session to adequately get informed in a transparent, public fashion, as to how such a policy shift to the R1 neighborhoods would unfold. 2) ACCURATE DATA REGARDING RENTERS IN PICO R1 ZONES (20-25%) Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
65 At July 14 city council meeting, a false assumption was made in the argument to shift to densifying R1 lots as opposed to R2-R3 lots. The inaccurate assumption was that R1 neighborhoods were made up of almost entirely of owner-occupiers. This is simply not the case. A rough estimate in the Gandara Park neighborhood, for example, is that at least 20-25% of homes are rentals. This significant number of renters would potentially be displaced as developers gobble up R1 lots. 3) ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! PICO UNDER SEIGE YET AGAIN!
Sadly, for long-term Pico residents, it comes as no surprise that the city is contemplating having this radical zoning change, the upzoning of R1 neighborhoods, would fall almost entirely on the Pico district, and not the more affluent Santa Monica neighborhoods. The Pico neighborhood has historically borne the brunt of the city’s infrastructure and housing needs (Interstate 10; City Dump and Recycling Yards; Metro Maintenance facility; recent moves to move most homeless services to the Pico area). Please do the right thing and, at the very least, pause this proposed radical upzoning of Pico’s R1 neighborhoods until adequate public input can be heard and deliberated on.

Sincerely yours, Cris McLeod Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
66 David Yakobson
From: PNA <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Cc: PNA; Maria Loya; Brian O'Neil
Subject: 7/28/26 Council Mtg: Item 11C: PNA Board - Oppose Upzoning Pico R1 Neighborhoods

EXTERNAL
Subject: Item 11-C: Upzoning of R1 Neighborhoods in the Pico District Date: July 28, 2026
From: Pico Neighborhood Association Board
Dear Mayor Torosis, Councilmembers, and City Manager Chi, We, the Pico Neighborhood Association Board, are writing to urge you to reverse the proposed upzoning of Pico’s R1, which would implement SB79 to allow 6-12 homes to be built on a single R1 lot in our historically aggrieved neighborhood. I urge you to pause this radical zoning shift in order to 1) allow for adequate public input and transparency in the process; 2) consider accurate data regarding the number of renters who would be displaced by the proposed upzoning; and 3) appreciate how such an action would once again disproportionately fall on the Pico neighborhood to bear the brunt of the city’s infrastructure and housing policies.
1) CALL FOR GREATER PUBLIC INPUT AND TRANSPARENCY – AN SB79 TOWN HALL!!! Two weeks ago, city staff recommended that SB79 housing densification be targeted in appropriate R2-R3 areas. At the last council meeting on July 14, nearing 1 a.m. with little public input, council decided to ignore city staff recommendation and instead shift the focus of SB79 implementation to target R1 neighborhoods. This shift would in effect destroy the residential character of the Pico (and parts of Sunset Park) R1 neighborhoods. While the Planning Commission has recently held an SB79 listening session, there is still widespread confusion in the community about what SB79 allows, what the planning commission's position is, and what exactly the city council’s position is. With such dramatic impacts at play, we call on the city council to hold its own SB79 town hall or listening session to adequately get informed in a transparent, public fashion, as to how such a policy shift to the R1 neighborhoods would unfold. 2) ACCURATE DATA REGARDING RENTERS IN PICO R1 ZONES (20-25%) At July 14 city council meeting, a false assumption was made in the argument to shift to densifying R1 lots as opposed to R2-R3 lots. The inaccurate assumption was that R1 neighborhoods were made up of almost entirely of owner-occupiers. This is simply not the case. A rough estimate in the Gandara Park neighborhood, for example, is that at least 20-25% of homes are rentals. This significant number of renters would potentially be displaced as developers gobble up R1 lots.
3) ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! PICO NEIGHBORHOOD UNDER SIEGE YET AGAIN! Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
67 Sadly, for long-term Pico residents, it comes as no surprise that the city is contemplating having this radical zoning change, the upzoning of R1 neighborhoods, fall almost entirely on the Pico district, and not the more affluent Santa Monica neighborhoods. The Pico neighborhood has historically borne the brunt of the city’s infrastructure and housing needs (Interstate 10; City Dump and Recycling Yards; Metro Maintenance facility; recent moves to move most homeless services to the Pico area). Please do the right thing and, at the very least, pause this proposed radical upzoning of Pico’s R1 neighborhoods until adequate public input can be heard and deliberated on.

Sincerely yours,
PNA Board
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
68 David Yakobson
From: John Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

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

Sincerely,
John Murdock
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
69 David Yakobson
From: Tracey Hom <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:45 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; Roni Crichton; [email protected]; Karen M. Fisher; Molly; Lynn Sturgis
Subject: PLEASE REJECT Item 11-C, and make the smallest change that would meet the SB79 requirements (Option 3, Planning Commission)

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
You are not taking into account that we will not have enough water or electrical grid for this massive increase in density or escape routes in the event of a emergency.

You are specifically hurting people of color and renters. Have you looked at the map? What are you trying to do?
I know that Councilmember Raskin has looked at the map. In 2021, Councilmember Raskin was quoted by the Daily Press as follows: “The demographic in our city that’s at the single greatest risk of displacement is working-class families who rent single-family homes." Granted, Santa Monica is required to do some targeted rezoning to qualify for a delay in how SB 79 applies around the Expo/Bundy Station. But item 11-C goes far beyond what the state law requires. Your persistence in expanding what is required under SB 79 is not well founded and downright dangerous.

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

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

Tracey P. Hom Esq.
10850 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 825
Los Angeles, California 90024
310 749 5343
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
70 David Yakobson
From: Brian O'Neil <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Cc: Brian ONeil; Nada Shamonki
Subject: 7/28/26 Council Meeting: Item 11-C: Upzoning of R1 Neighborhoods in the Pico District Doesn't Match Your Own Numbers

EXTERNAL
We have owned our home in the Gandara Park/Pico neighborhood for years and have watched enough city processes play out to recognize when a rationale is built after the decision rather than before it. Item 11.C is one of those cases, and I am asking you to look at the staff report again before you vote.

On July 14, you turned down the Planning Commission's June 17 recommendation to upzone 66 R2/R3 parcels near the Bundy station, and instead directed staff to bring back options to upzone R1 parcels. Your stated reason was concern about displacing renters on the R2/R3 lots. The report you got back justifies the R1 pivot by calling all 212 R1 parcels "ownership" housing with "unlikely displacement risk." That claim does not survive contact with the report's own data.

Under Option 1, all 5 rent-controlled R1 parcels are single-unit properties, so none qualify for SB79's own displacement carve-out, which requires 3 or more units plus rent control or affordable units. Under Option 2, 20 of 212 R1 parcels have rent-controlled units, and 15 of those get no protection for the same reason. Now compare Option 3, the original 66 R2/R3 parcels: 44 have rent-controlled units, 4 have deed-restricted affordable units, and only 4 total end up unprotected, because most of those buildings already qualify for SB79's own tenant safeguards. The plan you pivoted toward protects fewer renters than the plan you rejected, not more.

We have also heard directly from neighbors that renter households, including ADU tenants and families with children, currently live on R1 parcels on Delaware, Centinela, and Urban, and that a tenant was evicted on one of these streets in 2021 when a moratorium lifted. The blanket "ownership" label in the staff report does not reflect this neighborhood as it actually exists.

I would also point out that 54 parcels in the study area are already zoned commercial and already meet or exceed SB79 standards. The report offers no analysis of upzoning those parcels further, despite that being the one category where added density displaces no current resident.

Reject Options 1 and 2 as written. Either send staff back to correct the record, or return to Option 3, which reaches the legal threshold using fewer parcels than any alternative on the table.

Highest regards,
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
71 Brian O’Neil/ Nada Shamonki
2929 Delaware Ave
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Comment on Items 11B and 11C
Fyi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Olivia Nahass
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Clerk Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Support for Items 11-B and 11-C
Mitchell Kois
Staff Assistant III | City Clerk’s Office
(310) 458-8211 x5518
-----Original Message-----
From: Debbie Paperman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:07 AM
To: [email protected]; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; Clerk Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Items 11-B and 11-C

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

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

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

Please approve both items.

Thank you so much for all that you do
Debbie Paperman
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: TROY PARR <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 9:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Subject: Agenda Item 11.C -NO on Options 1 & 2 - Protect Our Neighborhood and Its Renters

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am a voter, homeowner, and long-time resident of Santa Monica. I live in the Gandara Park/Pico neighborhood, near the Bergamont and Metro E Expo/Bundy stations. I am writing to express my strong concerns about Agenda Item 11.C, the staff report proposing higher development standards on parcels near the stations to qualify the zone for temporary exclusion from SB79.

On July 14, Council moved away from Option 3, which had been recommended by the Planning Commission's June 17, because of displacement risk to R2/R3 renters, and directed staff to look at R1 parcels instead, on the premise that R1 parcels are ownership housing with unlikely displacement risk. This move was not consistent with the report's actual own numbers. SB79's displacement carve-out only protects sites with three or more units that carry rent control or affordable housing. Most R1 parcels today have fewer than three units, so raising their density does not bring them under that protection the way it does for R2/R3 buildings that already qualify. Option 1 has 5 rent-controlled R1 parcels, all single-unit, so none are protected. Option 2 has 20 rentcontrolled parcels, and 15 remain unprotected. Option 3 has 44 rent-controlled and 4 affordable parcels, with only 4 unprotected. Moving away from Option 3 to protect renters produces an option that protects fewer of them. These numbers do not support moving ahead with options 1 and 2.

Our neighborhood has a rich mix of renters and homeowners. There are renters ranging from families with young children to elderly tenants on R1 parcels near Centinela, Delaware, and Urban, including many ADU tenants. It's not accurate to treat all R1 lots as uniformly owner-occupied, that does not reflect the reality of our diverse neighborhood. 54 parcels in the zone are already commercially zoned and already meet or exceed SB79 standards. The facts presented in the report do not recommend or support an option to further upzone those commercial parcels, even though that is the most practical path to the 33% threshold that would not displace any current residents.

I sincerely ask that Council reject Options 1 and 2, and support Option 3, or direct staff to research and model a commercial-parcel alternative before adopting a plan that leaves more renters unprotected and disrupts the rich Santa Monica diversity of our neighborhood community.

Sincerely,
Troy Parr
(Gandara Park Resident & Voter)
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Robert Mickelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

2. Option 3 makes the smallest zoning change that meets the state’s SB 79 requirements. You owe it to residents to implement a law with the least amount of displacement harm!!! Sincerely,
Robert Mickelson
3204 Pearl Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
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
4 David Yakobson
From: Susan Alinsangan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Item 11-C: Oppose!

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

Sincerely,
Susan Alinsangan
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 David Yakobson
From: TROY PARR <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 9:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Subject: Agenda Item 11.C -NO on Options 1 & 2 - Protect Our Neighborhood and Its Renters

Santa Monica 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.

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.

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

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,c
Marc Sniderman
1757 Sunset Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-650-5107
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
Item 11-C
July 28, 2026
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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

Santa Monica City CouncilJuly 28, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
July 28, 2026