Agenda packet — Santa Monica City Council, September 8, 2026 (part 6 of 6)

By increasing development standards on these 89 R1 parcels, the City can bring the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone to approximately 42.7% and thereby obtain a temporary SB 79 exclusion for the entire Expo/Bundy TOD Zone until approximately 2030.

I want that SB 79 window closed.

My neighbors want that window closed.

But I struggle with the inequity of how the City has chosen to accomplish it.

The entire Expo/Bundy TOD Zone receives the benefit of temporary protection from SB 79. Yet these 89 properties are being asked to provide the additional housing capacity necessary to help make that protection possible, and they will do so through an increase in their local zoning.

And these aren't just 89 parcels on a map.

They are people's homes.

They include renters. They include renters who run family daycares out of their homes. They are at risk of not only losing their homes but their livelihood too. They include longtime homeowners. They include multigenerational families. They are part of a neighborhood that has already experienced the freeway, industrial uses, environmental burdens, and decades of land-use decisions that were too often made without us.

Council previously expressed concern about displacement when considering increased density on R2 and R3 properties. I understand that concern.

Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1487 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 6 What I cannot understand is why that same concern did not result in an equally serious examination of displacement and redevelopment pressure here.

We have shown you that renters live in this neighborhood. One in five homes in our neighborhood are rentals.

We have shown you what is already happening on Delaware Avenue.

We have asked about infrastructure, demolition, displacement, environmental justice, and cumulative impacts.

And now the staff report tells us something else that should give this Council pause: this isn't even the City's comprehensive long-term plan.

Staff expressly says this temporary exclusion is intended to give the City time to evaluate future housing needs and develop a more comprehensive approach through the 7th Cycle Housing Element, a future LUCE update, or a TOD Alternative Plan.

Then please use that time.

If this is a temporary solution intended to close the SB 79 window while the City undertakes comprehensive planning, then the increased zoning imposed on these 89 parcels should be temporary as well.

Do not make a lasting land-use decision for this neighborhood today and promise to conduct the comprehensive planning tomorrow.

After more than 25 years of advocating for this neighborhood, and after having had the privilege of sitting where you sit today, I know that government can do better than simply telling a neighborhood that this is the solution that has been selected.

Public service requires us to ask who benefits from a decision, who carries its burden, and whether we have treated those people equitably.

With Item 12-B, the entire Expo/Bundy TOD Zone stands to benefit from the temporary exclusion.

But these 89 properties are being asked to help carry the burden necessary to obtain it.

Please don't make the Gandara Park neighborhood fight, once again, simply to be seen.

Close the SB 79 window. Protect Expo/Bundy.

But protect us too.

Respectfully,
Christine Parra
Former Santa Monica City Councilmember
Pico Neighborhood Resident
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1488 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 7 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Hicks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 7:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,

I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.

This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.

R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.

I urge you to rethink this plan.

Sincerely,
Nancy & Wes Hicks
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1489 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 8 David Yakobson
From: Mary Donovan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 7:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,

I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.

This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.

R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.

I urge you to rethink this plan.

Sincerely,
(Mary donovanYOUR NAME)
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1490 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 9 David Yakobson
From: Wray-Lake, Laura <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 7:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; [email protected]; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 12-B: A different decision is urgently warranted

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Santa Monica City Council:

I am writing regarding Item 12-B on the September 8 City Council agenda and the proposed zoning changes affecting 89 R1 parcels in the Pico neighborhood near the Expo/Bundy station.

I strongly urge you to reconsider this zoning change by more carefully considering the full range of evidence. You went against the recommendations of the Planning Commission (experts in the field!), based on a logic that you wanted to (a) minimize displacement risk and (b) minimize the impact on residents.

What evidence do you have that displacement risk is lower among R1 property holders? When you interact with members of this community, you will realize that many families are working-class, first-generation homeowners, or intergenerational homeowners who otherwise could not afford a home in Santa Monica. Have you conducted an equity analysis to ensure that this decision doesn’t disproportionately impact certain groups of residents in Santa Monica? If so, the public never saw this information. I believe the council too quickly disregarded this neighborhood’s circumstances in assuming displacement risk is low or even that it would be fully voluntary when speculative development ramps up.

You did not choose a rezoning plan that actually minimizes the impact on residents. In reading the Planning Commission’s report, I was surprised to learn that a clear option exists to minimize the short-term impact of upzoning in our TOD zone. Specifically, Policy Option 1 (p. 16-17) includes the Los Angeles data in the calculations of exclusion criteria and represents the minimum amount of upzoning that would be required in Santa Monica. LA makes up 75% of the TOD zone, and with LA’s data, the zone only misses the density requirement for exemption by 2%. It is absolutely baffling that a joint submission with LA was not pursued. If you truly want to minimize the impact this upzoning over the next few years, you must take this option seriously and pursue it as Plan A. Moreover, the data show that the Council’s proposed solution with the 89 parcels upzones more parcels than are needed to meet the minimum density requirements – that clearly does not align with the stated logic of minimizing the impact on the fewest number of residents.

What other data did you examine before deciding to upzone the 89 R1 parcels? Have you conducted an environmental analysis? Delaware Avenue has one of the most mature tree canopies in all of Santa Monica, and it would be a short-sighted travesty to lose this environmental resource in the name of new development. Have you conducted an analysis to ensure that the water and sewer in this area can handle the upzoning? When evidence has not yet been examined and viable solutions not yet fully considered, it would be prudent for the Council to pause and reexamine the situation more fully. We all realize that some upzoning action needs to be taken by the City, in accordance with SB 79. And we all realize that Santa Monica needs more housing, especially affordable housing. But all development is not good development. I urge you not to make a hasty, irreversible decision that disproportionately affects one small neighborhood when there are other solutions on the table.

Please do not adopt the Ordinance and instead reconsider more minimal impact solutions to securing the temporary exemption offered by the Planning Commission.

Thank you,
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1491 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 10 Laura Wray-Lake
1816 34th St.

Santa Monica, CA 90404

Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1492 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 11 David Yakobson
From: sarah aldrich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 8:20 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 12-B Upzoning - Oppose

EXTERNAL
SUBJECT: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi, I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.

This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.

R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.

I urge you to rethink this plan.

Sincerely,
Sarah Aldrich
[email protected]
310-999-1258
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1493 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 12 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 9:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Oliver Chi Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose the destruction of a single-family neighborhood and pursue an alternative

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi From: Tricia Crane, Chair of Northeast Neighbors
Re: OPPOSE Agenda Item 12-B, Council meeting of Sept. 8, 2026

I oppose the destruction of the small single-family neighborhood in the Pico neighborhood that has been targeted by the City as a means of implementing SB79 development standards for properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.

If Council approves Agenda Item 12-B we can expect the single-family homes in that area to be demolished and replaced with 5 townhomes. Would our goals of creating affordable housing be served by such action? Where will the displaced families live? Do we really want to see the destruction of a small neighborhood? Is there no alternative? Instead of displacing these Santa Monica families, the City should pursue mitigation strategies.

Please vote NO on Agenda Item 12-B and direct staff to pursue and present an alternative plan.

Sincerely,
Tricia Crane, Chair of Northeast Neighbors

Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1494 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 13 David Yakobson
From: amit bhura <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 10:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; [email protected]; Jesse Zwick
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 12-B - Do Not Place the Burden of the Expo/Bundy SB 79 Exclusion on 89 R1 Parcels

EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I’m writing to express my concerns about Item 12-B on the September 8 City Council agenda, which involves proposed zoning changes affecting 89 R1 parcels in the Pico neighborhood near the Expo/Bundy station.

While I support protecting our neighborhood and the entire Expo/Bundy TOD Zone from SB 79, I’m deeply concerned that the City’s proposed solution is to increase the local zoning on these 89 parcels.

Page 6 ends

parcels would enable the entire Expo/Bundy TOD Zone to qualify for temporary exclusion from SB 79 until around 2030.

In essence, these 89 properties are being asked to accept additional housing capacity so that the entire TOD zone can benefit from the exclusion.

This raises several serious questions that should be addressed before the Council adopts this ordinance:
 Why should these 89 R1 parcels bear the additional development burden necessary to provide SB 79 protection to the entire Expo/Bundy TOD Zone?
 The staff states that the proposal would increase the qualifying percentage to approximately

42.7%. If the statutory threshold is 33%, has the City demonstrated that all 89 parcels are essential to meet the applicable exclusion requirements?  Why was displacement risk considered a reason not to place additional density on R2/R3 properties, while the City has not conducted an equivalent analysis of renters, multigenerational households, and displacement risk within these R1 parcels?  What analysis has been performed regarding redevelopment pressure, demolition of existing homes, infrastructure capacity, and the cumulative impacts on this neighborhood?  If the primary goal of this zoning increase is to secure a temporary SB 79 exclusion, will the increased zoning on these 89 parcels also expire when that exclusion ends? If not, why not? The staff report itself explains that this temporary exclusion will provide the City with the necessary time to assess future housing needs and develop a more comprehensive approach. This can be achieved through the 7th Cycle Housing Element, a future LUCE update, or a TOD Alternative Plan.

Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1495 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 14 If the City has not yet completed this comprehensive planning, it should refrain from making a permanent zoning decision affecting these 89 properties. This decision should only be made after demonstrating that the burden has been fairly distributed and supported by adequate analysis.

I respectfully request that the Council modify Item 12-B. Specifically, I would like to see any zoning increase imposed on these 89 parcels be temporary and contingent upon the SB 79 exclusion.

Additionally, the Council should require that the permanent distribution of housing capacity be addressed through the City’s comprehensive planning process. This process should involve meaningful community participation and an analysis of potential displacement, infrastructure, environmental justice, and redevelopment impacts.

Thank you for including this correspondence in the public record for Item 12-B.

Sincerely,
AmitKumar Bhura
2900 Blk Yorkshire/Virginia
Santa Monica, CA
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1496 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 15 David Yakobson
From: Danny Guggenheim <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 10:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi, I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood, and benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing, especially as compared to R2 and R3 housing. Please do not take this approach, and instead prioritize protecting neighborhoods.

Sincerely,
Danny Guggenheim
Sunset Park resident since 2006
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1497 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 16 David Yakobson
From: Karrie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 11:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,

I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.

This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.

R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.

I urge you to rethink this plan.

Sincerely,
Karrie Dvorchak
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1498 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 1 David Yakobson
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 7:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Oliver Chi Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,

I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.

In the staff report, the City is admitting that SB79 will displace residents. And the City is making the value judgement that single family neighborhoods are of lesser value that multi-family neighborhoods when displacement is at issue. That is despite the fact that R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.

In addition to this discrimination against a specific class of resident, the unsupportable, and frankly incompetent, rationale for approval of this rushed approval appears to pivot entirely on the City’s unwillingness to do the work to find mitigating strategies. So, the immediate imposition of this single family neighborhood displacement risk is supposedly justified by:
 Lack of HCD response to date on an April 24, 2026 City request for technical assistance on the issue of how to calculate capacity criteria for TOD zones that span multiple jurisdictions under SB79
 Concern about the theoretical risk of fines and penalties from City miscalculation of the number of parcels under SB79 the multi-jurisdictional application of SB79  Conjecture about whether the City will receive timely notice of any action by HCD to certify or reject an ordinance submitted by the City of Los Angeles.

All of these patently pathetic excuses relate to the City refusing to hold the State accountable for its own legislation implementation. This is the City’s job as the representative of the residents. Abdication of this core responsibility is not only embarrassing, it is patently absurd.

And, like all the densification that is occurring across the city, this action is doing absolutely NOTHING to advance affordability. In fact, let’s not forget that “affordability” is the nominal justification for all the densification initiatives. The fact that all these initiatives are achieving the Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1499 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 2 opposite impact speaks directly to their abject failure. In this instance, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million. And that $1.5m townhome comes with limited parking and no yard space, creating a compounding degradation of the quality of life for the entire area. Of course, the only beneficiaries are the developers who have somehow have anticipated the passage of this ordinance.

I strongly urge you to rethink this plan.

Respectfully,
Marc Verville
Sunset Park
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1500 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 1 David Yakobson
From: lori brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 10:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Attorney Mailbox; Oliver Chi Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose

This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.

R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.

I urge you to rethink this plan.

Sincerely,
Lori brown
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1501 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 2 David Yakobson
From: Jose Parra <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 8:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; [email protected]; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 12-B - SB 79 Exclusion on 89 R1 Parcels

EXTERNAL
I am writing regarding Item 12-B on the September 8 City Council agenda and the proposed zoning changes affecting 89 R1 parcels in the Pico neighborhood near the Expo/Bundy station.

I support protecting our neighborhood and the entire Expo/Bundy TOD Zone from SB 79. However, I am deeply concerned that the City proposes to accomplish that protection by increasing the local zoning on these 89 R1 parcels.

Page 6 ends

parcels would allow the entire Expo/Bundy TOD Zone to qualify for temporary exclusion from SB 79 until approximately 2030.

In other words, these 89 properties are being asked to accept additional housing capacity so that the entire TOD zone can receive the benefit of the exclusion.

If the statutory threshold is 33%, has the City demonstrated that all 89 parcels are necessary to satisfy the applicable exclusion requirements?
 Why was displacement risk considered a reason not to place additional density on R2/R3 properties, while the City has not performed an equivalent analysis of renters, multigenerational households and displacement risk within these R1 parcels?  What analysis has been performed regarding redevelopment pressure, demolition of existing homes, infrastructure capacity and cumulative impacts on this neighborhood?  If the purpose of this zoning increase is to obtain a temporary SB 79 exclusion, will the increased zoning on these 89 parcels also sunset when that exclusion expires? If not, why not? The staff report itself states that this temporary exclusion will give the City time to evaluate future housing needs and develop a more comprehensive approach through the 7th Cycle Housing Element, a future LUCE update, or a TOD Alternative Plan.

If that comprehensive planning has not yet occurred, the City should not make a lasting zoning decision affecting these 89 properties without first demonstrating that the burden has been distributed fairly and supported by adequate analysis.

Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1502 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 3 Please close the SB 79 window for Expo/Bundy, but do not permanently place the cost of obtaining that protection on one small neighborhood.

I respectfully ask the Council to modify Item 12-B so that any zoning increase imposed on these 89 parcels is temporary and tied to the SB 79 exclusion, and to require that the permanent distribution of housing capacity be addressed through the City's comprehensive planning process with meaningful community participation and an analysis of displacement, infrastructure, environmental justice and redevelopment impacts.

Thank you for including this correspondence in the public record for Item 12-B. --
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1503 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 4 David Yakobson
From: Kelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 8:04 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: oppose sb79 option 1

EXTERNAL
I strongly oppose up zoning R1 and support option 3, which the city planning recommends Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1504 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 1 David Yakobson
From: Nathaniel Wilson <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 8:18 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; [email protected]; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: September 8 City Council Meeting — Bergamot / Bundy TOD neighborhood plan.

Attachments: SB79_September_8_Neighbor_Questions.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
City of Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
SEPTEMBER 8 CITY COUNCIL - ITEM 12-B
REQUEST: Continue Item 12-B. Do the work required ASAP to recover from previous inaction.

1. BE PROACTIVE REGARDING PENDING SB LEGISLATION. SB 677 is on the ballot in November it will “Improve” SB 9 and SB 423 to provide additional tools for developers to assault our Bergamot / Bundy TOD neighborhood. Make a comprehensive plan for Bergamot Station and the entire neighborhood from Stewart Park to Centinela Avenue to address SB 79 and all similar pending legislation.

2. SHOW US THE FISCAL / REDEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
Council rejected the Planning Commission's R2/R3 approach because of potential renter displacement and chose 89 R1 parcels instead. Where is the analysis comparing the real-world feasibility of redeveloping protected R2/R3 rental properties versus R1 properties? Did it account for rent control, replacement housing, relocation obligations, affordable-housing protections, acquisition costs and the relative ease of purchasing and redeveloping a single-family property? R-1 Owners have invested their savings and sweat equity in renovations and Accessory Dwelling Units so that they can remain in the neighborhood with their extended families. The R/2 and R/3 Buildings along Exposition need to be rebuilt with modern amenities and universal access. Increasing the height limit on these parcels to 3 stories will encourage redevelopment.

3. SHOW US THE ENVIRONMENTAL-JUSTICE ANALYSIS
Before shifting additional development capacity to this historically impacted portion of the Pico Neighborhood, what racial-equity and environmental-justice analysis did the City conduct? Did it consider the cumulative impacts of the I-10 freeway, historic displacement, the Expo Line the Expo Maintenance Yard and other government land-use decisions affecting this community?

4. IS THIS A PERMANENT UPZONING FOR A TEMPORARY EXCLUSION? The City says increasing standards on these 89 R1 parcels would allow the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone to be excluded from SB 79 implementation until 2030. Where in the proposed ordinance do the increased R1 standards automatically sunset? If they do not sunset, why should our neighborhood receive a Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1505 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 2 permanent zoning change in exchange for a temporary SB 79 exclusion? Provide a long term plan that includes Bergamot Station Area Plan.

5. BERGAMOT STATION AREA PLAN. Provide for an Overlay Zone that allows 6 stories of residential above 2 stories of Retail / Gallery space. An 8 story building at this location will not impact the neighborhood and there is excess parking across the street at the Water Garden.

WHERE IS THE INFRASTRUCTURE / CUMULATIVE-IMPACT ANALYSIS? What analysis has been completed regarding sewer, water, electrical capacity, stormwater, emergency access and the cumulative development potential created by SB 79, SB 1123, Density Bonus Law and this local zoning increase together? Engage the expertise at the City Public Works and OSE to provide sustainable building solutions. Don’t allow cheap developers to profit and leave expensive future upgrades for remaining home owners.

5. WHY MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THE ANSWERS?
Residents asked these questions directly at the City's SB 79 community meeting, but the requested analyses were not provided. If these analyses do not exist, why should Council change our zoning before completing the due diligence needed to understand the consequences?? Best Regards,
Nathaniel Wilson, AIA
Bergamot/Bundy R-1 TOD Resident.

Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1506 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail SEPTEMBER 8 CITY COUNCIL - ITEM 12-B
Questions Before Council Changes the Zoning of 89 R1 Parcels REQUEST: Continue Item 12-B. Do the work required ASAP to recover from previous inaction.

4. IS THIS A PERMANENT UPZONING FOR A TEMPORARY EXCLUSION? The City says increasing standards on these 89 R1 parcels would allow the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone to be excluded from SB 79 implementation until 2030. Where in the proposed ordinance do the increased R1 standards automatically sunset? If they do not sunset, why should our neighborhood receive a permanent zoning change in exchange for a temporary SB 79 exclusion? Provide a long term plan that includes Bergamot Station Area Plan.

5. WHY MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THE ANSWERS?
Residents asked these questions directly at the City's SB 79 community meeting, but the requested analyses were not provided. If these analyses do not exist, why should Council change our zoning before completing the due diligence needed to understand the consequences?? Santa Monica City Hall - Council Chambers, Room 250 | 1685 Main Street | Item 12-B Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1507 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 10:06 AM
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 12-B - Oppose

This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.

R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.

I urge you to rethink this plan.

Sincerely,
Kelly Hsiao
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1508 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 2 David Yakobson
From: Cecilia Haggerstrom <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 10:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; [email protected]; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 12-B - Do Not Place the Burden of the Expo/Bundy SB 79 Exclusion on 89 R1 Parcels

EXTERNAL
Good evening, members of the Council.

My name is Cecilia Haggerstrom, and I am a resident and renter in the Gandara neighborhood. I am here tonight to voice my strong opposition to the upzoning of the 89 parcels under your consideration.

As a childcare provider operating right here in this community, I see firsthand what makes our neighborhood special. My program specifically serves low-income families and disabled children who rely heavily on the stability and accessibility of this single-family community. Every day, school buses safely pull up to my home to drop off these children in an environment that is secure, predictable, and physically navigable for them.

I am deeply concerned that pushing high-density rezoning into our single-family neighborhood will completely erase the character of this community and hand it over to speculative developers. The increased congestion, construction blockages, and high-density traffic will make it incredibly difficult— and potentially dangerous—for school buses to safely pick up and drop off the disabled children in my care.

Furthermore, when corporate investors target a neighborhood for high-density units, it drives up land values, incentivizes displacement, and puts renters like myself at immediate risk. If I am displaced, the vulnerable, low-income families who rely on my affordable childcare services will lose a vital, trusted resource that they cannot easily replace.

Replacing these homes with dense developments threatens both my livelihood and the essential care system that supports working parents in our city. There are ways to address regional housing needs without completely destabilizing established communities, vulnerable renters, and critical care infrastructure. I urge this Council to protect our tenants, protect our children, and reverse the decision on up zoning R1. Pick option 3.

Thank you.

Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1509 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 3 David Yakobson
From: Phil Brock <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 10:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 12B - Oppose

EXTERNAL
As I understand it, for this item, staff recommended rezoning a different area to meet the immediate requirements of SB79.

I highly recommend that you follow your city staff's
recommendation and not rezone the last middle-class
affordable single-family housing zone for our city's people of color. This would be a disastrous and unnecessary change to our city's zoning. Please reconsider this item.

I oppose this change in the strongest possible terms.

Best
Phil Brock
--
Phil Brock / Mayor (ret)[email protected]
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1510 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 4 David Yakobson
From: Wendy Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:06 AM
To: Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Aileen Reynolds; Dan Hall
Subject: Item 12-B: Upzoning of R1 Neighborhoods in the Pico Neighborhood

EXTERNAL
Date: Sept. 8, 2026
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I am writing as a Pico Neighborhood resident who is against Option 1, the proposed zoning change for R1 parcels bounded by the I-10 Freeway, Dorchester Avenue, Exposition Boulevard, and Centinela Avenue. I respectfully urge you to reject Option 1. I support the original recommendation by the City staff and our Planning Commission which is Option 3.

I support housing, and I understand the importance of planning for more homes near transit. But Option 1 is not a fair or thoughtful housing policy. It is a rushed decision that places a major zoning burden on one small residential area without adequate public process, displacement analysis, or consideration of the history and existing conditions of the Pico Neighborhood and surrounding community.

The City’s own ordinance states that the temporary SB 79 exclusion is intended to give Santa Monica time to make “more informed, long-term land use decisions” while a TOD Alternative Plan is completed. But Option 1 does the opposite. It makes a major land-use decision now, before that broader planning has occurred.

On July 28, 2026, the City Council directed staff to proceed with increasing development standards for R1 parcels in this specific area. Yet residents most affected by this decision were not given a meaningful opportunity to help shape the proposal before Council selected Option 1. The City held only one community meeting in late August after the direction had already been given. A public hearing after the fact is not the same as genuine community engagement.

This process feels especially troubling because the Pico Neighborhood has a long history of being harmed by planning decisions made without meaningful resident input. Over time, the area has also absorbed freeway pollution, rail infrastructure, industrial uses, wasterelated facilities, and zoning changes that benefited the broader city while concentrating impacts locally.

Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1511 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 5 The proposed ordinance would increase development standards for R1 parcels in our neighborhood to help the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone qualify for temporary exclusion from SB

79. In practical terms, this could allow much more intensive development on parcels that are currently single-unit residential. That kind of change should not be imposed on residents through a rushed process.

The City says these parcels were selected because they are close to the Expo/Bundy Station, have clear geographic boundaries, and may reduce displacement risk on multiunit parcels. But that explanation is not enough. Avoiding displacement in one area does not justify shifting development pressure to another area without knowing who lives there now.

Many impacted parcels may include renters in ADUs, shared housing, informal units, converted spaces, or non-rent-controlled homes. If the City does not have complete renter data, then it cannot honestly conclude that displacement risk is minimal. Lack of data should not be used as proof that vulnerable residents are not at risk.

I am also concerned that the City is concentrating the burden of SB 79 compliance on a small group of residents. Six of Santa Monica’s seven TOD zones already qualify for temporary exclusion. Expo/Bundy does not. Instead of taking the time to prepare a comprehensive and equitable TOD Alternative Plan, the City is asking our neighborhood to absorb the zoning changes needed to solve this technical problem. That is not equitable planning.

As a Pico resident, I feel that our neighborhood is being treated as a convenient solution rather than as a community of real people. We deserve more than one meeting after the Council has already chosen a direction. We deserve direct engagement from our elected officials, including the Mayor. Residents have requested meetings regarding the City’s selection of Option 1, and those concerns should be taken seriously before any final vote.

I respectfully ask the City Council to:

1. Reject Option 1 as currently proposed;

2. Support Option 3
Santa Monica can support housing without repeating historic patterns of inequity. The City should not use SB 79 as a reason to rush through a zoning change that disproportionately affects residents in and around Pico.

Please reject Option 1 and start over with a fair, transparent, and community-centered process.

Sincerely,
Wendy Cohen
Resident of the Impacted Expo/Bundy Area
Santa Monica, CA
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1512 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 7 David Yakobson
From: Maria Loya <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Clerk Mailbox; Clerk Mailbox Cc: Brian O'Neil; PNA~Kiana Choy; PNA SM; PNA Freddy Luis; [email protected]; Gina DeBaca; Berenice Onofre; Esther Hickman; Marisela Herrera; Irma Santiago; Mary Cornejo
Subject: Council Item 12B

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
The Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) Board of Directors strongly opposes Option 1, the immediate implementation of SB 79 without a temporary exclusion and without a locally developed Transit-Oriented Development Alternative Plan. The City Council rejected the original staff proposal to upzone 66 R2 and R3 parcels and voted to direct staff to prepare an ordinance that will increase development standards on 89 singlefamily R1 parcels. In fact the only single-family neighborhood within the Pico Neighborhood. That is why we support option 3, which is the original City staff and Planning Commission recommendation to upzone 66 R2 and R3 parcels.

Our opposition to Option 1 is rooted in the history and reality of environmental racism in the Pico Neighborhood. The construction of the I-10 Freeway cut through and isolated the Pico Neighborhood, demolishing homes, displacing residents and leaving remaining families to live with decades of freeway noise, air pollution, traffic impacts, and physical division. Now, Option 1 threatens to continue and compound that history.

Option 1 is problematic because it appears broader than necessary. Immediate SB 79 implementation around Expo/Bundy will trigger land speculation and invite rapid market-driven redevelopment in an area already shaped by freeway pollution, industrial adjacency, and past displacement. Without a local plan, strong anti-displacement protections, and environmental justice analysis, Option 1 risks treating this impacted neighborhood as simply a transit opportunity zone rather than as a community that has already absorbed decades of infrastructure damage.

The city staff report states that the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone needs at least 52 additional parcels to meet SB 79’s temporary exclusion criteria. Yet Option 1 upzones 89 parcels, 37 more than the stated minimum. If the goal is simply to qualify for temporary exclusion, the city should not impose a major zoning change on more homeowners and residents than required.

The City is acting under legal uncertainty. The staff report acknowledges that SB 79 is unclear about how to calculate exclusion criteria for TOD zones that cross city boundaries, such as Expo/Bundy, which includes both Santa Monica and Los Angeles parcels. Santa Monica requested guidance from the State's Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) but had not yet received a formal answer.

The Council should not upzone 89 parcels before receiving definitive guidance from the State’s HCD.

Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1513 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 8 The better path forward is clear: Support Option 3 which was the original recommendation by the City staff and Planning Commission.

Pico has too often been asked to absorb the city’s burdens first and receive protections later. The Council should not repeat the pattern of behavior that puts Pico Neighborhood residents’ quality of life as secondary to development interests.

Sincerely,

The Pico Neighborhood Association Board of Directors
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1514 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 10:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,

I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.

This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.

R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.

I urge you to rethink this plan.

Sincerely,
Will von Bernuth
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1515 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 2 David Yakobson
From: Alyssa <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 10:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: NO UPZONING OF GANDARA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica is already bursting at the seams with empty housing. We don't need more. Fight back.

Prove you aren't the lackeys of big-money developers.

Alyssa Ganezer
Santa Monica
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1516 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 3 David Yakobson
From: William Schoene <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,

I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.

This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.

Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing. Upzoning like this also eliminates the small patches of
nature -- trees, shrubs, flowers, birds, squirrels, butterflies and other pollinators -- provided by the yards surrounding single-family homes. It's one of the reasons that people want to live in single-family neighborhoods.

R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.

I urge you to rethink this plan.

Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME)
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1517 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 4 David Yakobson
From: Hilda Weiss <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Aileen Reynolds; Dan Hall
Subject: Item 12-B: Upzoning of R1 Neighborhoods in the Pico Neighborhood

EXTERNAL
Date: Sept. 8, 2026
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I am writing as a Mid Cities/Pico Neighborhood resident who is against Option 1, the proposed zoning change for R1 parcels bounded by the I-10 Freeway, Dorchester Avenue, Exposition Boulevard, and Centinela Avenue. I respectfully urge you to reject Option 1. I support the original recommendation by the City staff and our Planning Commission which is Option 3.

I support housing, and I understand the importance of planning for more homes near transit.

But Option 1 is not a fair or thoughtful housing policy. It is a rushed decision that places a major zoning burden on one small residential area without adequate public process, displacement analysis, or consideration of the history and existing conditions of the Pico Neighborhood and surrounding community.

Santa Monica needs to have a diverse housing stock in every neighborhood of the city.

Increased density should begin in the R2 & R3 areas near transit stops (such as where I live at 1521 16th Street) before it invades R1. Attention to retaining R1 areas dispersed through Santa Monica will have the most lasting effect on the beauty and profitability of our city.

Please think about the long term effects of these zoning choices. Thank you.

I respectfully ask the City Council to:

1. Reject Option 1 as currently proposed;

Please reject Option 1 and start over with a fair, transparent, and community-centered process.

Sincerely,
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1518 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 6 David Yakobson
From: Sean Leis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:39 AM
To: Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Aileen Reynolds Subject: Item 12-B: Upzoning of R1 Neighborhoods in the Pico Neighborhood

EXTERNAL

Date: Sept. 8, 2026
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I am writing as a Pico Neighborhood resident who is against Option 1, the proposed zoning change for R1 parcels bounded by the I-10 Freeway, Dorchester Avenue, Exposition Boulevard, and Centinela Avenue. I respectfully urge you to reject Option 1. I support the original recommendation by the City staff and our Planning Commission which is Option 3.

Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1519 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 7 The proposed ordinance would increase development standards for R1 parcels in our neighborhood to help the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone qualify for temporary exclusion from SB

I respectfully ask the City Council to:

1. Reject Option 1 as currently proposed;

Please reject Option 1 and start over with a fair, transparent, and community-centered process.

Sincerely,
Sean Leis
Resident of the Impacted Expo/Bundy Area
Santa Monica, CA
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1520 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 8 Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1521 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 1 David Yakobson
From: Matt Maas Brundin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 9:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 12.B — Expo/Bundy R1 amendment (SB 79 implementation)

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I’m a Santa Monica resident and a software engineer. Over the summer I’ve been working through the City’s SB 79 exclusion analysis, using the April 28 and July 14 staff reports and the county parcel roll. I’m not writing to oppose this amendment — allowing more homes on R1 land next to a rail station is the right direction on its own terms. I’m writing to ask that the qualification count this amendment exists to satisfy be shown parcel by parcel before the ordinance goes to HCD.

Here is the concern. Government Code §65912.161(b)(1)(B)(i) lets the City exclude a zone only if at least 33% of its sites already allow at least half of the SB 79 standards — and those standards vary by distance band. Within a quarter mile a site qualifies only at 50 du/ac and 1.5 FAR; within 200 feet, 70 du/ac and 2.0 FAR; only the outer quarter-to-half-mile band qualifies at 40 du/ac and 1.25 FAR. Footnote 2 of the capacity table in the July 14, 2026 staff report introducing the exclusion ordinance (the seven-zone table; agenda document 58759 on the City’s Legistar/iqm2 portal) says qualifying parcels were identified as “commercial zoned parcels and R4 zoned parcels” — a determination by zoning class, not by band. R4 permits one unit per 900 square feet, which is 48.4 du/ac and does not meet the quarter-mile bar. The standards this amendment confers on the 89 R1 parcels — one unit per 1,080 square feet (40 du/ac) and

1.25 FAR — are precisely the outer-band standards, and the City’s own July 28 option tables show quarter-mile parcels inside the affected area. If any of those parcels are counted toward the 42.7% the staff report reaches, the percentage is overstated by exactly that many. The staff report also notes the City’s April 24 request to HCD for technical assistance on the zone’s calculation has not received a formal response — which is one more reason to put the parcel list in the record now.

Three requests, none of which requires new analysis — footnote 2 shows staff already has the parcellevel determinations:

1. Attach to the second reading the per-parcel qualification list for the Expo/Bundy zone: APN, distance band, permitted density and FAR, and the qualification determination for each.

2. State the qualifying-site percentage computed band-consistently, next to the class-based figure the report uses.

3. Apply the same disclosure to the six zones already excluded, before the HCD submittal. HCD reviews the record, and a visible methodological gap is what produced the Beverly Hills rejection in May.

The same parcel list would also let the Council and the Pico neighborhood see whether the 33% threshold could be reached with a less concentrated set of parcels — a fair question the other comments raise.

Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1522 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 2 I have a pending records request for this data (R043118-081726, filed August 17, extended to September 10). The Council can shorten that by directing staff to attach it. The City’s strongest position in front of HCD is a count nobody can dispute — and the same applies to the ordinance’s defensibility if a developer challenges an exclusion later.

One last thought, separate from tonight’s vote. Most of the comments under this item are from owners who fear that upzoning means being bought out of their neighborhood. In Japan and Israel, redevelopment of a single lot routinely ends with the original owner holding a new unit in the building that replaces their house — a standard contract form, with tax rules that make it work. California already permits the pre-construction condominium map that such a swap needs. If the City is going to upzone 89 owner-occupied lots, it would be worth asking staff to look at what a “keep your address, get a new home” option would take here. It is the difference between density that happens to a neighborhood and density the neighborhood participates in.

Thank you for your time.

Matt Brundin Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1523 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 1 David Yakobson
From: ALAN MONT <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 9:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Oliver Chi
Subject: Agenda Item 12–B Oppose

Why destroy neighborhoods that have existed for many years and generations.

This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.

R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.

I urge you to rethink this plan.

Sincerely,
Alan Mont
818-261-8172
NOMA
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1524 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 1 David Yakobson
From: Ed Harker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan.Hall. @santamonica.gov; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Aileen Reynolds; Oliver Chi
Subject: Item 12-B: Upzoning of R1 Neighborhoods in the Pico Neighborhood

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I am writing as a Pico Neighborhood resident who is against Option 1, the proposed zoning change for R1 parcels bounded by the I-10 Freeway, Dorchester Avenue, Exposition Boulevard, and Centinela Avenue. I respectfully urge you to reject Option 1. I support the original recommendation by the City staff and our Planning Commission which is Option 3.

The proposed ordinance would increase development standards for R1 parcels in our neighborhood to help the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone qualify for temporary exclusion from SB

79. In practical terms, this could allow much more intensive development on parcels that Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1525 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 2 are currently single-unit residential. That kind of change should not be imposed on residents through a rushed process.

I respectfully ask the City Council to:

1. Reject Option 1 as currently proposed;

2. Support Option 3

Santa Monica can support housing without repeating historic patterns of inequity. The City should not use SB 79 as a reason to rush through a zoning change that disproportionately affects residents in and around Pico.

Please reject Option 1 and start over with a fair, transparent, and community-centered process.

Sincerely,
Ed Harker
Resident near the Impacted Expo/Bundy Area
Santa Monica, CA
Date: Sept. 8, 2026

Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1526 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 3 David Yakobson
From: Adriana Vidal <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 12-B: Upzoning of R1 Neighborhoods in the Pico Neighborhood

The proposed ordinance would increase development standards for R1 parcels in our neighborhood to help the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone qualify for temporary exclusion from SB

79. In practical terms, this could allow much more intensive development on parcels that Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1527 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 4 are currently single-unit residential. That kind of change should not be imposed on residents through a rushed process.

I respectfully ask the City Council to:

1. Reject Option 1 as currently proposed;

Please reject Option 1 and start over with a fair, transparent, and community-centered process.

Sincerely,
Adriana Audelo
Resident of the Impacted Expo/Bundy Area
Santa Monica, CA
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1528 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 1 David Yakobson
From: TROY PARR <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Reject Upzoning of R1 lots in Gandara Park

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am a resident of Gandara Park. I am asking you to reject the upzoning of R1 lots in the neighborhood, which will result in predatory developers destroying the last affordable neighborhood for families in Santa Monica. I ask that you vote to support the original staff proposal to upzone 66 R2 and R3 parcels. This will satisfy the SB79 requirements and will likely not result in resident displacement because these properties are far less attractive to predatory developers. This option would be the least disruptive to all members of our community.

Thank you,
Troy Parr - VOTER
Delaware Avenue
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1529 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 2 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: July 8 City Council Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose Upzoning R1

This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.

R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.

Both your Planning Commission and Staff Report told you to go with the R2/R3 option to reduce displacement, but you chose the option most likely to cause displacement because you were helping your developer pals who filed projects within hours of your vote.

You need to value all current residents, and prioritize all of us, not just your future vision that excludes us.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Sunset Park Resident
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1530 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 1 David Yakobson
From: Jocelyn Ranne <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 10:58 AM
To: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: For meeting tonight

EXTERNAL
Because I cannot attend the meeting tonight, I am sending my written opposition to upzoning R1. I support option 3, which is what the city planning commission recommended. The city planning commission whose training and skills are suited for this recommendation.

As the council knows, it is much easier and financially more desirable for a developer to buy and knock down a bungalow and put in 12 units than to upgrade an already existing multi-family. Council members said they are trying to protect rent controlled units but a developer will have to spend substantially more money and time to flip a multi family so the city will attract developers with a higher skill level and ability, adding more to Santa Monica.

R1s do not have the infrastructure to suddenly support 15+ more people on a single lot. Many don’t even have alleyways. Multi families are already zoned and prepared. It’s a no brainer and will make the developer do more for the city by upgrading those units rather than doing little and getting a fat paycheck.

Why is there no safeguards for the infrastructure when the council pushes for option 1? I voted for this council hoping for some common sense. I will definitely be voting otherwise if this passes and I am one of MANY
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1531 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 1 David Yakobson
From: Marisela Herrera <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 12:11 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 12-B - Oppose

This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.

R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.

I urge you to rethink this plan.

Sincerely,
Marisela Herrera
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1532 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 2 David Yakobson
From: Brian O'Neil <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 12:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Cc: Nada Shamonki
Subject: City Council Meeting (9/8/26) Item 12-B: Pivot to Option 3 Instead of Option 1 Re SB79 Policy

EXTERNAL
Subject: Item 12-B: Pivot to Option 3 Instead of Option 1 Re SB79 Policy Date: September 8, 2026
From: Brian O’Neil & Nada Shamonki, Gandara Park Residents Dear Mayor Torosis, Councilmembers, and City Manager Chi, I write to you as a concerned resident in the Gandara Park neighborhood about how the city’s implementation of an SB79 policy will dramatically impact the eastern edge of our city that falls within a mile radius of the Expo/Bundy TOD, and is thus subject to SB79 upzoning. I have spoken with several of you one-on-one and I appreciate the seriousness you are taking in deliberating on this issue.

It’s clear that a new policy must be put in place immediately or else the entire Bundy TOD zone in eastern Santa Monica will be subject to the most extreme upzoning allowed by SB79. Why City Council didn’t move forward with this a few months ago, before SB79 took effect on July 1, is beyond me. A complete failure in leadership.

That said, you must act now, and there are no good options.

The Planning Commission and city staff on July 14 and July 28 recommended that you adopt Option 3, which would allow SB79 upzoning only in R2-R3 parcels. On July 28, the majority on Council shifted its support to Option 1, which would allow SB79 development in 89 R1 lots in Gandara Park. I urge you to pivot back to support Option 3, which I believe will have a much less detrimental impact than Option 1.

Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1533 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 3 Support for Option 1 over Option 3 was based on the false assumption that most of the R1 parcels are owneroccupied. This is just not the case. At least 20% of the R1 homes in my neighborhood are rentals, and allowing massive upzoning in the R1s will undoubtedly lead to many families being evicted to make room for 5-6 unit upzoned condo complexes on R1 lots.

The was also the false argument that homeowners would have the power to choose who to sell to and who to choose not to sell to, i.e., outside developers. This position is naïve and unrealistic. It has already begun on my block where a Florida developer has bought 2958 Delaware and 2904 Delaware to upzone those lots to 4 and 5-unit condo complexes. That developer paid $200,000 over the highest competing offers in all cash deals. When older families in our neighborhood are compelled to sell their homes, it will be increasingly impossible to turn down such over-market bids by developers. The R1 lots in Gandara Park are the cheapest residential land in Santa Monica, and developers like the Florida one who bought 2958 and 2904 Delaware Ave are salivating to bulldoze our relatively peaceful R1 family neighborhood for their own quick profits. These R1 redevelopments HAVE NO REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS. Their high prices will only help continue to drive up hosing prices across Santa Monica.

And what of Option 3, upzoning the applicable R2-R3 lots? Yes, there is the danger that some renters might be displaced, but I would argue that that danger is much greater for current renters in the R1 lots, many of whom are families with young children. Because of the capital costs involved, developers would be much less likely to try to upzone existing 4- and 8-plexes to 10- and 12-plexes. The Return on Investment (ROI) simply won’t be nearly as high a flipping the relatively cheap R1 lots. Again, the proof of this is already happening on Delaware Ave. I get letters and texts on the weekly from developers (not families) wanting to buy my home.

While it is not an easy decision to have to choose between two bad options, it is clear to me that if you consider the facts on the ground, choosing Option 3 over Option 1 will have a far less detrimental impact on far fewer renters and residents.

Thank you all your serving our great city and giving your utmost attention to this matter.

Highest regards,
Brian O’Neil & Nada Shamonki
2900 Block of Delaware Ave.

Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1534 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 4 Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1535 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 5 David Yakobson
From: Juan Padilla <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 3:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: I AM AGAINTS SB79!!!

EXTERNAL
Subject: Item 12-B - Do Not Place the Burden of the Expo/Bundy SB 79 Exclusion on 89 R1 Parcels Mayor Torosis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing regarding Item 12-B on the September 8 City Council agenda and the proposed zoning changes affecting 89 R1 parcels in the Pico neighborhood near the Expo/Bundy station.

Page 6 ends

would allow the entire Expo/Bundy TOD Zone to qualify for temporary exclusion from SB 79 until approximately 2030.

In other words, these 89 properties are being asked to accept additional housing capacity so that the entire TOD zone can receive the benefit of the exclusion.

That raises serious questions that should be answered before Council adopts this ordinance:
 Why should these 89 R1 parcels bear the additional development burden necessary to provide SB 79 protection to the entire Expo/Bundy TOD Zone?  Staff states that the proposal would bring the qualifying percentage to approximately 42.7%. If the statutory threshold is 33%, has the City demonstrated that all 89 parcels are necessary to satisfy the applicable exclusion requirements?
 Why was displacement risk considered a reason not to place additional density on R2/R3 properties, while the City has not performed an equivalent analysis of renters, multigenerational households and displacement risk within these R1 parcels?  What analysis has been performed regarding redevelopment pressure, demolition of existing homes, infrastructure capacity and cumulative impacts on this neighborhood?  If the purpose of this zoning increase is to obtain a temporary SB 79 exclusion, will the increased zoning on these 89 parcels also sunset when that exclusion expires? If not, why not? Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1536 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 6 The staff report itself states that this temporary exclusion will give the City time to evaluate future housing needs and develop a more comprehensive approach through the 7th Cycle Housing Element, a future LUCE update, or a TOD Alternative Plan.

Please close the SB 79 window for Expo/Bundy, but do not permanently place the cost of obtaining that protection on one small neighborhood.

Thank you for including this correspondence in the public record for Item 12-B.

Sincerely,
Juan Padilla
2818 Delaware Ave.

Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1537 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 7 David Yakobson
From: Francis JonesDDS <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 4:52 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 12-B - Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,

I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.

This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.

R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.

I urge you to rethink this plan.

Sincerely,
Francis Jones
Santa Monica Lifelong resident/SM Business Owner
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1538 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 8 David Yakobson
From: Robert Mickelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 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: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,

I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.

This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.

R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.

I urge you to rethink this plan.

Sincerely,
Robert Mickelson
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1539 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 1 David Yakobson
From: Kay Arnold <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 2:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Expo/Bundy TOD

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members:

In case I am unable to attend tonight's City Council meeting, I would like to inquire about some concerns that I have about the implementation of SB 79 and the state-mandated increased housing development in the Expo/Bundy TOD.
* For instance, if property owners are disinclined to develop their single-dwelling properties into multiple units (about 8 units per property), does SB 79 call for government acquisition of these properties under eminent domain?
* Will property owners be required to pay for their existing tenants to be relocated to equal or better rental housing under this program?
* If displaced tenants are granted right-to-return, will they continue to be protected under Santa Monica's rent control laws in the newly constructed SB 79 units? I also have a question or two regarding the closure of Samoshel and the Council's plans to move existing interim housing residents to the Palms hotel and/or to Salvation Army shelter beds in the city of Bell.

Mainly, what is planned for the Access Center which is located adjacent to Samoshel and provides dropin day services for the city's unhoused residents? (These services include mail pickup, showers, laundry, and some medical attention -- or at least used to provide these services.) Thank you for your time and consideration of these matters.

Best regards,
Kay Arnold
(Kandy Arnold)
1134 17th St, Apt F
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1540 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 1 David Yakobson
From: Louise Steiner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 1:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Decline Option 1

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members, please go the right moral thing and not opt for option 1.

Over -Development in residential areas is not good planning. Please keep the integrity of single family housing in mind when voting.

Thank you, Louise Steiner
59 yr resident of SM
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1541 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail Example 1: 2310 33rd St (4 Units; 9,600.09 SF)
• Existing Zoning:
• 6.4 units allowed (1 unit per 1,500
SF, ~29 units per acre)
• 1.0 FAR
• Option 3 Zoning:
• 8.8 units allowed (40 units per
acre)
• 1.25 FAR
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1542 Attachment: Presentation Item (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Example 2: 2429 34
th St (4 Units; 11,527.13 SF)
• Existing Zoning:
• 7.68 units allowed (1 unit per
1,500 SF, ~29 units per acre)
• 1.0 FAR
• Option 3 Zoning:
• 10.4 units allowed (40 units per
acre)
• 1.25 FAR
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1543 Attachment: Presentation Item (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Example 3: 2437 Centinela (9 Units; 17,829.99 SF)
• Existing Zoning:
• 11.8 units allowed (1 unit per
1,500 SF, ~29 units per acre)
• 1.0 FAR
• Option 3 Zoning:
• 16.3 units allowed (40 units per
acre)
• 1.25 FAR
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1544 Attachment: Presentation Item (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Proposed Amendments to
Increase Development
Standards on Select Parcels in
SB 79 Expo/Bundy TOD zone
City Council
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1545 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Recap
 April 15, 2026 – Planning Commission SB 79 Study Session • Informational presentation regarding SB 79 impacts in Santa Monica and implementation options
 April 28, 2026 - City Council SB 79 Study Session
• Directed staff to return with an ordinance temporarily excluding TOD Zones from SB 79 in order to allow comprehensive planning to occur with forthcoming General Plan and 7th Cycle Housing Element update
 June 17, 2026 - Planning Commission Public Hearing
• Recommended adoption of zoning amendments that would:
Temporarily exclude qualified sites from SB 79 until one year following the adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element
Increase development standards for R2/R3 parcels within ½ mile of the Expo/Bundy Station in order exclude all parcels within the Expo/Bundy TOD zone Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1546 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Recap – July 14, 2026 Council Meeting
• Adopted a SB 79 Exclusion
Ordinance to temporarily exclude qualifying sites from
SB 79 until 2030 with an
effective date of August 27,
2026
 City has received 3 applications
for SB 79 projects that are
“vested”
• Effective August 27, 2026, SB
79 no longer applies to Santa
Monica’s TOD zones, except for Expo/Bundy TOD Zone
• Expo/Bundy TOD zone does
not have enough sites that
are zoned for high housing
density to qualify for exclusion
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1547 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Why is Expo/Bundy Not Yet Eligible for Exclusion?
To qualify for temporary exclusion from SB 79, the TOD
zone must satisfy both of the following criteria:

1. At least 33% of sites in the TOD zone permit density and residential FAR that are no less than 50% of the applicable SB 79 standards
× Currently, only 74 of the 381 parcels (19.4%) meet
this threshold
• At least 126 parcels (33%) are necessary to
qualify the TOD zone for exclusion.
• Therefore, at least 52 additional parcels would
need to have an increase in development
standards
AND

2. The permitted densities in the TOD zone cumulatively allow at least 75% ofthe aggregate density specified by SB 79 Existing zoning provides approximately 123% of the
aggregate density required by SB 79
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1548 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Recap – July 14, 2026 Council Meeting
• Reviewed Planning Commission’s recommendation to increase development standards for 66 multi-unit zoned parcels (R2/R3) in Expo/Bundy TOD zone to delay SB 79 applicability in this zone
• Reviewed displacement risk factors for these 66 R2/R3 parcels  Existing Use
 Comparison of existing units to potential upzoned density  Comparison of upzoning to existing State law
 Combination of State and local requirements
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1549 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment R2/R3 Parcels – Assessment of Displacement Risk
Analysis concluded there would be no or low displacementrisk for all 66 parcels proposed for upzoning
• No Displacement Risk – 30 parcels:
• No existing units (e.g. surface parking lot)
• Ownership housing (e.g. single-unit dwelling, condos) • More existing units than potential upzoned density
• Existing affordable deed-restricted units
• Low Displacement Risk – 36 parcels unlikely to redevelop:
• More than 50% of total potential upzoned density would be replacement units • Potential upzoned density is substantially the same as what is allowed under existing State housing laws
• Replacement unit requirements under State law + City’s inclusionary housing requirements (AHPP) + Rent Control provisions make redevelopment unlikely Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1550 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Recap – July 14, 2026 Council Meeting
• After review of displacement risks on multi-unit zoned parcels, Council instead directed staff to return with options to increase development standards for all, or a selected group, of Single-Unit Residential (R1) zoned parcels within the Expo/Bundy TOD zone Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1551 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Recap – July 28, 2026 Council Meeting
• Reviewed 3 potential options for increasing development standards for select parcels within the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone
Option Parcels
Affected
Resulting % of Sites
Meeting 50% SB 79
Criteria
Basis for Option
Option 1 89
R1 parcels 42.7%
• Focused on parcels generally closest in walking
distance to station meeting the intent of SB 79
• Provides a clear geographical boundary.

Option 2 212
R1 parcels 75.5% • Uniform upzoning of all R1 parcels within SB 79 onehalf mile radius of station Option 3
66 R2/R3
parcels

36.7%
• Planning Commission recommendation
• Least amount of parcels
• Uniform upzoning for all multi-unit parcels within
TOD zone;
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1552 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment • Option 1 - Targeted increase in square
footage and density for select R1-zoned
parcels so that the entire Expo/Bundy TOD
zone can qualify for SB 79 temporary
exclusion
• Applies to 89 R1 zoned parcels within area
bounded by:
 I-10 Freeway – south
 Dorchester Avenue – west
 Exposition Boulevard – north
 Centinela Avenue – east
Recap – July 28, 2026 Council Direction
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1553 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Community Meetings
• City staff participated in and conducted two community meetings on August 20th and 25th to provide information on SB 79 and the proposed amendments • Community requested data on the 89 R1-zoned parcels that are proposed for increased development standards, particularly rental data • Community also suggested a “Dual Ordinance” approach by:

1. Initially adopting an ordinance increasing standards for the minimum number of parcels needed (approx. 36 parcels) when accounting for all parcels within the entire Expo/Bundy TOD Zone (both SM and LA parcels)

2. If initial ordinance if determined insufficient or invalid (e.g.: HCD determines Santa Monica cannot use parcels within LA), adopt a backup ordinance to include additional parcels (approx. 53 parcels) to ensure Expo/Bundy TOD Zone remains excluded
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1554 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment R1 Parcels – Assessment of Displacement Risk
• 5 of 89 R1-zoned parcels are registered under rent control (all developed with single-unit dwellings)
• City does not have a rental registry that identifies all rental units in the City • Data on business licenses indicate there are two single dwelling units currently rented
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1555 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Assessment of Alternative Dual Ordinance
• Staff does not recommend this approach because SB 79 is silent on how to calculate capacity in a multi-jurisdictional TOD zone.
 HCD has not yet provided formal technical guidance, and implementation would depend partly on Los Angeles' related ordinances and HCD review. • Housing projects could face uncertainty about which development standards legally apply.
• Qualifying SB 79 projects in high-resource areas that are denied are rebuttably presumed unlawful with significant penalties.
• If the City later determined that this approach is insufficient, prior project denials could expose the City to liability.

Staff's recommended 89-parcel approach provides greater certainty, reduces litigation exposure, and minimizes displacement risk.

Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1556 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Proposed Amendments
• Establishes a minimum required density of 1 unit per 1,080 sf of parcel area (40 du/acre) – Minimum required density for multiple unit dwelling projects • Provides a FAR of 1.25 for multiple-unit dwelling projects that meet the above density standard of 40 du/acre – Ensures that an owner would only be able use higher FAR by adding housing
• No change to existing 28 ft maximum height for the R1 zoning district Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1557 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Typical Site Characteristics:
• R1 Zone
• Parcel Size: 6,500 sf
• Vacant/No Affordable or Rent Controlled Units
• Located within ½ mile of Expo/Bundy Station
State Law FAR
(square footage) Height Density Max Units
Existing R1 Base Standards 0.50 28 ft 1 unit per parcel 1 unit Accessory Dwelling Unit(s) Exempt
• Attached ADUs – Same as
underlying zoning district;
• Detached ADUs – 24 ft
• 1 ADU through
conversion
• 1 detached ADU
• 1 attached ADU
• 1 Junior ADU
5 units
(1 single-unit dwelling + 4
ADUs)
SB 9
(Duplexes/Lot Splits
Same as underlying;
800 sf per unit
guaranteed
Same as underlying zoning
district*
4 units or 2 units per
resulting parcel 4 units
SB 1123
(Small Lot Subdivisions)
• 3-7 units: 1.0
• 8-10 units: 1.25
Same as underlying zoning
district*
Min. 1,200 sf per resulting
parcel or 30 du/ac (10
units max)
5 units
SB 79 2.5 55 ft 80 du/ac 12 units
Targeted Increase in
Development Standards for SB
79 Temporary Exclusion

1.25 28 ft 40 du/ac 6 units
*application of standard cannot physically preclude project achieving the density and size permitted by State law; Excludes State density bonus
Comparison of Existing State Law to Proposed Increases
of Local Development Standards
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1558 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Staff Recommendations

1. Adopt a finding of statutory exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.160(c); and

2. Introduce for first reading an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 9.06, Transit Oriented Development Zones, to Increase Development Standards for Parcels Located Within the R1 (Single-Unit Residential Zoning District) and the Area Bounded by the I-10 Freeway to the South, Dorchester Avenue to the West, Exposition Boulevard to the North, and Centinela Avenue to the East to Allow for the Exclusion of Certain Sites that are Located Within One-Half Mile of the Expo/Bundy Station from Senate Bill (SB) 79 Implementation Until One Year Following the Adoption of the 7th Cycle (2029-2037) Housing Element of the City’s General Plan.

Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1559 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Displacement Risk Comparison
R2/R3 – 66 parcels R1 – 89 parcels
Involuntary displacement risks Voluntary displacement risk 36 parcels with low displacement
risk, comprising approximately
200 rental units
Based on business license data, 2
parcels are developed with single
units that are rentals
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1560 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 8, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.A
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Annual Appointments to the following Boards and Commissions (Continued from 6/23/2026):

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

16.A
Packet Pg. 1561
2 of 3
areas: Energy, water,
transportation, stormwater,
wastewater, coastal issues, waste
reduction and public health, land
use and sustainable development,
public education
Disabilities Commission
1 6/30/2030
Resident of Santa Monica who
self identifies with a disability
1 Resident of Santa Monica with
significant experience in the
disability community
Downtown Santa Monica. Inc. 3 6/30/2030
Directors shall be City residents
or persons who are employed,
own property or hold business
licenses in the City of Santa
Monica.

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

16.A
Packet Pg. 1562
3 of 3
Santa Monica, owns real property
in Santa Monica, or has been
issued a business license by
Santa Monica
Public Safety Reform and Oversight
Commission
1 6/30/2027 Resident of Santa Monica
between the ages of 18 and 25
1 6/30/2029
Recreation and Parks Commission 2 6/30/2030 Resident of Santa Monica Santa Monica Library Board 2 6/30/2030 Resident of Santa Monica Santa Monica Pier Corporation 4 6/30/2030
At least one shall be a resident of
Santa Monica, with the remaining
being residents or persons who
do business or are employed in
Santa Monica
Santa Monica Travel and Tourism,
Inc. 3 6/30/2030 At least one shall be a resident of Santa Monica Prepared By: David Yakobson, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

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

16.A
Packet Pg. 1563
Boards & Commissions 2026 Voluntary Self-Identification Survey

16.A.a
Packet Pg. 1564 Attachment: Boards & Commissions Voluntary Self-Identification Survey (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) Boards & Commissions 2026 Voluntary Self-Identification Survey

16.A.a
Packet Pg. 1565 Attachment: Boards & Commissions Voluntary Self-Identification Survey (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) Boards & Commissions 2026 Voluntary Self-Identification Survey 41 2 1
0 10
20 30
40 50
English Hindi Urdu

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

16.A.a
Packet Pg. 1566 Attachment: Boards & Commissions Voluntary Self-Identification Survey (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) Boards & Commissions 2026 Voluntary Self-Identification Survey

16.A.a
Packet Pg. 1567 Attachment: Boards & Commissions Voluntary Self-Identification Survey (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Airport Commission
Name Application Date
Reynolds, Diane P.* 06/12/2026
Alkisswani, Fouad 08/20/2026
Hoevet, Zachary T. 04/01/2026
Hopkins, David J. 06/14/2026
Lopez, Eve 03/12/2026
Smith, Mark H. 06/10/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 6
* Incumbent

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1568 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Architectural Review Board
Name Application Date
Coffman, Barbara J.* 06/02/2026
Alper, Andrew 06/01/2026
Folonis, Michael 04/27/2026
Lo, Yu-Ngok^ 04/07/2026
Sharif, Mohamed 06/01/2026
Wilson, James M.^ 06/09/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 6
* Incumbent
^ Serves on the Building & Fire-life Safety Commission

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1569 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Arts Commission
Name Application Date
Agadjanean, Gheorghi 07/30/2026
Bar-Kar, Varda 06/08/2026
Carlson, Julius R. 06/02/2026
Carter, Lauren A. 06/17/2026
Daly, Lee Ann 06/19/2026
Devis, Juanita 02/11/2026
Hansen, Molly 06/04/2026
Huerto, Leandro A. 06/03/2026
Kaplan, David A. 04/06/2026
Kim, Mouse 06/16/2026
Lyness, Francine 05/04/2026
Milanovich, Charles J. 06/03/2026
Ning, Ning 09/15/2025
Porlas, Dustin J. 05/15/2026
Thompson, Bobbi D. 05/17/2026
Vazquez Tompkins, Alyce M. 02/09/2026
Visentini, Tommaso 05/28/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 17

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1570 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens
Oversight Committee
Name Application Date
Kay, Benjamin W.* 05/13/2026
Gino, Tughela 06/16/2026
Silber, Justin 06/15/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 3
* Incumbent

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1571 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Commission on Sustainability, Environmental
Justice and the Environment
Name Application Date
Lempert, Robert J.* 06/04/2026
Tower, Alexandra* 06/01/2026
Kay, Benjamin W.^ 05/13/2026
Kiper, Tamay 05/05/2026
Lappen, David 04/15/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 5
* Incumbent
^ Serves on the Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committee

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1572 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Disabilities Commission
Name Application Date
Clark, Teresa R.*^ 06/14/2026
Rakfeldt, Gerald* 06/13/2026
Helms, William S.^ 09/30/2025
Levy, Helayne S.^ 10/20/2025
Lyness, Francine 05/04/2026
Muntaner, Zoë^ 07/07/2026
Townsend, Derrick 05/04/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 7
*
^
Incumbent
Applying to a seatfor those who self-identify with a disability

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1573 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.

Name Application Date
Besser, Sean* 06/08/2026
Kruger, Judy* 05/24/2026
Patterson IV, Hodge* 05/27/2026
Agadjanean, Gheorghi 07/30/2026
Alkisswani, Fouad 08/20/2026
Badawy, Adam 06/02/2026
Carter, Lauren A. 06/17/2026
Dubin, Michael 05/28/2026
Grigas, Stacey 04/16/2026
Hawley, Ryan 04/20/2026
Kim, Mouse 06/16/2026
White III, Jack M.^ 06/10/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 12
*
^
Incumbent
Currently serves on the Housing & Human Services Commission

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1574 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Housing Authority Board
Name Application Date
Eady, Jonathan* 05/07/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 1
* Incumbent

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1575 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
L.A. County West Vector Control District
Name Application Date
Greenstein, Nancy* 06/08/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 1
* Incumbent

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1576 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Landmarks Commission
Name Application Date
Genser, Roger A.* 05/31/2026
Lemlein, Carol M.* 06/09/2026
O’Connor, Pam* 06/16/2026
May, Joseph 06/02/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 4
* Incumbent

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1577 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Personnel Board
Name Application Date
Lewis, Noelle K.* 04/22/2026
Betancourt, Karen 06/09/2026
Chanduwadia, Farhaad D.^ 09/02/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 2
*
^
Incumbent
Late submittal

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1578 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission
Name Application Date
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 0

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1579 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Recreation & Parks Commission
Name Application Date
Rosenbaum, Barry A.* 06/09/2026
Badawy, Adam 06/02/2026
Barba-Padilla, Bee 06/05/2026
Bauer, Jessica 02/22/2026
Campbell, Daniel 02/04/2026
Carter, Lauren A. 06/17/2026
Goldenberg, Matthew 03/05/2026
Miller, Shirin 05/15/2026
Porlas, Dustin J. 05/15/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 9
* Incumbent

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1580 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Santa Monica Library Board
Name Application Date
Meister, Judith R.* 06/02/2026
Newman, Dana* 05/04/2026
Hugh-Jones, Dan 04/02/2026
Prasad, Nina K. 04/01/2026
Reardon, William 06/02/2026
Walsh, Meghan 04/29/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 6
* Incumbent

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1581 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Santa Monica Pier Corporation
Name Application Date
Rubin, Carter* 06/09/2026
Trinh, Peter* 05/20/2026
Boole, Kathryn W. 06/05/2026
Carter, Lauren A. 06/17/2026
Deni, Frederick J. 06/11/2026
Kim, Mouse 06/16/2026
Lozano, Rachel 07/22/2026
Nathan, Natasha 06/12/2026
Scott, Angela D.^ 07/17/2026
White III, Jack M.^^ 06/10/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 10
*
^
^^
Incumbent
Currently serves on the Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission Currently serves on the Housing & Human Services Commission

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1582 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, Inc.

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

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1583 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: karen Ginsberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 6:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Misti Kerns (Santa Monica Travel & Tourism)
Subject: June 28th Council Meeting Item 16C, Reappointment to Santa Monica Travel & Tourism Inc.

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Karen Ginsberg
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1584 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 2 David Yakobson
From: Mark SmithTV <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 6:25 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Airport Commission

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

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

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

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

Mark Smith
310 213 0790
http://duenorthproduction.com
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1585 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 3 David Yakobson
From: Ryan Haid <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2026 12:51 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Dave Hopkins for Airport Commission

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

Thank you,
Ryan Haid
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1586 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 4 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2026 5:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: July 28, 2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item 16C: Annual Appointments - Airport Commission

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time in reading this and I hope you'll vote to reappoint Diane! All the best,
Ann Bowman
Santa Monica resident, 29+ years
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1587 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 5 David Yakobson
From: John Fairweather <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2026 5:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: July 28 - Please re-appoint Diane Reynolds to the Airport Commission

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
John Fairweather
Board Member: Great Park Coalition & Airport2Park, and chair of Measure LC Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1588 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 6 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2026 5:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Council 7/28 item 16-A - Airport Comm - Support re-appointment of Diane Reynolds

EXTERNAL

Dear Mayor Torosis and City Council members,

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration.

Zina Josephs
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1589 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 7 David Yakobson
From: Patti Braun <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2026 7:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Agenda Item 16c: Annual Appointments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Patti and Reiner Braun
Santa Monica Residents
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1590 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 8 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2026 9:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 16C: Annual Appointments -- Airport Commission

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

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

Jennifer L. Polhemus
Resident and Small Busines Owner
Santa Monica, CA
[email protected]
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1591 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 9 David Yakobson
From: Robb Curtis Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2026 9:26 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: IN SUPPORT OF THE REAPPOINT OF DIANE REYNOLDS AS AIRPORT COMMISSIONER

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert Brown
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1592 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 10 David Yakobson
From: Alan Levenson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 4:58 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16C: Annual Appointments - Airport Commission

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

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

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

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Alan Levenson
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1593 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 11 David Yakobson
From: Brent Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 1:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16C: Annual Appointments

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration.

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

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

Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1594 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 12 David Yakobson
From: Stacey AS <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 9:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Diane Reynolds.

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

Thank you for your consideration.

Best,
Stacey Abrams-Sherick
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1595 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 13 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Larson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 9:22 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16C: Airport Commission Appointment

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

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

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

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

Thank you,
Cathy Larson
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1596 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 14 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Larson and Roger Allen <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 9:41 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16C: Airport Commission Appointment

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

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

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

Thank you,
Roger Allen
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1597 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 15 David Yakobson
From: Dawn Joyal <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Diane Reynolds for Airport Commission

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

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

Dawn Joyal
Marine St
Santa Monica
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1598 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 16 David Yakobson
From: Ron Joyal <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Agenda Item 16C: Annual Appointments

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

We need a strong, committed leader.

Regards
Ron
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1599 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 17 David Yakobson
From: Brian Sweeney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:34 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16C: Please appoint Matt Goldenberg to Rec & Parks

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Honorable City Council Members:

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

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

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

Best wishes,
Brian Sweeney
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1600 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 18 David Yakobson
From: Daniela Morato <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item C

EXTERNAL
Please don’t rezone our neighborhood!
Keep R-1 zoning
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1601 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 19 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 11:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: David Hopkins for Airport Commission
Thanks,
Amy Larkin
Administrative Staff Assistant- City Council Office
From: CHRISTIAN FRY <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:48 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: David Hopkins for Airport Commission

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1602 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 20 Christian Fry
953 5th Street Unit 8
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1603 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 21 David Yakobson
From: Tim Cashin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 11:47 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Appointment to the Airport Commission

EXTERNAL
City Council Members:

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

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

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

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

Tim Cashin
Sunset Park
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1604 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Mati Fuchs-Lynch <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 8:25 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Council Mailbox
Subject: Architectural Review Board Appointments

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

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

I urge you to appoint Mohamed Sharif to the ARB.

Best,
Mati Fuchs-Lynch
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1605 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 11:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16C Landmarks Commission Appointment

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Nina Fresco
Former Landmarks Commissioner
Local Historian
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1606 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: William Reardon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: David Yakobson
Subject: Appointment to the Santa Monica Library Board

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

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

Thank you for your leadership and for considering my appointment.

Sincerely,
-Bill Reardon
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1607 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 3:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Subject: 7/28 meeting - Item 16-A - Airport Commission

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Gledhill
Ocean Park
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1608 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: David Kaplan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:16 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Diane Reynolds for Airport Commission

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

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

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

Diane Reynolds is a outstanding condidate and hopefully she can continue her excellent work for the Airport Commission.
thanks
David Kaplan
2419 Pier Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90
David Kaplan | KCK ARCHITECTS
2526 Eighteenth Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310 452 7505
310 713 5446 cell
www.kckarchitects.com
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1609 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Cris Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 9:42 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16-C: Appointments to Airport, Recreation & Parks, and Sustainability Commissions

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

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

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

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

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

Airport Commission
Diane Reynolds has been a conscientious, smart and open-minded Airport Commissioner who warrants another term. Her attention to the Santa Monica Airport operations and impact on the community have been practical and thorough. With the anticipated closure of the airport in a little more than two years, it is important to have Diane’s participation on the commission continue for thoughtful and meaningful discussions and sound advice to the City Council Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1610 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 2 to ensue. She knows the details of the pertinent issues well and contends with them assuredly and calmly. Diane also fosters good community relationships and communication.

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

With respect,
Cris Gutierrez
Santa Monica Resident

Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1611 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 3 David Yakobson
From: Info <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16C Landmarks Commission Appointments
Attachments: 2026-0728-SMCRecommendationsForLandmarkCommAppointments.pdf

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

Thank you.

Santa Monica Conservancy
Preservation Resource Center
at the Shotgun House
2520 Second Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 496-3146
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1612 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 2520 SECOND STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
310-496-3146
www.smconservancy.org
July 28, 2026
Dear City Council,
The Santa Monica Conservancy recommends the appointment of Roger Genser and Carol Lemlein to the Landmarks Commission. Roger currently serves in the historian position, and Carol was recently appointed as a member-at-large.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Mario Fonda-Bonardi
Board President
Santa Monica Conservancy
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1613 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 4 David Yakobson
From: Carol Lemlein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:59 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; [email protected]; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Item 16c - Landmarks Commission Appointment

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

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

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

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

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

Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1614 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Rachel Lozano <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 9:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: June 28th Council Meeting | Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board of Directors

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Rachel Lozano
Rachel Lozano
Chief People Officer
Santa Monica Travel & Tourism
email: [email protected]
website: www.santamonica.com
phone: 310.319.6263
address: 2427 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1615 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 2 David Yakobson
From: Stacey Grigas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 6:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Written Public Comment — Annual Board Appointments - Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (Applicant: Stacey Grigas)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1616 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 3 Respectfully,
Stacey Grigas
1455 4th Street, Apt 506
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1617 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Terence Young <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 4:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Airport commission candidacy

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

Terence Young 3007 11th St., Santa Monica resident
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1618 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 2 David Yakobson
From: Mike Feinstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 1:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Cc: Oliver Chi; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject: Landmarks Reappointment - In support of Roger Genser

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

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

Thanks for considering my input on this important appointment.

Mike Feinstein
Ocean Park
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1619 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Hajar Muqtasid St. Claire <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems; councilmtgitems; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Robbie J5; Janet McKeithen; Joanne Berlin; Joanne Berlin; Angela Scott
Subject: Black Apology Action Steps

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

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

Black Apology Action Steps
Thank you,
Hajar Muqtasid St. Claire
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1620 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 2 David Yakobson
From: Joanne Berlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: CRJ input on item 16A

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

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

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

Joanne Berlin, CRJ Coordinator
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.d
Packet Pg. 1621 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Brodsky, Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 7:41 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for Ben Kay for Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice and the Environment

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Santa Monica City Council members, I enthusiastically support Ben Kay for the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice and the Environment.

As an educator with 46 years of classroom experience, I can confidently say that Ben is an extraordinary educator and leader.

Having observed him both in and out of the classroom, I have seen his dedication firsthand. His work mentoring Samohi's Team Marine is truly world-class and an inspiration to any institution.

Ben’s commitment to science is second to none, and his steadfast dedication to the planet and his community keeps environmental justice at the forefront of everything he does.

Ben Kay will make an excellent Commissioner.

Sincerely,
Michael Brodsky
Professor Emeritus
Loyola Marymount University
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.e
Packet Pg. 1622 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 2 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 2:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick
Subject: September 8, 2026 Council Meeting - Item 16.A. - BENJAMIN W. KAY - Sustainability Commission Appointment

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers -
I write to encourage you please to appoint Benjamin Kay to the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment.

As you likely know, Ben is a beloved environmental science teacher at both Santa Monica High School and Santa Monica College. He's extremely knowledgeable in the field with special expertise in coastal issues and public education and he is gifted interpersonally - he will enhance the Sustainability Commission with both his knowledge and his ability to do the work and nurture a team.

I began getting to know Ben when my children attended Samohi and have gotten to know him more through shared and like-minded work in the community. He's a genuinely exceptional educator, a wonderful person who I admire tremendously, and I truly cannot write enough good things about him.

Thank you so much for your consideration of Ben Kay on Tuesday and for your time in reading this.

Best,
Ann Bowman
Santa Monica resident, 30 years
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.e
Packet Pg. 1623 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 3 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 2:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick
Subject: September 8, 2026 Council Meeting - Item 16.A. - MATTHEW GOLDENBERG - Appointment to the Recreation and Parks Commission

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers -
I write to encourage you please to appoint Matthew Goldenberg to the Recreation and Parks Commission.

As you may know, Matt is a physician and a Santa Monica native son who attended Roosevelt Elementary, Lincoln Middle School, and Santa Monica High School. He is intimately familiar with both our parks and our school campuses, which augment the city's parks network, and he brings both a professional and intuitive understanding of how our parks and open spaces are critical to both mental and physical health in our community.

He will bring a thoughtful, clinical, evidence-based approach to work on the Recreation and Parks Commission and will be an advocate for park expansion and the maintenance of a clean, healthy, and equitable parks network and programming therein.

I have gotten to know Matt through volunteer work in the community including through the Santa Monica Democratic Club, the North of Montana Association, the Santa Monica Protective Association, Montana Avenue Merchants Association events, and the Great Park Coalition.

Matt brings the highest skills and standards to everything he does. He will be a leader on the RPC and do the work at an extremely fine, granular level. I think the world of Matt both as a person and as a professional. Choosing to appoint him will both honor the commission and our city.

Thank you so much for your consideration of Matt Goldenberg on Tuesday and for your time in reading this.

Best,
Ann Bowman
Santa Monica resident, 30 years
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.e
Packet Pg. 1624 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 10:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Nina Fresco
Subject: Fwd: Item 16C Landmarks Commission Appointment

EXTERNAL
Dear Council, I understand the Landmarks Commission appointments will take place tonight. Here is the letter I sent Previously to recommend Roger Genser's appointment. I also, as before, support the appointment of Carol Lemlein.

Thank you!
Nina
Begin forwarded message:

From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 16C Landmarks Commission Appointment
Date: July 27, 2026 at 10:59:46 AM PDT
To: [email protected]
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I enthusiastically recommend Roger Genser for reappointment to another term on the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission. I have had the pleasure of knowing Roger for many years, both in my previous capacity as a landmarks commissioner and through our ongoing shared interest in Santa Monica history, and I can say without hesitation that Roger’s continued service on the Commission would be a significant asset to our community.

For these reasons, I give my strongest endorsement to Roger Genser's reappointment for another term. His institutional knowledge, historical expertise, and unique resources make Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.e
Packet Pg. 1625 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 2 him an exceptional asset to the Landmarks Commission, and I believe the community would be well served by his continued leadership in this role.

Sincerely,
Nina Fresco
Former Landmarks Commissioner
Local Historian
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.e
Packet Pg. 1626 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 3 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Conservancy <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 10:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Santa Monica Conservancy
Subject: Fwd: Item 16C Landmarks Commission Appointments Attachments: ATT00001.htm; PastedGraphic-1.tiff; image.png; ATT00002.htm; 2026-0728- SMCRecommendationsForLandmarkCommAppointments.pdf; ATT00003.htm

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

Thank you.

Santa Monica Conservancy
2520 Second Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-496-3146
www.smconservancy.org
www.smconservancy.org
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r5uivToCO1gxY8amVi5sM4w1izAueLMT/view?usp=sharing Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.e
Packet Pg. 1627 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 2520 SECOND STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
310-496-3146
www.smconservancy.org
July 28, 2026
Dear City Council,
The Santa Monica Conservancy recommends the appointment of Roger Genser and Carol Lemlein to the Landmarks Commission. Roger currently serves in the historian position, and Carol was recently appointed as a member-at-large.

Sincerely,
Mario Fonda-Bonardi
Board President
Santa Monica Conservancy
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.e
Packet Pg. 1628 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: Cris Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:19 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16-A: Appointments to Airport, Arts, Recreation & Parks, and Sustainability Commissions

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

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

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

Significantly, Ben’s understanding of the City’s history of sustainability leadership and dedication to it will fortify Santa Monica’s capacity.

Recreation and Parks Commission
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.e
Packet Pg. 1629 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 2 Matthew Goldenberg is a physician and a community leader who would be a strong and hard-working Recreation and Parks Commissioner. He can bring to the commission a personal commitment to convene people to see the potential of our green open spaces as significant quality-of-life resources. His professional capacities add to the knowledge of how parks and recreation are vital for personal and public health.

He has convened and collaborated with all the neighborhood associations and other community groups on significant issues that affect our parks and playing fields, most notably on the need for the City to ensure that only natural grass fields are installed and maintained for sports. His reasonable, supportive, science and evidence-based approach swayed many and enabled contention to become consensus.

Arts Commission
Leandro Huerto is a refreshing, a superb candidate for an appointment to the Arts Commission. Leandro’s background and personal and professional commitments to uplifting cultural practices of individuals and communities who have not historically been typically embraced would invigorate the City’s aesthetic values and vision. Leandro has vast cultural practice and public policy experience focusing on arts, environmentalism, equity and social justice, nourished by his studies at the University of Madrid and the University of Pennsylvania, and manifested in his current work on the Public Art Committee.

He is an open communicator, ready to engage people everywhere he can and draw on a network of scholars and creators who can help enliven and stretch the bounds of Santa Monica to lead boldly and brilliantly in the arts in a manner that serves the community locally and beyond.

Airport Commission
Diane Reynolds has been a conscientious, smart and open-minded Airport Commissioner who warrants another term. Her attention to the Santa Monica Airport operations and impact on the community have been practical and thorough. With the anticipated closure of the airport in a little more than two years, it is important to have Diane’s participation on the commission continue for thoughtful and meaningful discussions and sound advice to the City Council to ensue. She knows the details of the pertinent issues well and contends with them assuredly and calmly. Diane also fosters good community relationships and communication.

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

With respect,
Cris Gutierrez
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.e
Packet Pg. 1630 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) 1 David Yakobson
From: David Kaplan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 12:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16 - Arts Commission nomination - David Kaplan

EXTERNAL
I am a long time Santa Monica resident, currently serving on the Public Arts Committee. I recently participated on the selection team for artworks for the City's downtown storefront project and have also been involved in community review of the digital signs for downtown. Through preservation projects I have been involved in the installation of artwork at numerous sites such as the Judy Baca murals in the Ambassador Ballroom (now the Library at the RFK High School). Also at the Ambassador I helped coordinate the recreation of the original sculpture of a female figure at the pylon fountain. In addition to my interest in the arts, my background as an architect provides me with an understanding of the implications of transporting, storing, installing, and maintaining artworks physical and digital. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to serve on the Commission and to help advance our City as a center for the arts.

Thank you,
David Kaplan
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.e
Packet Pg. 1631 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) Overview of Ranked Choice Voting System
for Board & Commission Appointments
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.f
Packet Pg. 1632 Attachment: Presentation Item (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) • Prior to 2025, board and commission seats were selected through a roll-call voting process that sometimes took multiple rounds to complete
• The City Council directed an update to the Rules of Order on December 17, 2024, asking that staff assess ways in which we could create outcomes more representative of the full City Council when selecting board members and commissioners
• On January 28, 2025, the City Council adopted ranked choice voting (RCV) for selecting board and commission seats
• To clarify details related to the RCV system, on March 11, 2025, the City Council adopted updated rules for our board and commission selection process, as follows:
• The City selected the Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method to adopt a Proportional RCV system in Santa Monica • Further, the City clarified that the online tool, rankedchoices.com, would serve as our RCV counting tool Background
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.f
Packet Pg. 1633 Attachment: Presentation Item (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) • Proportional RCV was identified as a preferred voting method for selecting board and commission seats because the system evenly distributes voting power across all seven Councilmembers • Under a more typical plurality vote process, a majority of four Councilmembers could entirely ignore the preferences of three Councilmembers
• In a proportional ranked choice voting system, the system ensures that the minority group can influence the outcome of the selection process, in an effort to reflect the true preferences of the Council body as a whole • Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method is the counting formula used by the City to identify how votes are shared in proportion
• The WIGM process means that each Councilmember’s ballot counts for exactly 1 vote, split proportionally between how each Councilmember ranks their choices
• Under this system, given that each Councilmember’s vote is split proportionally amongst all of candidates they rank, this fractional-transfer process ensures that no four-member bloc of the Council can fill every seat • The WIGM Proportional RCV process is used in Scottish local elections, and in some Minneapolis multi-seat municipal elections
Proportional Ranked Choice Voting,
via the Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.f
Packet Pg. 1634 Attachment: Presentation Item (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) • Through our proportional RCV system, each election of board and commission seats results in a runoff process between the candidates that is calculated by our online tool via the following step-by-step process
• First: Councilmembers nominate candidates for consideration • Second: Councilmembers rank the nominees
• Third: The Computer sets the threshold of votes needed to guarantee a seat win • Fourth: First choice votes for each Councilmember are then counted • Fifth: Any candidate who receives the number of votes needed to win (as identified in Step 3) is seated, and any proportional spare (and unneeded) votes for that winning candidate are then moved to the Councilmembers’ next choices
• Sixth: If no one reaches the required number of votes needed to win, the nominee with the fewest votes is dropped out
• Seventh: This process is repeated until every seat is filled How The WIGM RCV Process Works In Practice
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.f
Packet Pg. 1635 Attachment: Presentation Item (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) • In identifying the number of votes needed to guarantee a win for the open board or commission, the WIGM Proportional RCV methodology takes into account the number of seats that are open
• Then, the number of seats that are open are plugged into a formula, as follows, to determine how many votes are needed to win
• 7 votes / (# of open seats + 1)
• Per the methodology, the number of votes needed to guarantee a win is more than:
• 1 Seat Open = 7 / (1 + 1) = 7 / 2 = 3.50 (or 4 votes, a majority as expected) • 2 Seats Open = 7 / (2 + 1) = 7 / 3 = 2.33
• 3 Seats Open = 7 / (3 + 1) = 7 / 4 = 1.75
• 4 Seats Open = 7 / (4 + 1) = 7 / 5 = 1.40
How The Computer Determines
The Number Of Votes Needed To Win
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.f
Packet Pg. 1636 Attachment: Presentation Item (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) • On July 28, 2026, the City Council considered appointments to the new Housing & Human Services Commission
• There were 2 open seats on the Commission
• There were 4 nominees for the City Council to consider • A candidate needed more than 2.33 votes to guarantee a win under our WIGM Proportional RCV methodology
• Recall: 7 votes / (# of open seats + 1)
• 7 / (2 + 1) = 7 / 3 = 2.33
A Real-Life Example: Housing & Human Services Commission WIGM Proportional RCV Process On July 28, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.f
Packet Pg. 1637 Attachment: Presentation Item (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) A Real-Life Example: Housing & Human Services Commission WIGM Proportional RCV Process On July 28, 2026
Round 1:

Councilmember’s first choices

2.33 Nominee A 5.0 ✓ seat
Nominee B 1.0
Nominee C 1.0
Nominee D 0.0
After Round 1, Nominee A has 5 votes, which is
well past the required 2.33 votes needed, and
wins the first of the two seats.

Nominee A then keeps 2.33 votes, and the spare
remaining 2.67 is shared proportionately with the
remaining Nominees (with each spare being
worth 0.534 votes, as follows: 2.67 / 5 = 0.534).

Round 2:

Spare votes move to other Nominees

2.33 Nominee A seat · 2.33
Nominee B 2.068 tied
Nominee C 2.068 tied
Nominee D out
sitting out 0.534
One Councilmember’s ballot was exhausted after
Round 1, therefore their remaining spare vote sits
out. Of the 4 remaining spare votes, two went to
Nominee B, and two went to Nominee C.

Nominee D got no votes and is now out of the
selection process.

Since neither Nominee B nor Nominee C have
reached the required 2.33 votes, one must drop
(there are only 2 available seats). The computer
checks which of the two Nominees were ranked
higher by Councilmembers, and the candidate
that was most broadly acceptable to the Council
wins the tiebreaker.

Round 3:

Nominee C secures second seat

2.33 Nominee A seat · 2.33
Nominee B out
Nominee C 4.136 ✓ seat
Nominee D out
sitting out 0.534
Since Nominee C, on aggregate, was ranked
higher by Councilmembers on their ballots than
Nominee B, the votes for Nominee B are
therefore moved to Nominee C, whom now has

4.14 votes to secure the second available
Commission seat.

The math also checks out:

2.33 + 4.136 + 0.534 = 7
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.f
Packet Pg. 1638 Attachment: Presentation Item (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) • Given feedback received by the City, we are planning to make certain WIGM Proportional RCV process improvements associated with our selection of board members and commissioners
• Ensure that vote process is displayed live during the meeting on our broadcast channels
• Attach the round-by-round voting results to meeting minutes Process Improvements Moving Ahead
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.f
Packet Pg. 1639 Attachment: Presentation Item (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) • Tonight, the City Clerk will be coordinating the board and commission appointment process, which will be conducted with our WIGM Proportional RCV protocols
• The City Clerk will announce the applicants for each board or commission • Councilmembers will make nominations
• The City Clerk will then open the ballot
• Each Councilmember will then rank as many or as few nominees as they choose for each position
• The results will be displayed and read into the record Appointment Process This Evening
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.f
Packet Pg. 1640 Attachment: Presentation Item (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) Questions?
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026
Item 16-A
September 8, 2026

16.A.f
Packet Pg. 1641 Attachment: Presentation Item (7853 : 16.A. Annual B & C Appointments) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 8, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Personnel Board for a term ending on June 30, 2029
Prepared By: David Yakobson, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List

16.B
Packet Pg. 1642
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Personnel Board
Name Application Date
Betancourt, Karen 06/09/2026
Chanduwadia, Farhaad D.^ 09/02/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 1
^ Late submittal

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1643 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 1] (7855 : 16.B. Appointment to the Personnel Board (5 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 8, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Recommendation to accept Brian Sweeney's resignation from the Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy
Prepared By: Mitchell Kois, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council

16.C
Packet Pg. 1644
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 8, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.D
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: A request of Councilmember Negrete that the City Manager Agendize the Small Business Relief Microgrant Program and provide an update on the guidelines, timeline and launch of the program
Prepared By: Sergio Ramirez, Chief of Staff
Approved Forwarded to Council

16.D
Packet Pg. 1645
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 8, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.E
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Request of Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers Hall and Snell that Council take formal ENDORSE positions on state Propositions 1, 3, and 37 and OPPOSE positions on Propositions 39 and 43.

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

A. 20260908 16 Item - Taking Formal Positions on Several State Propositions - Torosis, Hall, Snell
B. Written Comments

16.E
Packet Pg. 1646
Meeting: September 8, 2026
1 16 ITEM BY MAYOR CAROLINE TOROSIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DAN HALL 2 AND BARRY SNELL
3 Request of Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers Hall and Snell that Council take 4 formal ENDORSE positions on state Propositions 1, 3, and 37 and OPPOSE 5 positions on Propositions 39 and 43.
6 Five particular measures on the November 3, 2026 statewide ballot have a direct 7 impact to Santa Monica policies, programs, or longstanding civic values and we feel 8 compelled to request Council take a formal stance on each:
9 Proposition 1, authorizes $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds for housing 10 affordability programs, including $1.25 billion for the state veteran home loan program, 11 $7.2 billion for affordable multifamily rental housing, $1.1 billion for homeownership 12 assistance, $500 million for infrastructure projects, such as water, sewage, parks, and 13 transportation, and $200 million for local pilot programs that cities and counties may 14 access directly to reduce housing costs. These are some of the state funds that Santa 15 Monica's affordable housing pipeline competes for.
16 Proposition 3, provides permanent funding for schools and health care by extending 17 existing tax rates on high incomes above $361,000 annually which are scheduled to 18 expire. The measure is estimated to generate between $5 billion and $15 billion annually, 19 with 89 percent of revenue allocated to K-12 schools and 11 percent to community 20 colleges.
21 Proposition 37, creates a loan program for middle-income buyers of qualified new 22 homes. It authorizes up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to fund down payment assistance 23 loans for first-time middle-income buyers of qualified newly constructed homes, covering 24 up to 17 percent of an eligible home’s purchase price. 25 Proposition 39, prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued 26 identification. It also requires vote-by-mail voters to supply the last four digits of the voter's 27 selected government-issued identification number on the ballot return envelope, and 28 requires state and local election officials to make best efforts, using government data, to 29 verify that registered voters are U.S. citizens.
30 Proposition 43, limits voters’ ability to raise revenues for local government services. 31 Beginning January 1, 2027, it requires a two-thirds vote for approval of any new, 32 increased, or extended local special tax placed on the ballot by voter initiative, replacing 33 the simple majority threshold that currently applies to voter-proposed special taxes. 34 2022’s Measure GS was a citizens initiative special tax approved under the threshold this

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1647 Attachment: 20260908 16 Item - Taking Formal Positions on Several State Propositions - Torosis, Hall, Snell (7908 : Propositions) 16 ITEM BY MAYOR TOROSIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS HALL AND SNELL Taking Formal Positions on Several State Propositions

Page 2 of 3 ends

35 measure would replace, and the change would narrow the Santa Monica community's 36 remaining revenue options at a time of declared fiscal distress. 37 WE THEREFORE MOVE THAT THE COUNCIL:
38 1. Adopt an ENDORSE position for the following statewide propositions:
39 1.1. Proposition 1
40 1.2. Proposition 3
41 1.3. Proposition 37
42 2. Adopt an OPPOSE position for the following statewide propositions:
43 2.1. Proposition 39
44 2.2. Proposition 43
45 # # #

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1648 Attachment: 20260908 16 Item - Taking Formal Positions on Several State Propositions - Torosis, Hall, Snell (7908 : Propositions) 1 David Yakobson
From: Karen Melick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 4:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete
Cc: Clare Thomas
Subject: Item 16E: Please don’t advocate positions on State Propositions

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Council Members,
Please don't vote to take positions on any of the ballot propositions.

I find it ironic that you voted to limit the advocacy that Neighborhood Organizations can do for any ballot measure, no matter how relevant it is to the community, beyond the existing IRS limits for social welfare organizations.

Yet, you want to use your position on the dias to advocate for ballot measures with little or no relevance to the operations of our City.

Like Prop 43. You’re recommending opposing this. This measure eliminates a loophole, created by the courts in 2017, to the people’s Prop 13 initiative from 1978, which requires a two-thirds vote to increase property taxes.

The City should not take a position on this measure. Or any of the ballot measures. Please focus on the issues related to running our City.

Thank you.

Karen Melick
Sunset Park
Item 16-E
September 8, 2026
Item 16-E
September 8, 2026

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1649 Attachment: Written Comments (7908 : Propositions) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 8, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.F
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Request of Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers Hall and Raskin Directing the City Manager and City Attorney to Negotiate a Community Workforce Agreement
Prepared By: Sergio Ramirez, Chief of Staff
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. 20260908 16 Item - Community Workforce Agreement - Torosis, Hall, Raskin B. Written Comments

16.F
Packet Pg. 1650
Meeting: September 8, 2026
Request of Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers Hall and Raskin Directing the City Manager and City Attorney to Negotiate a Community Workforce Agreement Santa Monica is in the middle of one of the most significant public capital construction periods in the City's recent history. With the Citywide Realignment Plan, the City is directing tens of millions of dollars toward construction projects that will shape our community for decades.

Every one of these projects is funded by Santa Monica taxpayers and delivered through construction contracts the City itself awards and oversees. As the public agency responsible for building and maintaining excellent public infrastructure, the City has both the leverage and the responsibility to ensure that this investment translates into good, stable careers for the people who build it, not just completed buildings.

A Community Workforce Agreement (CWA) is a pre-hire agreement between the City and the building trades that sets consistent labor standards on covered public works projects in exchange for a no-strike, no-lockout commitment that keeps projects on time and on budget. CWAs prioritize hiring of local and targeted workers with barriers to employment, require use of state-approved apprenticeship programs that create pathways into the trades for Santa Monica residents without a four-year degree, and set clear grievance procedures so disputes get resolved without delaying construction.

CWAs have been used successfully implemented in neighboring jurisdictions including West Hollywood, Long Beach, and our own Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District.

By negotiating a CWA, Santa Monica can ensure that the public dollars we are already spending on construction also build local careers, strengthen the pipeline of skilled tradespeople in our community, and protect the City from costly labor disruptions on major projects.

Therefore, direction by Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers Hall and Raskin to have the City Manager and City Attorney negotiate a Community Workforce Agreement covering City of Santa Monica-funded public works construction projects.

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1651 Attachment: 20260908 16 Item - Community Workforce Agreement - Torosis, Hall, Raskin (7909 : Community Workforce Agreement) 1 David Yakobson
From: Karen Melick <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 3:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; Barry Snell Subject: Item 16G MFUA negotiations should start immediately

EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis, City Council Members, and City Manager Chi, I support the City beginning immediate negotiations with the School District for a successor agreement to the current Master Facilities Use Agreement (MFUA) that expires next June.

The Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commission discussed this last April and sent a letter on May 4, 2026, to the Mayor and City Councilmembers, copying the City Manager, urging immediate negotiations for a supplemental addendum to the YY/GS MFUA, which the Council voted to extend for 10 years, to include the agreements from the expiring MFUA. This letter is attached.

There are issues with the current agreement that should be modified, including adding penalties for non-compliance with the terms of the MFUA, which should also be addressed before the agreement is signed.

The agreements for Playground Partnership (Elementary Schools), JAMS, Lincoln Middle School, and CREST programs should be negotiated into the YY/GS Master Facilities Use Agreement at no additional cost to the City.

The City should not end up paying the District for the access provided by the expiring MFUA. That would be wrong to have the residents to replace the funding that provides access to the schools and then turn around and charge the City for the access.

We recommended immediate negotiations because, if the Parcel Tax passes, it removes the primary financial incentive for the District to share its facilities with the City, thereby removing the City’s leverage for negotiations. Both sides should be motivated to resolve this issue before the election to take this issue off the table as a concern when voters vote on Measure ES.

Thank you.

Karen Melick
Vice-Chair of the Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commission speaking for myself Sunset Park

16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1652 Attachment: Written Comments (7909 : Community Workforce Agreement) 2 16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1653 Attachment: Written Comments (7909 : Community Workforce Agreement) 3 16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1654 Attachment: Written Comments (7909 : Community Workforce Agreement) 4 16.F.b
Packet Pg. 1655 Attachment: Written Comments (7909 : Community Workforce Agreement) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 8, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.G
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Request of Mayor Torosis and Councilmember Hall that the City Council direct the City Manager to begin negotiations with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District for a successor agreement to the current Master Facilities Use Agreement (MFUA), with the goal of ensuring continued and equitable community access to SMMUSD facilities. Negotiations should address current resident concerns with the MFUA, including but not limited to responsibilities for permitting, facility access and availability, scheduling, fees and cost allocation for public and community use of SMMUSD facilities. The City Manager is further directed to evaluate the fiscal and operational impacts of both potential outcomes of Measure ES and, should Measure ES fail, present contingency options as part of the March budget study session.

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

A. Written Comments

16.G
Packet Pg. 1656
1 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 3:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Oliver Chi; Peter James; Susan Cline; Heidi von Tongeln; Susan Cola; Jenny Rogers; Steven Johnson; Karen Melick; Maryanne LaGuardia; Sonam Makker; Barry Rosenbaum; Christopher Dishlip; Amber Richane; Tony Lopez
Subject: September 8, 2026 Council Meeting - Item 16.G. - Negotiations regarding the MFUA, etc.

Attachments: map 24x18 (1).pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmember Hall, and Councilmembers - Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for getting out in front of this issue and agendizing it for various discussions, investigation, and actions to be undertaken by the City Manager and city staff team.

A few quick thoughts and recommendations -
 School campuses, which are public spaces owned by the public and expected to be run and maintained by taxing the public, are a de facto part of our parks system and seriously help to augment it, see attached image. The district is not a private corporation; it exists to serve the common good in a public way. Sometimes you hear school campuses described as "belonging to the District"; they do not. They belong to the people.  So the public must always be able to use these facilities and the City is the appropriate entity to provide much or all of that non-school hours access, which is customary and historic despite the more recent creation of the MFUA; the point here is to provide access to publicly-owned amenities, not to make a profit, which some in the community fear is a prime motivator for the School District wanting to end the MFUA, i.e., so they can take control of and monetize these spaces. A good example of this is TSM's extensive use (private swim club) of the new pool at Samohi, despite the new pool being paid for with public bond $$ and there being strong community demand for access to additional swim space.  One option is to simply reach an agreement to renew and extend the existing MFUA . As a former transactional attorney, I can tell you that any legal agreement can be extended, Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026

16.G.a
Packet Pg. 1657 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7910 : negotiations with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District) 2 renewed, or restated by an amendment, so long as the parties agree to it, and the MFUA is no different, no matter what some folks may tell you or want you to believe (i.e., that the existing MFUA cannot be extended, that it expires by its terms).  I do, however, recommend that the availability to the City and the community of the facilities, playgrounds, and open spaces it covers be reviewed and be detailed in an extensive Amendment (or new agreement) because over time the school district has closed or diminished facilities covered under the original MFUA. The Lincoln Middle School swimming pool is a good example of a facility that is closed and no longer available either to students or the public because the district alleges that it cannot be repaired. Similarly, the School District's aggressive school facilities construction activities are diminishing open spaces and/or restricting public access on many of our elementary campuses - see e.g. the "improvements" at Will Rogers and the back field construction currently underway at Franklin Elementary School.
 Please involve both the RAD team and the Recreation and Parks Commission in this Item

16.G. work as significant expertise and knowledge for you, our Council, in this area lies within both. Let's please leverage that brain trust!
Best of luck with this and thank you again for initiating this item. It is very important work to do and get sorted asap on behalf of our entire city and all who use our parks and school campus playgrounds, green open spaces, and recreational facilities.

All the best,
Ann Bowman
Former RPC commissioner, 2023-2025
Santa Monica resident, 30 years
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026

16.G.a
Packet Pg. 1658 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7910 : negotiations with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District) 1 David Yakobson
From: Matt Goldenberg D.O. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 9:14 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Oliver Chi; Recreation and Arts Department; John Smith; Barry Rosenbaum; [email protected]; Karen Melick; Maryanne LaGuardia; Steven Johnson; Jenny Rogers; Micah Akerson; Sonam Makker; Noe Mendoza; Eric Johnson; Jazzmyne Urquiza
Subject: SUPPORT for Item 16.G, Master Facilities Use Agreement

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Councilmember Hall, and Councilmembers, I'm writing in strong support of Item 16.G, and to thank you for bringing it forward. Directing the City Manager to negotiate a successor to the Master Facilities Use Agreement is exactly the kind of proactive step this issue needs. In case it's useful as you take this up, here are a few points that underscore why the stakes are high, and why the city is on firm ground in acting.

The city's own adopted policy already calls for this. The 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan:
 States that "school facilities functionally and essentially are part of the city's parks network," formally recognized to "memorialize community access to these public spaces."  Directs the city to "review existing joint-use agreements in an effort to expand" them (Action 3.2.3) and to "identify future joint-use agreements with public and private schools" (Action 3.2.4).  In short: Item 16.G advances a commitment the city has already made to itself.

The legal and institutional footing is solid.
 California's Civic Center Act (Education Code 38130) establishes that public school facilities, built with public dollars, are meant to serve the broader community beyond the school day.  This past May, the SMMUSD Board unanimously affirmed community access to its fields, gyms, and play areas. Both the city and the District are already on record.

The stakes are real, and they reach the entire city.
 Santa Monica averages just 1.55 park acres per 1,000 residents, and playing-field space is especially scarce citywide.
 In my experience scheduling youth sports here, there are essentially no city playing fields north of Memorial Park, the fields families rely on in much of the city are the elementary and middle school sites the MFUA covers.
 That scarcity hits our park-poorest neighborhoods hardest, but it's felt across the city, north and south. This isn't one neighborhood's issue; it's everyone's.

Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026

16.G.a
Packet Pg. 1659 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7910 : negotiations with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District) 2  Thousands of hours of youth sports and community recreation depend on continued access to these fields.

Two constructive suggestions as the work begins:
 It would be worth having the negotiation take stock of what's actually still available under the current agreement, since access to some covered facilities has diminished over the years.  The city's RAD staff hold deep operational expertise on how these facilities are programmed and permitted, involving them closely would strengthen the outcome.

Thank you again for initiating this. It's important work, and I'm grateful to see it moving forward! Respectfully,
Santa Monica resident, in my personal capacity
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026

16.G.a
Packet Pg. 1660 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7910 : negotiations with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District) 1 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 8:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: September 8, 2026 Council Meeting - Item 16.G. - Negotiations regarding the MFUA, etc. are ESSENTIAL to WILMONT neighborhood with 12,500 residences and very few back- or front-yards

EXTERNAL
My apologies. I forgot to add Council Mtg item email.

Thanks
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 8:47 AM
Subject: September 8, 2026 Council Meeting - Item 16.G. - Negotiations regarding the MFUA, etc. are ESSENTIAL to WILMONT neighborhood with 12,500 residences and very few back- or front-yards To: Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>, Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, Barry Snell <[email protected]>, Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>, Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>, Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>, Dan Hall <[email protected]> Cc: Oliver Chi <[email protected]>, Peter James <[email protected]>, Susan Cline <[email protected]>, Heidi Von Tongeln <[email protected]>, Susan Cola <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, SM STEVE JOHNSON <[email protected]>, Karen Melick <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Christopher Dishlip <[email protected]>, Richane Amber <[email protected]>, Tony Lopez <[email protected]> Mayor Torosis and City Councilmembers,
The Wilmont neighborhood has 12,500 residences with very few front- or back-yards. Wilmont goes from Ocean to 21st Street and from Wilshire to Montana. The one true park accessible to this neighborhood is Reed with a small, grassy patch that, as you know, is under constant demand across all aspects of the city's population.

For residents, families, children, nature lovers, runners, teams, kick-ball advocates and my role as Chair of this neighborhood, the city amid the increasing housing density must address the MFUA. And in my opinion, forfeited its responsibility of this important asset to residents when it didn't address it for continuation years ago. It makes no sense to me why the Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026

16.G.a
Packet Pg. 1661 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7910 : negotiations with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District) 2 agreement was not addressed for the long-term before this effort before you tonight.

The MFUA or a similar agreement must continue, with the goal of the City continuing to be able to access and program school facilities during non-school hours for the benefit of our entire community. Thousands and thousands of hours of valuable and essential city recreation programming depends on this.
 School campuses, which are public spaces owned by the public and expected to be run and maintained by taxing the public, are a de facto part of our parks system and seriously help to augment it. The district is not a private corporation; it exists to serve the common good in a public way. Sometimes you hear school campuses described as "belonging to the District"; they do not. They belong to the people.
 So the public must always be able to use these facilities and the City is the appropriate entity to provide much or all of that nonschool hours access, which is customary and historic despite the more recent creation of the MFUA; the point here is to provide access to publicly-owned amenities, not to make a profit, which some in the community fear is a prime motivator for the School District wanting to end the MFUA, i.e., so they can take control of and monetize these spaces. A good example of this is TSM's extensive use (private swim club) of the new pool at Samohi, despite the new pool being paid for with public bond $$ and there being strong community demand for access to additional swim space.
 One option is to simply reach an agreement to renew and extend the existing MFUA . As a former transactional attorney, I can tell you that any legal agreement can be extended, renewed, or restated by an amendment, so long as the parties agree to it, and the MFUA is no different, no matter what some folks may tell you or want you to believe (i.e., that the existing MFUA cannot be extended, that it expires by its terms).
 It is recommended that the availability to the City and the community of the facilities, playgrounds, and open spaces it covers be reviewed and be detailed in an extensive
Amendment (or new agreement) because over time the school district has closed or diminished facilities covered under the original MFUA. The Lincoln Middle School swimming pool is a good example of a facility that is closed and no longer available either to students or the public because the district alleges that it cannot be repaired. Similarly, the School District's aggressive school facilities construction activities are diminishing open spaces and/or restricting public access on many of our elementary campuses - see e.g. the "improvements" at Will Rogers and the back field construction currently underway at Franklin Elementary School.

Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026

16.G.a
Packet Pg. 1662 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7910 : negotiations with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District) 3  Please involve both the RAD team and the Recreation and Parks Commission in this Item 16.G. work as significant expertise and knowledge for you, our Council, in this area lies within both. Let's please leverage that brain trust!
The MFUA is very important to residents and should have been and should now get sorted asap on behalf of our entire city and all who use our parks and school campus playgrounds, green open spaces, and recreational facilities.

Many thanks,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Wilmont Chair
Santa Monica resident, 45 years
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026

16.G.a
Packet Pg. 1663 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7910 : negotiations with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District) From: Karen Melick
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; Barry Snell Subject: Item 16G MFUA negotiations should start immediately Date: Saturday, September 5, 2026 3:07:24 PM

There are issues with the current agreement that should be modified, including adding penalties for noncompliance with the terms of the MFUA, which should also be addressed before the agreement is signed.

Thank you.

Karen Melick
Vice-Chair of the Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commission speaking for myself Sunset Park
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026

16.G.a
Packet Pg. 1664 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7910 : negotiations with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District) Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026

16.G.a
Packet Pg. 1665 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7910 : negotiations with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District) Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026

16.G.a
Packet Pg. 1666 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7910 : negotiations with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District) 1 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: July 8 City Council Agenda Item 16G - MFUA Extension Attachments: 2022-05-05 SB Joint Use Agreement.pdf; 2022 Extension Master Facilities Use Agreement_Apr 2022.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council -
The appropriate response to this item is, "DUH." Of course the MFUA should be extended. The city needs access to school district facilities to maintain programs for residents and visitors, as we have had since 2002, and cancelling the MFUA to save money should never have been on the table.

The MFUA must be extended, which will require payment by the city. Accordingly, as many of us said since the Realignment Plan was presented, the Parcel Tax must be pulled from the ballot. Residents shouldn't bear the cost of the city's access, and we also shouldn't have to pay twice - once for the tax and again for a renegotiated MFUA.

It should be noted that prior to 2022 each time the MFUA term end was approaching, the agreement was amended to reset the term and the extension period so there could never be a termination like we are facing now. In 2022, the MFUA was inexplicably amended to terminate it in 2027 with no public hearing before city council or the school board. My PRAs for documents relating to this have been stalled out by the city and not responded to by the school district. "Termination of the MFUA" was disingenuously used as an excuse for the Parcel Tax when all this city and school board had to do at any point since 2022 is amend the MFUA to change the dates.

This council enters into and amends contracts, dozens at a time on this agenda alone, but it has acted like the termination of the MFUA is intractable.

It's only now that the Parcel Tax is polling so poorly, and it failed to get endorsed by the Dem Club even with Caroline Torosis presenting the argument in favor - proving it is a CITY TAX DISGUISED AS A SCHOOL TAX - that this is coming forward. Caroline is desperately trying to give the impression the loss of school facilities - a problem she created with the Realignment Plan and Parcel Tax - is being handled, but it's not.

This item kicks the can down the road on action that should have been taken at any point in the last year instead of wasting time pushing a tax.

The MFUA must be extended, with adjustments to account for changes in facilities and also requirements that the school district maintain open space, real grass, and facilities instead of demolishing and overbuilding our campuses with declining enrollment.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Sunset Park Resident
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026

16.G.a
Packet Pg. 1667 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7910 : negotiations with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District) 5/3/22, 11:49 PM Print Item
https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/PrintItem.aspx?S=36030435&MID=11599&IID=486858&AB=true&RC=true&t=i 1/1 Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District
Printed : 5/3/2022 11:49 PM PT
Format A in SM
05/05/2022 05:30 PM
District Office and Zoom
1651 16th St., Santa Monica, CA 90404
ITEM : II.K.3. Extension of the Master Facilities Use Agreement with the City of Santa Monica Rationale
This is to inform the Board of Education that: 1) the Master Facilities Use Agreement with the City of Santa Monica is coming to the end of its term on June 30, 2022; 2) the agreement allows for the Agreement to be extended for an additional term of five years to June 30, 2027; 3) the Superintendent and City Manager have signed the First Modification of the Master Facilities Agreement.

The agreement authorized on May 8, 2012 states that a five-year extension will be executed unless there have been material changes to either party’s financial position and a finding of nonrenewal is provided with three year’s notice. Given that the City has maintained its support of the District through its budget crisis and restructuring, demand for park and recreational amenities increased during the pandemic and remains high, and three-year notice of nonrenewal was not made, the City Manager and SMMUSD Superintendent will execute a First Modification of the Master Facilities Use Agreement to extend the term to June 30, 2027. All other terms and conditions of the agreements remain in effect.

No action or discussion is needed by the Board at this time.

Comments
Over the years, Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) and the City of Santa Monica (City) have built a collaborative partnership to support exceptional educational, cultural, and recreational achievements at the public schools. SMMUSD has supported residents by maintaining high-caliber classroom education as well as facilities used by students and residents alike. The relationship is codified in the Master Facilities Use Agreement and its supplements, which enable community members to use elementary and middle school playfields, recreational facilities, and buildings that are under-utilized during non-school hours. The Agreement provides unrestricted revenue to the School District in return for use of District facilities. The School District has used City funds to support the District’s educational mission.

The initial Master Facilities Use Agreement and related supplemental agreements were approved in April 2005. In April 2009, SMMUSD and the City authorized the first renewal option, thus amending and extending the Agreement by three years, through April 2012. In May 2012, SMMUSD and the City authorized a new Master Facilities Use Agreement and related supplemental agreements for an initial term of 10 years (through June 30, 2022) with an option to extend for an additional five years to June 30, 2027.

Separately, in 2010 and 2016, the voters passed local tax increases with accompanying advisory measures recommending that portions of the revenues be dedicated to improving and maintaining school facilities and support school programs. In March 2018, SMMUSD and the City approved a new agreement to combine terms and conditions for the allocation of the revenues from the two recent tax measures (YY and GS) into a single agreement with supplemental agreements regarding recreational use of school and park facilities. In August 2020, SMMUSD and the City approved a second modification to a supplemental agreement to reflect programmatic and operational changes on school playgrounds.

The March 2018 and August 2020 actions did not change the term of the agreement.

Supporting Documents
Master Facilities Use Agreement 050522
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026

16.G.a
Packet Pg. 1668 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7910 : negotiations with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District) 1 FIRST MODIFICATION OF
MASTER FACILITIES USE AGREEMENT NO. 9589 (CCS)
This First Modification of the Master Facilities Use Agreement Number 9589 (CCS) (“First Modification”), entered into as of ________, 2022 (“Execution Date”), by and between the City of Santa Monica, a municipal corporation (“City”), and SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“District”) is made with reference to the following:

RECITALS
A. On or about July 1 2012, the City and District entered into a Master Facilities Use Agreement Number 9589 to permit City and community use of school facilities within the City to meet certain recreational and other needs during hours when the facilities are available for such use, allowing the District to benefit from such use of the facilities through the generation of revenue for the maintenance of the District’s education programs (“Master Facilities Use Agreement”).

B. The City and the District desire to extend the term of the Master Facilities Use Agreement for an additional five-year term.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Now, therefore, the undersigned parties do hereby mutually agree to modify the Master Facilities Use Agreement as follows:

1. Section 1 of the Master Facilities Use Agreement entitled “Term” shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following paragraph:

Term. This Agreement begins on July 1, 2012 and terminates on June 30, 2027, unless terminated earlier as set forth in this Agreement.

2. Execution in Counterparts. This First Modification may be executed in counterparts with the same effect as if both parties hereto had executed the same document. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute a single modification. Any signature to this First Modification transmitted electronically through DocuSign or PDF shall be deemed an original signature and be binding upon the parties hereto (it being agreed that such electronic signature shall have the same force and effect as an original signature).

DocuSign Envelope ID: D34FDB6F-C93C-4AB1-898F-3A1195566A26 4/29/2022
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026

16.G.a
Packet Pg. 1669 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7910 : negotiations with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District) 2 3. Except as expressly modified by this First Modification, all other terms and conditions of the Master Facilities Use Agreement shall be and remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Modification as of the date and year first written above.

ATTEST:
______________________________

DENISE ANDERSON-WARREN
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________

LANE DILG
City Attorney

CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
a municipal corporation
By: ______________________________

RICK COLE
City Manager

SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT
ABC Corporation
#VENDOR
By: _______________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: D34FDB6F-C93C-4AB1-898F-3A1195566A26 4/29/2022
Susan Cola
Interim City Attorney
Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District
Superintendent at Santa Monica - Malibu Unified
Dr. Ben Drati
4/29/2022
City Manager
4/29/2022
Denise Anderson-Warren David White
City Clerk
4/29/2022
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026

16.G.a
Packet Pg. 1670 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7910 : negotiations with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 8, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.H
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Request of Councilmembers Raskin and Negrete and Mayor Torosis that the City Council consider approving the allocation of $1,188 from Council Discretionary Funds to support the room rental fee at Virginia Avenue Park for Santa Monica Ballet Folklorico Dance Company in support classes that are dedicated to preserving and sharing Latino and Native American traditions in Santa Monica. The funds would be appropriated in the amount of $1,188 from Councilmember Raskin
Prepared By: Sergio Ramirez, Chief of Staff
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Discretionary Funds Tracking - 20260902

16.H
Packet Pg. 1671
FY 2026-27 Council Discretionary Funds
FY 2026-27 - New Appropriation and allocations
Description Amount Programmed Date Negrete Torosis Hall Raskin Snell Zernitskaya Zwick Unallocated Uncommitted FY 2025-26 funds,
rollover to FY 2026-27 88,500.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 13,500.00 $ - $ 18,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 9,500.00 $ 19,000.00 $ - FY 2026-27 - New Appropriation* 140,000.00 Budget Adoption FY26-27, 6/23/26 $ 8,330.00 $ 8,330.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 8,330.00 $ 35,010.00 DISCRET-PICO BID DDLM Event (25,000.00) Council Meeting, 7/14/26, Item 16A (5,000.00) (5,000.00) (5,000.00) (5,000.00) (5,000.00) DISCFRET-Butterfly Brawl (12,500.00) Council Meeting, 7/28/26, 16G (5,000.00) (2,500.00) (5,000.00) DISCRET-SMC Women's Soccer (9,000.00) Council Meeting, 8/11/2026, Item 16C (2,000.00) (2,000.00) (5,000.00) DISCFRET-SM Ballet Folklorico (1,188.00) Council Meeting, 9/8/26 (1,188.00) DISCRET-SMC Women's Soccer (2,390.00) Council Meeting, 9/8/26 (2,390.00) * Amounts available per Councilmember reflect either 5 or 12 months, depending on the date the Councilmember's term expires. $ 178,422.00 Unprogrammed Balance Available $ 11,830.00 $ 14,330.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 31,812.00 $ 22,610.00 $ 22,500.00 $ 22,330.00 $ 35,010.00

16.H.a
Packet Pg. 1672 Attachment: Discretionary Funds Tracking - 20260902 (7911 : Ballet Folklorico) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 8, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.I
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Request of Councilmember Snell that the City Council consider approving the allocation of $2,390 for the GREENwell event organized by Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. Sigma Lambda Omega Chapter on Sunday, September 20, 2026, that will celebrate their participation and support of International Coastal Cleanup Day. The funds would be appropriated in the amount of $2,390 from Councilmember Snell
Prepared By: Sergio Ramirez, Chief of Staff
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Discretionary Funds Tracking - 20260902

16.I
Packet Pg. 1673
FY 2026-27 Council Discretionary Funds
FY 2026-27 - New Appropriation and allocations
Description Amount Programmed Date Negrete Torosis Hall Raskin Snell Zernitskaya Zwick Unallocated Uncommitted FY 2025-26 funds,
rollover to FY 2026-27 88,500.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 13,500.00 $ - $ 18,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 9,500.00 $ 19,000.00 $ - FY 2026-27 - New Appropriation* 140,000.00 Budget Adoption FY26-27, 6/23/26 $ 8,330.00 $ 8,330.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 8,330.00 $ 35,010.00 DISCRET-PICO BID DDLM Event (25,000.00) Council Meeting, 7/14/26, Item 16A (5,000.00) (5,000.00) (5,000.00) (5,000.00) (5,000.00) DISCFRET-Butterfly Brawl (12,500.00) Council Meeting, 7/28/26, 16G (5,000.00) (2,500.00) (5,000.00) DISCRET-SMC Women's Soccer (9,000.00) Council Meeting, 8/11/2026, Item 16C (2,000.00) (2,000.00) (5,000.00) DISCFRET-SM Ballet Folklorico (1,188.00) Council Meeting, 9/8/26 (1,188.00) DISCRET-SMC Women's Soccer (2,390.00) Council Meeting, 9/8/26 (2,390.00) * Amounts available per Councilmember reflect either 5 or 12 months, depending on the date the Councilmember's term expires. $ 178,422.00 Unprogrammed Balance Available $ 11,830.00 $ 14,330.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 31,812.00 $ 22,610.00 $ 22,500.00 $ 22,330.00 $ 35,010.00

16.I.a
Packet Pg. 1674 Attachment: Discretionary Funds Tracking - 20260902 (7912 : GREENwell)

Santa Monica City CouncilSeptember 8, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
September 8, 2026