Agenda packet, first session — Santa Monica City Council, September 22, 2026 (part 3 of 5)

Zoning variances
Vacation of a public easement across private property
Pre-applications, such as for General Plan Amendment, considered by the legislative body prior to filing of formal application
Contracts entered under the City Manager’s Authority
Closed session items that may result in a contract/settlement agreement approved by Council (real estate or litigation)
It does not apply to:

Contracts under $50,000
Contracts where no party receives financial compensation Contracts between two or more public agencies
Competitively bid contracts that are required by law, agency policy, or agency rule to be awarded pursuant to a competitive process
Purely ministerial decisions
General policy decisions or rules where the interests affected are many and diverse
Ordinances and resolutions (except items like development agreements adopted by ordinance)
Ballot measures
Departmental policies
Council rules
Labor contracts and project labor agreements
Personal employment contracts
Allocation of resources in the City budget

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

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

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

A “contribution” is anything of value for which the party has not received full consideration, including money, nonmonetary items, payments made for advertising or Docusign Envelope ID: C12577FD-921A-41D8-8619-0D173C9E653E

4.C.a
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form (7861 : Award Bid to VCI Construction, LLC to provide On-Call Fiber Optic Infrastructure Services)

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

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

Nothing herein constitutes legal advice and individuals are urged to consult with their own attorney regarding the requirements of the law. To the extent there is any inconsistency, the language of the Levine Act and FPPC Regulations govern over this notice. Resources for officers, parties, participants, and agents, are available on the FPPC’s website at https://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to-play-limits-and-prohibitions.html Docusign Envelope ID: C12577FD-921A-41D8-8619-0D173C9E653E

4.C.a
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form (7861 : Award Bid to VCI Construction, LLC to provide On-Call Fiber Optic Infrastructure Services)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

OAKS INITIATIVE NOTICE

NOTICE TO APPLICANTS, BIDDERS, PROPOSERS

AND OTHERS SEEKING DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, CONTRACTS,

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

This information is required by City Charter Article XXII—Taxpayer Protection.

It prohibits a public official from receiving, and a person or entity from conferring, specified personal benefits or campaign advantages from a person or entity after theofficial votes, or otherwise takes official action, to award a “public benefit” to that person or entity. The prohibition applies within and outside of the geographical boundaries of SantaMonica.

All persons or entities applying or receiving public benefits from the City of Santa Monica shall provide the names of trustees, directors, partners, and officers, and names of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation or revenue interest. An exception exists for persons serving in those capacities as volunteers, without compensation, for organizations exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3), (4), or (6), of the Internal Revenue Code. However, this exception does not apply if the organization is a political committee or controls political committees.

Examples of a “public benefit” include public contracts to provide goods or services worth more than $25,000 or a land use approval worth more than $25,000 over a 12- month period.

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

Docusign Envelope ID: C12577FD-921A-41D8-8619-0D173C9E653E

4.C.b
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: OAKS INITIATIVE FORM SIGNED (7861 : Award Bid to VCI Construction, LLC to provide On-Call Fiber Optic Infrastructure

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

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

Public benefits include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prepared by: Title:

Signature: Date:

Email: Phone:

Permit #
FOR CITY USE ONLY:

Bid/PO/Contract #
Patrick Davies Vice President 02/10/2026 [email protected] 909-646-0905 VCI Construction, LLC NONE Patrick Davies - Vice President, Edgar Escobar - VP of Finance, John Xanthos - Chairman
Docusign Envelope ID: C12577FD-921A-41D8-8619-0D173C9E653E

4.C.b
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: OAKS INITIATIVE FORM SIGNED (7861 : Award Bid to VCI Construction, LLC to provide On-Call Fiber Optic Infrastructure

4.C.c
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: VVD Communications Protest 052926 (7861 : Award Bid to VCI Construction, LLC to provide On-Call Fiber Optic Infrastructure

4.C.c
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: VVD Communications Protest 052926 (7861 : Award Bid to VCI Construction, LLC to provide On-Call Fiber Optic Infrastructure

4.C.c
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: VVD Communications Protest 052926 (7861 : Award Bid to VCI Construction, LLC to provide On-Call Fiber Optic Infrastructure 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8281 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity July 6, 2026
Mr. Luis Padilla
Video Voice Data Communications
7391 Lincoln Way
Garden Grove, CA 92841
Subject: Response to Protest Regarding RFB 4513 – On-Call Fiber Optic Infrastructure Services Dear Mr. Padilla,
The City of Santa Monica is in receipt of your protest letter dated May 29, 2026, regarding the award recommendation for RFB 4513, On-Call Fiber Optic Infrastructure Services. The City takes all vendor concerns seriously and has conducted a thorough review of the matters raised in your correspondence, specifically your assertions regarding cost realism, scope completeness, and potentially unbalanced lineitem pricing.

Following your correspondence, the City’s evaluation committee carefully re-examined the line-item pricing structure submitted by the recommended awardee in light of your concerns. Based on this review, the committee has confirmed that the bid is both responsive and responsible.

Consequently, the City finds no merit in your protest and will proceed with the original award recommendation. We sincerely appreciate your interest in doing business with the City of Santa Monica, thank you for participating in this competitive solicitation process, and highly encourage you to submit proposals for our future procurement opportunities.

Sincerely,
Monique Carter
Interim Procurement/Accounts Payable Manager
City of Santa Monica

4.C.d
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: VVD Communications Response Letter 070626 Revised (7861 : Award Bid to VCI Construction, LLC to provide On-Call Fiber Optic City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 22, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.D
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Adoption of Resolution Ratifying Homelessness Emergency Proclamation Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Adopt the proposed resolution ratifying the 2025 Proclamation of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness.

Executive Summary
On March 11, 2025, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter

2.16, the City Council adopted the 2025 Proclamation of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness (the “2025 Proclamation”).

Government Code Section 8630 requires local governmental authorities to renew a local emergency every 60 days until the governing body terminates the local emergency. Accordingly, this staff report recommends adopting the attached Resolution ratifying the 2025 Proclamation. (Attachment A).

Discussion
On February 14, 2023, the City Council adopted a Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness due to the homelessness crisis in the region, which continues to grow, leading to deplorable living conditions and illness and deaths of

4.D
Packet Pg. 590
2 of 3
unhoused and unsheltered persons in the region. On May 14, 2024, the City Council adopted a further Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness (“the 2024 Proclamation”), which was utilized to advance several key initiatives related to homelessness.

On March 11, 2025, because the conditions that existed at the time the 2024 Proclamation was adopted persist, the City Council adopted the 2025 Proclamation, which extends the local emergency on homelessness through December 31, 2026. The 2025 Proclamation allows the City to expeditiously increase City services and programs to address and prevent homelessness. Specifically, the extension enables the City to, among other things, receive additional county, state, and federal resources to address the homelessness crisis, prevent rental price gouging, streamline and expedite certain City processes, leverage City resources to support people who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of experiencing homelessness or to address local impacts of homelessness, and allows the City Manager to take all available actions authorized under Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.16. On April 22, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11658 (CCS), ratifying the 2025 Proclamation. On June 10, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11669 (CCS), on July 29, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11686 (CCS), on September 9, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11697 (CCS), on October 28, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11712 (CCS), on December 16, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11726 (CCS), on February 10, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11738 (CCS), on March 24, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11742 (CCS), on May 12, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11758 (CCS), on June 23, 2026 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11769 (CCS), and on August 11, 2026 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11792 (CCS) re-ratifying the 2025 Proclamation.

Staff now recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution re-ratifying the 2025 Proclamation declaring the existence of a local emergency in the City of Santa Monica and authorizing specified actions in response to that local emergency.

Environmental Review

4.D
Packet Pg. 591
3 of 3
The 2025 Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness would have no effect on the environment, and therefore, is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply, “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” Fiscal Impacts
None.

Prepared By: Sean Perez, Deputy City Attorney II
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Resolution for Ratification of 2025 Proclamation Declaring State of Emergency on Homelessness 09.22

4.D
Packet Pg. 592
1 City Council Meeting: September 22, 2026 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA RATIFYING THE 2025 PROCLAMATION OF THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DECLARING A LOCAL

EMERGENCY ON HOMELESSNESS
WHEREAS, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.16 empowers the City Manager, as the Director of Emergency Services (“Director”), to request that the City Council proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency if the City Council is in session; and
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2023, the City adopted a Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness due to the homelessness crisis in the region, which continues to grow, leading to deplorable living conditions and illness and deaths of unhoused and unsheltered persons in the region, which was extended to May 31, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2024 the City adopted a further Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness (the “2024 Proclamation”), which was utilized to advance several key initiatives related to homelessness; and WHEREAS, based on the 2024 Point-In-Time Homeless Count (“2024 PITC”) data, there were 75,312 people experiencing homeless in Los Angeles County; and WHEREAS, based on the 2024 PITC data for Service Planning Area 5 (SPA 5), the SPA Santa Monica is in, there were 5,383 people experiencing homelessness; and WHEREAS, based on the 2024 PITC data, there were 774 people experiencing homelessness in Santa Monica; and

4.D.a
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Resolution for Ratification of 2025 Proclamation Declaring State of Emergency on Homelessness 09.22 (7878 : Ratifying 2 WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) conducted an End of Line Survey in January 2025, and found 39 unhoused persons were unsheltered at the Santa Monica Downtown Metro Station given Metro’s current End of Line policy, which requires deboarding of all passengers and belongings at the end of the line when trains go out of service; and
WHEREAS, according to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report published in October 2023, the fastest growing group in the nation’s population of people experiencing homelessness is older adults, composing nearly half of the homeless population nationwide, and a number that is expected to triple by 2030, and older adult homelessness has increased by 25% in the Los Angeles Continuum of Care between 2020 and 2024; and
WHEREAS, a California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness (CASPEH) found that high housing costs and low income left participants vulnerable to homelessness, and that the most common reason for leaving housing was economic; and WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium that protected tenants from eviction who were under 80% of Area Median Income who were unable to pay rent due to the pandemic expired March 31, 2023, and tenants had up to twelve (12) months to repay past due rent owed to avoid risk of eviction; and WHEREAS, the number of eviction lawsuits provided to the Santa Monica City Attorney’s office in 2024 increased by over 28% from the number provided in 2023, with

84.8% of 2024 eviction lawsuits based on nonpayment of rent, suggesting even more tenants at risk of eviction and homelessness than in 2023; and

4.D.a
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Resolution for Ratification of 2025 Proclamation Declaring State of Emergency on Homelessness 09.22 (7878 : Ratifying 3 WHEREAS, on March 11, 2025, because the conditions that existed at the time the 2024 Proclamation was adopted persist, the City Council adopted the 2025 Proclamation of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness (the “2025 Proclamation”); and
WHEREAS, the 2025 Proclamation extends the local emergency on homelessness through December 31, 2026, and allows the City to expeditiously increase City services and programs to address and prevent homelessness; and WHEREAS, specifically, the extension of the local emergency effectuated by the 2025 Proclamation enables the City to, among other things, receive additional county, state, and federal resources to address the homelessness crisis, prevent rental price gouging, streamline and expedite certain City processes, leverage City resources to support people who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of experiencing homelessness or to address local impacts of homelessness, and to allow the City Manager to take all available actions authorized under Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.16; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11658 (CCS), ratifying the 2025 Proclamation; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11669 (CCS), on July 29, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11686 (CCS), on September 9, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11697 (CCS), on October 28, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11712 (CCS), on December 16, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11726 (CCS), on February 10, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11738 (CCS), on March

4.D.a
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Resolution for Ratification of 2025 Proclamation Declaring State of Emergency on Homelessness 09.22 (7878 : Ratifying 4 24, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11742 (CCS), on May 12, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11758 (CCS), on June 23, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11769 (CCS) ), and on August 11, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11792 (CCS) re-ratifying the 2025 Proclamation; and WHEREAS the findings included in the 2025 Proclamation are included herein as if stated in full.

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

SECTION 1. The 2025 Proclamation of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness (“Exhibit A”) is hereby ratified.

SECTION 2. It is hereby proclaimed that a local emergency now exists throughout the City. It is further proclaimed and ordered that during the existence of this local emergency the powers, functions, and duties of the Director of Emergency Services and the emergency organization of this City shall be those prescribed by State law and by the ordinances and resolutions of this City.

SECTION 3. The City Council authorizes the City Manager, in capacity as the Director of Emergency Services, to take all actions related to the protection of life and property that are reasonably necessary to respond to the local emergency.

SECTION 4. The local emergency shall be deemed to continue and exist until December 31, 2026, unless its termination is earlier proclaimed by the City Council. As required by law, the City Council shall review the need to continue the state of emergency every 60 days until this resolution is terminated.

4.D.a
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Resolution for Ratification of 2025 Proclamation Declaring State of Emergency on Homelessness 09.22 (7878 : Ratifying 5 SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution, or the 2025 Proclamation ratified herein is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution or the 2025 Proclamation. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution and the 2025 Proclamation and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

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

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

4.D.a
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Resolution for Ratification of 2025 Proclamation Declaring State of Emergency on Homelessness 09.22 (7878 : Ratifying City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 22, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.E
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Darrick Jacob, Police Chief, Police Department
Subject: Authorization to Accept United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) FY25 Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Authorize the City Manager to accept a grant awarded in the amount of $63,937.24 from the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for the 2025 Bulletproof Vest Partnership (“BVP”) Grant for the purchase of bulletproof vests by the Santa Monica Police Department; and

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

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

4.E
Packet Pg. 598
2 of 5
Summary
The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance (“BJA”) awarded the Santa Monica Police Department (“SMPD”) a two-year grant of $63,937.24 as part of the 2025 Bulletproof Vest Partnership (“BVP”) Grant program. This grant would reimburse SMPD for 50 percent of the cost of approximately 152 bulletproof vests purchased under the program. Bulletproof vests are an important tool for keeping officers safe in the field. Staff recommend that the Council accepts the BVP 2025 Grant and authorizes the execution of an agreement with the DOJ for a grant performance period of April 1, 2025 through August 31, 2027.

Although the BVP grant award contract includes four award conditions which on their face appear inconsistent with the Council’s prior direction to staff to refuse unreasonable conditions related to federal immigration enforcement, the conditions are the subject of permanent injunctions and the associated federal court orders enjoining the DOJ from implementing or enforcing them against the City, or from using them to condition the City’s acceptance of the grant or use of award funds. Accordingly, staff recommends accepting the grant and submitting a reservation of rights letter along with the executed award documents to make clear that the City’s acceptance of the award is subject to: 1) the conditions being enjoined; and 2) the City’s right to challenge any DOJ attempt to implement or enforce award conditions against the City during the pendency of the permanent injunctions.

Discussion
The Bulletproof Vest Partnership, created by the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998, is a DOJ initiative designed to provide a critical resource to state and local law enforcement. Bulletproof vests save lives by protecting officers in the line of duty from physical harm. Vests are an important resource for officer safety, which is one of the six main pillars identified in the Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing released in 2015. The report states that every law enforcement officer should be provided with a bulletproof vest and that all law enforcement agencies should adopt policies that require officers to wear bulletproof vests.

4.E
Packet Pg. 599
3 of 5
The Santa Monica Police Department currently provides a vest to every sworn and fieldassigned uniformed civilian employee and has a policy mandating that these employees wear their assigned vests. The City has been a recipient of these grant funds previously in 2006, 2010, and from 2013–2022. These grant funds would help SMPD to continue to meet the mission of providing every law enforcement officer with a bulletproof vest. The 2025 program funding would provide 50 percent of the cost for approximately 152 replacement vests. Bulletproof vests are on a five-year replacement cycle because of the degradation of the Kevlar from repetitive use. Furthermore, body moisture reduces the vest's ability to maintain the threat level guarantee, which is a circumstance that voids the manufacturer's warranty. The current grant award of $63,937.24 would support the purchase of the vests through August 2027.

Grant Conditions
The BVP grant award contract includes four award conditions which on their face appear inconsistent with the Council’s prior direction to staff to refuse unreasonable conditions related to federal immigration enforcement. Notwithstanding their inclusion in the City’s BVP award documents, these particular conditions are the subject of permanent injunctions and the associated federal court orders enjoining the DOJ from implementing or enforcing them against subdivisions of the State of California including the City, or from using them to condition the City’s acceptance of the grant or use of award funds (See State of California v. Sessions, 3:17-cv-04701 (ECF No. 154) (2018); see also State of California v. Barr, 3:18-cv-05169 (ECF No. 51) (2019)). The DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs website used for providing legal notice includes a direct reference to the court orders and the ongoing injunctions. The site acknowledges that the DOJ will not implement or enforce the disputed award conditions against subdivisions of the State of California such as the City. City staff has confirmed with the grant administrator’s office that its digital grant documents system does not allow for revising the documents to remove the inapplicable award conditions. Instead, staff intends to follow the same process for accepting this award that was used for accepting another DOJ grant earlier this year with similar problematic conditions, which is to submit a reservation of rights letter along with the executed award documents. The

4.E
Packet Pg. 600
4 of 5
letter makes clear that the City’s acceptance of the award is subject to: 1) the conditions being enjoined; and 2) the City’s right to challenge any DOJ attempt to implement or enforce award conditions against the City during the pendency of the permanent injunctions.

Environmental Review
The acceptance of federal grant funds is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The grant funds would enhance public safety with equipment. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the acceptance of federal grant funds is exempt from CEQA.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to accept a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance for the FY25 Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program.

Approval of the recommended action requires the following budget amendment:

FY 2026-27 Grant Budget Amendment
Establish Revenue Budget Appropriate Funds
Account Number Amount Account Number Amount
20180001.40427B $63,937.24 20180001.55550B $63,937.24
Total $63,937.24 Total $63,937.24
If renewals are awarded, budget adjustments will be included in subsequent year budgets, contingent on Council budget approval.

4.E
Packet Pg. 601
5 of 5
Prepared By: Kiajett Charles, Administrative Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council

4.E
Packet Pg. 602
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 22, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.F
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Darrick Jacob, Police Chief, Police Department
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of the 2026-27 Grant from California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for Santa Monica Police Department
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the acceptance of grant funds in the amount of $92,673 from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) for the 2026-27 ABC Grant Program in the Police Department;

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

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

Summary
The Santa Monica Police Department (“SMPD”) has been awarded a California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) grant in the amount of $92,673.

Funds must be used by the end of the grant period, or by June 30, 2027. No local match is required. The grant aims to enhance community wellbeing by reducing alcohol-related crimes of all types and to stem the access of alcohol to youth in Santa Monica by using both education and enforcement strategies. The Department’s goal is to reduce underage drinking in the State as well as identify and target problematic ABC licensed establishments. Staff recommends that the Council accepts the 2026 – 27 ABC Grant

4.F
Packet Pg. 603
2 of 4
funds and authorizes the execution of an agreement with the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for a performance period of July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027.

Discussion
This ABC grant comes from the State of California Grant Assistance Program for the Alcoholic Policing Partnership Program. The City has previously received grant funding from this Program and other similar ABC grant programs in 2019, 2021 – 2022, and 2024. Similar to previous ABC grants, the 2026 ABC grant would fund the following overtime operations:
• Minor Decoy Operations – The Minor Decoy program is designed to educate and deter licensed locations from selling alcohol to minors. The program uses supervised individuals, under the age of 20, to attempt to purchase alcohol at licensed premises.

This program has proven to be an effective tool in promoting responsible practices in the sale of alcoholic beverages by licensees, reducing substance abuse, and enhancing community welfare by limiting underage access to alcohol. • Shoulder Tap Operations – The Shoulder Tap Program is used to detect and deter adults who furnish alcohol to minors. “Shoulder Tapping” refers to the practices used by minors to obtain alcohol from adult strangers near off-sale retail outlets. The Shoulder Tap program uses supervised individuals under the age of 20. During the operation the minor attempts to have an adult purchase alcohol for them at licensed ABC establishments.
• Trap Door Operations – The Trap Door program is used as a type of undercover enforcement tactic to prevent underage drinking. In this approach, officers work with businesses such as bars, clubs, and event venues to identify and stop individuals who attempt to purchase alcohol using fake or altered identification. • Informed Merchants Preventing Alcohol-Related Crime Tendencies (IMPACT) inspections – The primary goal is to educate licensees on alcohol related laws to help reduce alcohol-related crime in and around licensed premises. SMPD officers will conduct visits and inspections of licensed premises identifying areas of non-compliance.

There is follow-up to ensure any issues are addressed.

4.F
Packet Pg. 604
3 of 4
• Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs (LEAD) Class – Staff will schedule and coordinate LEAD classes. If an ABC educator is not available, SMPD personnel will host and conduct the classes on their own.
• Roll Call Training – Sworn personnel will be provided quarterly training on ABC’s recommended enforcement and prevention methods and techniques.

The grant would require press releases to be issued at the conclusion of each Minor Decoy, Shoulder Tap, Trap Door, and IMPACT operation.

Environmental Review
The acceptance of federal grant funds is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The grant funds would enhance public safety with enforcement and educational programs. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the acceptance of federal grant funds is exempt from CEQA.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
7/23/24 (attachment A) Acceptance of ABC Grant Award in the amount of $80,229.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to accept a grant from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for the 2026-27 ABC Grant Program.

FY 2026-27 Grant Budget Amendment
Establish Revenue Budget Appropriate Funds
Account Number Amount Account Numbers Amount
20180002.404619 $92,673 20180002.555165 $4,050
20180002.555165.21071 $88,623
Total $95,673 Total $92,673
If renewals are awarded, budget adjustments will be included in subsequent year budgets, contingent on Council budget approval.

4.F
Packet Pg. 605
4 of 4
Prepared By: Kiajett Charles, Administrative Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Staff Report - July 23, 2024 (Web Link)
B. ABC Grant Resolution

4.F
Packet Pg. 606
1 City Council Meeting: September 22, 2026 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $92,673 FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRANT

ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR THE ALCOHOLIC POLICING PARTERNSHIP

PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica (the “City) desires to reduce alcohol related crimes of all types in Santa Monica and stem the access of youth to alcohol in Santa Monica by using a comprehensive program of enforcement and education strategies with a focus on prevention
WHEREAS, in furtherance of these goals, the City desires to undertake an alcoholrelated crime reduction and prevention program to be funded in part by grant funding made available through the Alcohol Policing Partnership Program (“APP”) administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”), and WHEREAS, the opportunities afforded to the City by the grant funding provided by ABC include the support of targeted operations such as the Minor Decoy and Shoulder Tap programs, undercover operations, and IMPACT (Informed Merchants Preventing Alcohol-Related Crime Tendencies) inspections, and
WHEREAS, the City will also use ABC grant funding to provide training to the City’s sworn personnel on ABC’s recommended enforcement and prevention methods and techniques, and

4.F.b
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: ABC Grant Resolution [Revision 1] (7883 : FY26 ABC GRANT) 2 WHEREAS, ABC has offered, and the City desires to accept, certain APP grant funds from ABC in an amount equal to Ninety-Two Thousand Six Hundred and SeventyThree Dollars ($92,673) in order to fund such enforcement during Fiscal Year 2026-27.

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

SECTION 1. The City Manager, or his or her designee, is authorized to accept the grant, and to negotiate, enter into, execute, and deliver a State of California Standard Agreement (“Standard Agreement”) in the amount of ninety-two thousand six hundred seventy-three dollars ($92,673), and any and all other documents deemed necessary or appropriate to evidence and secure Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) Alcohol Policing Partnership Program (“APP”) grant, the City’s obligation related thereto, and any extensions or amendments thereto.

SECTION 2. The grant funds received hereunder shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by the City Council.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Heidi von Tongeln, City Attorney

4.F.b
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: ABC Grant Resolution [Revision 1] (7883 : FY26 ABC GRANT) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 22, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.G
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jing Yeo, Director, Building & Safety
Subject: First Modification to Agreement with Willdan Engineering for Temporary Staffing Services for the Building and Safety Division of the Community Development Department
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Statutory Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a first modification to agreement #11544 (CCS) in the amount of $250,000 with Willdan Engineering for temporary staffing services for the Building and Safety Division in the Community Development Department. This will result in a five-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $500,000, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

Summary
In April 2024, Council approved agreement 11544 (CCS) with Willdan Engineering for temporary staffing assistance during periods of staff vacancies. The agreement was intended to provide short-term support while vacant inspector positions were filled in the Building and Safety Division. However, four of nine Building Inspector positions remain vacant, and the original $250,000 in contract authority is expected to be exhausted by the end of September 2026.

In July 2026, in an effort to improve recruitment, Council approved salary increases for the Building Inspector classification series. While recruitment is underway, staff recommends increasing contract authority by $250,000, for a total not-to-exceed

4.G
Packet Pg. 609
2 of 3
amount of $500,000 to maintain temporary inspection staffing and provide flexibility for continued vacancies.

Discussion
When the City entered into a professional services agreement with Willdan Engineering on April 9, 2024, the expectation was that the few vacancies in Building and Safety’s Inspections section would be filled relatively quickly and temporary staffing services would only be necessary in the short term. Two years into the contract term, the Inspections section has four Building Inspector vacancies out of nine budgeted positions and, as a result, temporary staffing has been necessary far more than anticipated to help support service goals. This need has led to funding being utilized for this contract far more quickly than expected and the original agreement amount of $250,000 will be exhausted by the end of September 2026.

In an effort to attract qualified candidates, Council approved revisions to the Inspector classification series, which included increases in compensation that better align with Building Inspector salaries in the region. However, it is likely to take several months for these classifications to be posted and filled. In the meantime, Willdan Engineering will provide at least two temporary inspectors at a cost of approximately $25,000 per month.

Staff recommends increasing the not-to-exceed amount by an additional $250,000, for a total contract amount of $500,000. This will allow Building and Safety to continue to utilize temporary staffing until permanent Inspectors can be on-boarded as well as for potential future vacancies.

Environmental Review
The modification to the agreement for temporary staff exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply, “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The modification would provide temporary staffing and would not have any physical environmental effects on the environment.

4.G
Packet Pg. 610
3 of 3
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
02/27/24 (attachment A) Original bid and award of agreement with Willdan for temporary staffing services
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve available funding from the General Fund to increase the amount of the agreement with Willdan Engineering for temporary inspection services. No additional budget is being requested at this time.

Professional Services Agreement Modification Request
Agreement #
Current
Authorized
Amount
FY2026-27
Modified
Request
Amount
Future
Years
Amount
Dept/CIP
Account #
Total
Revised
Contract
Amount
11544 (CCS) $250,000 $200,000 $50,000 01700004.552010 $500,000 Future year funding is contingent on Council budget approval.

Prepared By: Kevin Purcell, Principal Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Staff Report - February 27, 2024
B. Willdan - Oaks Disclosure
C. Willdan - Living Wage
D. Willdan - Levine Act

4.G
Packet Pg. 611

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

OAKS INITIATIVE NOTICE

NOTICE TO APPLICANTS, BIDDERS, PROPOSERS

AND OTHERS SEEKING DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, CONTRACTS,

This information is required by City Charter Article XXII—Taxpayer Protection.

Examples of a “public benefit” include public contracts to provide goods or services worth more than $25,000 or a land use approval worth more than $25,000 over a 12- month period.

4.G.b
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Willdan - Oaks Disclosure (7885 : First Modification to Agreement with Wildan for Temporary Staffig Services)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Public benefits include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prepared by: Title:

Signature: Date:

Email: Phone:

Permit #
FOR CITY USE ONLY:

Bid/PO/Contract #

4.G.b
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Willdan - Oaks Disclosure (7885 : First Modification to Agreement with Wildan for Temporary Staffig Services)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

LIVING WAGE ORDINANCE
Certification for Providers of Services to the City of Santa Monica (Fiscal Year 26/27 – July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027)

TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL CONTRACTORS PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN EXCESS OF $54,200
The City of Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.65, Living Wage Ordinance (LWO), establishes a Minimum Wage of $25.00 per hour for certain employees of contractors providing services to the City where services exceed $54,200 or more and requires that contractors also provide the same health care and other benefits to employees’ same sex spouses and domestic partners as are provided to other employees’ spouses.

An employee covered by the LWO is any person who does not actually work as a manager, supervisor, or confidential employee, and who is not required to possess an occupational license.

The Living Wage Ordinance applies the services sought pursuant to this bid and bidders are required to prepare and return the Living Wage Certification Form. If the bidder is selected, the bidder must maintain payroll records that include, at minimum, the full name of each employee providing services under the contract, job classification and rate of pay. Bids that fail to include Certification Forms may be considered non-responsive and excluded from further consideration.

Please prepare the following certification if you are a contractor engaging in a contract for services with the City of Santa Monica in excess of $54,200.

Your signature on this certification grants the City permission to review any and all payroll books and records and any company documents pertaining to the benefits offered to employees to assure your compliance with the LWO during the term of the contract.

Please direct any questions to:

City of Santa Monica Finance Department
Attention: Living Wage Compliance Section
1685 Main Street, Mail Stop 09
Santa Monica, CA 90401
You can also contact staff regarding living wage ordinance questions by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone 310-458-8281.

4.G.c
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Willdan - Living Wage (7885 : First Modification to Agreement with Wildan for Temporary Staffig Services)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

LIVING WAGE ORDINANCE CERTIFICATION
July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027

TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL CONTRACTORS PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN EXCESS OF $54,200
MINIMUM WAGE - $25.00 per hour
Please read, complete, and sign the following:

THIS CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO THE LIVING WAGE ORDINANCE ☐ THIS CONTRACT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LIVING WAGE ORDINANCE ☐ If this contract is not subject to the Living Wage Ordinance requirements, please note the reason below and attach supporting documentation for exemption. For example, in order to be exempt pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, a signed collective bargaining agreement must be attached. (a) contractor is a government agency and is exempt
(b) contractor is a City grantee and is exempt
(c) contractor is a non-profit corporation and is exempt (d) contractor is an employer whose employees are covered by a bona fide collective bargaining agreement where the waiver is explicitly set forth in an agreement in clear and unambiguous terms
(e) contractor is a corporation providing banking services The undersigned, on behalf of himself or herself individually and on behalf of his or her business or organization, hereby certifies that he or she is fully aware of Santa Monica’s Living Wage Ordinance (LWO), and the applicability of the LWO, and the applicability of the subject contract, as determined herein. The undersigned further agrees to be bound by all terms of the LWO, as mandated in all sections of Santa Monica Municipal Code, Chapter 4.65. If, at any time during the term of the contract, the answers to the questions posed herein change so that Contractor would be subject to the LWO, Contractor will promptly notify the Director of Finance in writing. Contractor further understands and agrees that the failure to comply with the LWO, this certification, or the terms of the Contract as it applies to the LWO, shall constitute a default of the Contract, which shall be grounds for termination. City shall have the right to examine all books and records of the Contractor as they relate to compliance with the LWO.

Payroll records shall at a minimum include the full name of each employee performing labor or providing services under the contract, job classification, and rate of pay.

These statements are made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California.

Printed Name: Title:

Signature: Date:

Contractor: Bid Number (if applicable):

Service Description:

4.G.c
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Willdan - Living Wage (7885 : First Modification to Agreement with Wildan for Temporary Staffig Services) City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CALIFORNIA LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURE
The Levine Act prohibits City Officers from participating in any action related to a contract, license, permit, or entitlement if such Officer received campaign contributions totaling more than $500 within the previous twelve months, and for twelve months following the date of a final decision, from a party or participant to the proceeding, or their agent.

Section 84308(a)(4) of the Levine Act defines an "Officer" as follows: “Officer” means any elected or appointed officer of an agency, any alternate to an elected or appointed officer of an agency, and any candidate for elective office in an agency. The term “Officer” is further defined 2 Cal.

Code Regs. Section 18438.1, which states:

An officer of an agency includes only those persons who make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use their official position to influence a decision in the license, permit, or entitlement for use proceeding, or who exercise authority or budgetary control over the agency or officers who may do so, and:
(1) Serve in an elected position, including an official appointed to an elected position due to an interim vacancy or an election otherwise canceled because the official was the sole candidate for the position;
(2) Serve as a member of a board or commission;
(3) Serve as the chief executive of a state agency, or county, city or district of any kind; or (4) Have decision making authority with respect to the proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use and is also a candidate for elected office or has been a candidate for elective office in the 12 months prior to the proceeding.

A list of Santa Monica Elected Officials and members of boards and commissions can be found at the following links. The party making this certification is responsible for determining whether a recipient of a political contribution is a City Officer prior to completing this form. https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/
https://www.santamonica.gov/departments/rent-control
https://www.smgov.net/boards/
Have you, your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made any political contributions of more than $500 to any City Officer in the twelve months preceding the date of the submission of your application or proposal? ____YES ____ NO
Name of Councilmember or City Officer: _________________________________ Name of Contributor: _________________________________________________ Date(s) of Contribution(s): ____________________________________________ Amount(s) ________________________________________________________ Please specify below and/or add additional sheet(s) to identify additional Councilmembers or City Officers to whom you and/or your agents made campaign contributions.

4.G.d
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Willdan - Levine Act (7885 : First Modification to Agreement with Wildan for Temporary Staffig Services) City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form
Answering YES does not preclude the City of Santa Monica from awarding a contract, license, permit, or entitlement or taking any subsequent action related to the item. It does, however, preclude the identified City Officer from participating in any actions related to such item.

By signing below, you certify you also agree to disclose to the City any future contributions made to Councilmembers or other City Officers by you or your agent(s) after the date of signing this disclosure form, and within 12 months following the approval, renewal, or extension of the requested contract, license, permit, or entitlement.

I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIATHAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUEAND CORRECT.

Signed: ____________________________ Date: ____________________ Print Name: _________________________ Title: _____________________ Company: __________________________
Additional Disclosures:

Please note this form is a public record and subject to a California Public Records Act request.

4.G.d
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Willdan - Levine Act (7885 : First Modification to Agreement with Wildan for Temporary Staffig Services) SANTA MONICA CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
TO: Public
FROM: City Attorney’s Office
RE: Levine Act Disclosure Form
The Levine Act (Government Code 84308) is a California law aimed at preventing “pay to play” practices by prohibiting parties, participants, and their agents in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement from contributing more than $500 to an officer of the City during a 12-month period. The prohibition applies to any 12-month period while the proceeding is pending and for 12 months following the date a final decision is rendered in the proceeding.

State law requires a party to a proceeding to disclose any contributions exceeding an aggregate $500 that the party and their agents have made to an officer of the City within the preceding 12 months. The Disclosure Form is intended to assist City officials with recognizing when they have an obligation to disclose and recuse themselves, and to aid parties with their disclosure obligations.

1. To what sort of proceedings is the disclosure form applicable? The Levine Act applies to all discretionary entitlements and contracts, with the exception of labor contracts, personal employment contracts, and contracts that must be awarded to the lowest responsive/responsible bidder. It does not apply to ministerial approvals.

For instance, the Levine Act applies to the following:
• Building and development permits
• Conditional use permits
• Contracts generally (unless an exception applies):
o Real property contracts for purchase, sale, lease
o Contract amendments
o Settlement agreements
o Contracts for goods, services, professional services that are not awarded pursuant to a competitive process
• Public street abandonments
• Private development plans
• Professional license revocations
• Rezoning of specific real estate parcels
• Event permits
• Rulemaking procedures affecting a particular industry where only a small number of businesses are affected
• Special district formation proceedings involving the creation of a special use or benefit to the person in the district
• Tentative subdivision and parcel maps

4.G.d
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Willdan - Levine Act (7885 : First Modification to Agreement with Wildan for Temporary Staffig Services)

Page 2 ends

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

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

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

4.G.d
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Willdan - Levine Act (7885 : First Modification to Agreement with Wildan for Temporary Staffig Services)

Page 3 ends

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

4.G.d
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Willdan - Levine Act (7885 : First Modification to Agreement with Wildan for Temporary Staffig Services) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 22, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.H
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jing Yeo, Director, City Planning
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving Final Parcel Map No. 84874 for the Property Located at of 2134 Stewart Street to Create Four Residential Parcels
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Statutory Exemption (Approval of Final Subdivision Map) pursuant to Section 15268(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act; and

2. Adopt the attached resolution approving Final Parcel Map No. 84874 for the property located at 2134 Stewart Street to create four residential parcels.

Summary
This report transmits for City Council approval of a Final Parcel Map for the project located at 2134 Stewart Street. The Tentative Parcel Map was approved ministerially on October 16, 2025. A timely filing of the Final Map was made to the County or City prior to the Map’s expiration date. According to Section 66452.6(d) of the Subdivision Map Act, once a timely filing is made to the County or City, subsequent actions of the local agency, including, but not limited to, processing, approving, and recording of a map, may lawfully occur after the map’s expiration date.

PARCEL MAP ADDRESS SUBDIVIDER PARCELS
No. 84874 2134 Stewart Street Seth Hamilton 4
The following table provides a summary of the project:

Zoning District Low Density Residential (R2)
Original Parcel Area / Dimensions 5,855 SF / approximately 130’ x 45’

4.H
Packet Pg. 621
2 of 3
Resulting Parcel Area / Dimensions Parcel 1: 2,561.87 SF / 57’ x 45’ Parcel 2: 877.49 SF / 19.5’ x 45’
Parcel 3: 742.49 SF / 16.5’ x 45’
Parcel 4: 1,673.67 SF / 37’ x 45’
Existing On-Site Improvements (Year Built) 1,047 SF single-unit dwelling Rent Control Status Exempt
Historic Resources Inventory Status N/A
SMMC Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing
Production Program
N/A, single-unit dwelling on each resulting
parcel
SMMC Chapter 9.65, Childcare Linkage
Program
For residential projects that result in the
addition of a dwelling unit: $189.87 per
unit.

Approximate Fee: $569.61 (3 net units)
SMMC Chapter 9.66 Transportation Impact
Fee Program
For single-unit residential development
projects that result in the addition of a
dwelling unit: $11,080.80 per unit.

Approximate Fee: $33,242.40 (3 net units)
SMMC Chapter 9.67, Parks & Recreation
Development Impact Fee Program
For single-unit residential development
projects that result in the addition of a
dwelling unit: $10,413.01 per unit.

Approximate Fee: $31,239.03 (3 net units)
Discussion
California Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41 (Senate Bills 684 and 1123) require local agencies to ministerially approve subdivisions of existing parcels into up to ten parcels for parcels zoned for single or multi-unit residential if the proposed subdivision meets certain requirements such as location limitations, displacement protections, and parcel size parameters.

A Vesting Tentative Parcel Map application (25ENT-0169) was submitted to the City Planning Division on August 29, 2025, to create four residential parcels pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41 within the Multiple-Unit Residential (R2) zoning district. Pursuant to the Government Code, the Tentative Parcel Map was ministerially approved on October 16, 2025. The ministerial approval was based on compliance with all applicable standards and requirements of State and local laws and regulations. The Final Map conforms to the Tentative Map.

4.H
Packet Pg. 622
3 of 3
The Final Map has been approved by the Los Angeles Public Works Land Development Division and certified by the City Engineer for conformance with the Tentative Map and conditions thereon, the Subdivision Map Act, and local ordinances. The City Engineer’s approval indicates that there are no required off-site public improvements.

Environmental Review
The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Section 15268(b)(3), which exempts ministerial projects, including approval of final subdivision maps.

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action.

Prepared By: Jesse Brown, Associate Planner
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Attachment A: Resolution

4.H
Packet Pg. 623
1 City Council Meeting: September 22, 2026 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ACCEPTING AND APPROVING
FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 84874 TO SUBDIVIDE A
PROPERTY AT 2134 STEWART STREET
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2025, the tentative parcel map to create four residential parcels was ministerially approved for the parcel located at 2134 Stewart Street pursuant to Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41; and WHEREAS, a timely filing of a final parcel map was made to the County of Los Angeles prior to expiration of the vesting tentative parcel map; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66452.6(d) of the Government Code, if a timely filing of a final parcel map is made to the City or County, then the City may process, approve, and record a final parcel map after the expiration of the vesting tentative parcel map; and
WHEREAS, the final parcel map conforms to the vesting tentative parcel map; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans.

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

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution [Revision 4] (7887 : Adoption of a Resolution Approving Final Parcel Map for the Subdivision of 2134 2 SECTION 1. The Final Parcel Map No. 84874 located at 2134 Stewart Street in the City of Santa Monica is hereby accepted and approved.

SECTION 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to endorse upon the face of said Map this order authenticated by the Seal of the City of Santa Monica.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution [Revision 4] (7887 : Adoption of a Resolution Approving Final Parcel Map for the Subdivision of 2134 City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 22, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.I
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Darrick Jacob, Police Chief, Police Department
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing to Accept Grant from the Board of State and Community Corrections for the Proposition 64 Public Health and Safety Grant Program, Cohort 4
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the acceptance of a grant awarded in the amount of $4,500,000 from the Board of State and Community Corrections for the Proposition 64 Public Health & Safety Grant Program for use by the Police Department;

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

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

Summary
The Santa Monica Police Department (“SMPD”) has been awarded a $4,500,000 Proposition 64 Public Health and Safety grant from the Board of State and Community Corrections (“BSCC”). Funds must be used by the end of the grant period, or by December 31, 2031, and no local match is required. The grant aims to provide a data driven program to reduce illicit cannabis activity, combat retail theft, and protect public health in the City of Santa Monica. SMPD will use sworn personnel and the Santa Monica Analytical Real-Time Center (“SMART Center”) to conduct

4.I
Packet Pg. 626
2 of 3
targeted enforcement, including inspections, compliance checks, surveillance, controlled buys, and follow up investigations of unlicensed cannabis operators, storefronts, delivery services, and cultivation sites. This will improve SMPD’s ability to deter, detect, locate, and investigate organized retail thefts, illicit cannabis activity, and protect public health in the City.

Discussion
In November 2016, California voters approved Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (“AUMA”), which created the Proposition 64 Public Health and Safety Grant Program. Grant funding under the program is available to any California city or county government that either: 1) allows for the retail sale of cannabis in storefronts or 2) allows cannabis delivery that serves both medicinal and adult-use consumers.

On March 30, 2026, SMPD submitted a grant application to leverage funds for the SMART Center and sworn personnel to reduce illicit cannabis activity, disrupt retail theft, and protect public health. On June 26, 2026, SMPD was notified of its award in the amount of $4,500,000. SMPD will also deliver outreach and educational messaging to residents, visitors, and business owners to promote the identification of licensed cannabis retailers, improve understanding of regulatory requirements, and encourage the reporting of suspected illegal activity.

Environmental Review
The acceptance of the grant and use of grant funding is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The grant covered by the commonsense exemption which states that CEQA does not apply, “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The grant will support the Police Department operations and functions, providing funding for overtime costs, equipment, and training.

Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the proposed modification would not result in adverse physical impacts on the environment, and as such, is categorically exempt from CEQA.

4.I
Packet Pg. 627
3 of 3
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to accept a grant from the Board of State and Community Corrections, Cohort 4 Proposition 64 Public Health and Safety Grant Program.

Approval of the recommended action requires the following budget amendment:

FY 2026-27 Grant Budget Amendment
Establish Revenue Budget Appropriate Funds
Account Number Amount Account Number Amount
20180001.4XXXXX $4,500,000 20180001.5XXXXX $2,700,000
20180001.5XXXXX.XXXX $1,800,000
Total $4,500,000 Total $4,500,000
If renewals are awarded, budget adjustments will be included in subsequent year budgets, contingent on Council budget approval.

Prepared By: Kiajett Charles, Administrative Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Prop 64 Resolution

4.I
Packet Pg. 628
1 City Council Meeting: September 22, 2026 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,500,000 FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, PROPOSITION 64 PUBLIC

HEALTH AND SAFETY GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica (the “City) desires to participate in the Proposition 64 Public Health and Safety Grant Program, which is made available through the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuna Act and administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections (hereafter referred to as the BSCC) to support the reduction of retail thefts, illicit cannabis activity, and protect public health in the City, and WHEREAS, on March 30, 2026, the City submitted its proposal for the program, and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2026, the BSCC notified the City that it will be awarded $4,500,000 in grant funds for its participation in the program through December 31, 2031, and
WHEREAS, the BSCC requires a resolution from the governing body to authorize the City to enter into an agreement with the BSCC related to the Program and to designate an agent to execute the agreement and any amendments thereto, and

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

4.I.a
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Prop 64 Resolution (7888 : FY26 PROP 64 GRANT) 2 SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Monica authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and execute any agreements and amendments thereto with the State of California to accept a grant from the BSCC, in the amount of $4,500,000, to participate in the Proposition 64 Public Health and Safety Grant Program.

SECTION 2. The grant funds received hereunder shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by the City Council.

SECTION 3. The City of Santa Monica agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of the Grant Agreement as set forth by the BSCC.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Heidi von Tongeln, City Attorney

4.I.a
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Prop 64 Resolution (7888 : FY26 PROP 64 GRANT) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 22, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.J
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oscar Santiago, Director, Finance Department, Revenue Subject: Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS) with HdL Software, LLC for Business License Software for the Finance Department Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a third modification to agreement #9756 (CCS) in the amount of $83,500 with HdL Software, LLC (“HdL”) for business license software services for the Finance Department. This will result in a 15-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $552,572, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

Executive Summary
The City currently uses the HdL software system to administer the billing and collection of business license taxes as well as certain assessments, fees, and regulatory permits.

Staff seeks Council approval to extend the existing software contract to maintain uninterrupted operations of HdL Prime, the City’s system of record for business licensing, tax collection, compliance workflows, and reporting. Staff recommends executing a third modification to extend agreement #9756 for one year, with two sixmonth renewal options, and increase the contract amount by $83,500 for a new total amount not to exceed $552,572. The extension is needed to maintain service continuity, while the competitive solicitation via RFP #468 that is currently in evaluation is

4.J
Packet Pg. 631
2 of 4
completed. This extension is approved via ECB #507 by the Acting Procurement Manager.

Discussion
The Finance Department uses HdL software to administer approximately 24,000 business license accounts and collect $41 million annually in tax revenue, assessments, and fees. Extending the City’s contract with HdL is required to ensure uninterrupted service of the current system until the competitive process in progress is completed.

The evaluation committee is currently reviewing software proposals and conducting demonstrations to evaluate functionality, compliance features, system reliability, and integration capabilities. As part of this process, staff will also ensure the selected solution aligns with the City’s operational, technical, and financial requirements. Staff anticipates completing evaluations, negotiations, and recommended vendor award by November 2026. Following selection, staff will return to City Council for contract approval, immediately followed by system implementation.

Environmental Review
The proposed recommendation to modify the contract to HdL is exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (common sense exemption). The proposal is covered by the common sense exemption which states that CEQA does not apply, “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The contract would not result in any adverse physical environmental effects as it encompasses software services. The software services are administrative in nature and would not have a physical effect on the environment, so therefore, are exempt from CEQA. Therefore, the modification to the agreement is exempt from CEQA and no further environmental review under CEQA is required.

4.J
Packet Pg. 632
3 of 4
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
6/25/2013 (Weblink)
Authorize agreement with HdL for business license software maintenance and support services
10/23/2018 (Weblink)
Approval of First Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS) for Business License Software Maintenance and Support Services and Software Development Services
9/26/2023 (Weblink)
Approval of Second Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS) with HdL Software, LLC for business license software
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve available funding from the General Fund to increase the amount of agreement #9756 with HDL for Business License Software services.

Contract Modification Request
Agreement #
Current
Authorized
Amount
FY 2026-27
Modified Request
Amount
Future
Years
Amount
Dept/CIP Account
#
Total Revised
Contract
Amount
9756 $469,072 $41,500 $42,000 01300005.529230 $552,572
Future year funding is contingent on Council budget approval.

Prepared By: Haley Favre-Smith, Business and Revenue Operations Manager Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS

4.J
Packet Pg. 633
4 of 4
B. Attachment B - HdL Software, LLC - First Modification to Contract #9756 C. Attachment C - HdL Software, LLC - Second Modification to Contract #9756 D. Attachment D - HdL Software, LLC - FY 2026-27 OAKS Form E. Attachment E - HdL Software, LLC - 2026 Levine Act Form

4.J
Packet Pg. 634
\
Professional Services/Contract Coversheet
(11101
8•nl■ M■nll'■•
1) City Attorney t. Director/Division Manager
2) Contractor/Consultant • k Management (construction contracts) 3) City Manager Finance (If not approved by Council)

1.....c4lc_C:::i:.oLC=lec.,rk,_ ____ -"!"--"==--'PP. A,;is\aAt le the Cit Mana er Submit up to 3 originals: 1) contractor/consultant; 2) originating department; and 3) City Clerk (if authorized by Council,::;. � • i 1 , ·P Before delivery to the City Manager's Office, confirm that all of the copies are signed by the vendor and City Att<irne�Slgn-Hitr�', tabs are placed on City Manager signature lines, and the City Manager's name is spelled correctly. ';_ �- -;:',:;. �' Date: 10/09/2013 From:
--------
Haley Favre-Smith Dept: Finance Ext. . 0 � 49:Jf, _".}-3-� ff\ o ff' (Staff member to contact 1/ there are any questions) l" � ,<f --': � O Company Name: HdL Software LLC � -_.:-:; -:,:. u> O
Purpose of ..-\ � o>" ,,91!'
contract/scope
of services and
dollar amount:

If more space is
needed, attach
separate page.

Competitive
process
followed?
If more space is
needed.attach
separate page.

The Finance Department requires the use of spec1alIzed software to manage the City's 21,601 lrcensed busl�sse�d � �1i01f,_ons •
of approximately $27 million annually. The purpose of the agreements are for the purchase, conversron, instaBli� ;-;� maintenance of the new business license software product by HdL Software LLC, Hdl Prime. lmplementationj! H lme ':i,- provide the City with the functionality of the current system while providing a modernized platform that will ass�wlt e f"'\� ..:._
Implementation of an online business Ucense application and renewal system, streamline the business license ijiOC85i:ii_nd st . the collection of Parking Facilities Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax, User Utility Tax and miscellaneous assessments cdllltted I» _ p City. The attached agreements with HdL Software LLC are for a combined amount not to exceed $209,275. � c5 O"P' .. � • � , � t ...I c'-,
Ill Yes Explain the process used to select provider: D No This is a sole source. How is $s justified? On November 5, 2012, staff issued a Request for Proposals in compliance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.24, in search of a qualified vendor to provide business llcense software that would be used to support the administration, revenue collection, billing and payment processing requirements. The RFP was posted on the City's online bidding system for five weeks. A selection committee comprised of staff from the Business·and Revenue Operations Division and Information Systems evaluated.the proposalS-fo compllance with Section 2.24.072 of the SMMC. The selection committee recommended HdL Software LLC:as th�st bl_9�er based on HdL's ability to provide seamless integration with-existing systems, the company's technical expertise anq$bili1U9 meet' all of the requirements of the business license software RFP, and pricing. ,---'i O -; .. ,, ·,•: '/J Total professional services agreement (including
amendments) over $70,000 or total contractual
services (including amendments) over $100,000?
y- <' -:=_3.:: fi\ - � D --'0 No Ill Yes If yes, date authorized by Council:Jl61�01':i; ,, f'1 Amount authorized by Council: �209,315,00 ;,: :-r:. :.::_ Attach Staff Report or provide
,
Council /iilg. date. ccf.;;..<tri amount cannot exceed authonzation. � -o '':'; � Account number: Are insurance requirements met? "' •• C018016.589000 and 01224.533580 If no, an email from Risk Management approving variance or wa�s f� --c1t·c_o_n-t'"ra-ct'"o-,-st,
7 c_o_n_s_u"lt'"a-n--,
ts-a-re-d'o""'in-g'b'u-s·in-es_s_w·iccthc-cth'e--1 standard requirements must be attached to this checklist and refl�ed in the contract. ..-.

City, a business license is required. Did you attach all completed certificates of insurance Business License Number: per attachment C7 129276 lease attach certificates.

If services are $54,200 or more, has service Ill Yes 'd you attach the Waiver of Subrogation for Workers provider completed Living Wage Certification D No Com ensation? Form?· Did you attach the Additional Insured Endorsement? IZ]Yes
✓ Yes
✓ Yes
Please attach signed form. -=--�--�=�=----,c----�--�=�....., Reminder: Departments need to insure that the insurance policies referen_ced are in If services are $25,000 or more, has service Yes force for the period reflected by the payment if the contrattwillN:>veca::period of provider completed Oaks Initiative Disclosure D No time. Departments are responsible for getting updated insinanc&tificates if policies Form? expire while work is being done. ;� � , _, _ Please attach si ned form. a � ; .. ;t,J Is contractor's W9 form on file? ll] Yes FINANCE WILL NOT PAY CON�AC'RDR ��M Finance will not pay contract without W9 Form. O No WITHOUT CERTIFICA T� :n Jc• ,S::

C O ,.,
Is the vendor based in Arizona? D Yes Is the term 5 years or less? > Yes Please attach signed form. No o � ':-;t.rn.
• �ember to contact once agreement is signed: Haley Favre-Smilh Ext: 4931 Please attach to all contracts October 201 1
Attachment A

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Attachment A - HdL Software, LLC - Agreement #9756 CCS (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS) Attachment B

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Attachment B - HdL Software, LLC - First Modification to Contract #9756 (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No.

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Attachment B - HdL Software, LLC - First Modification to Contract #9756 (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No.

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Attachment B - HdL Software, LLC - First Modification to Contract #9756 (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No.

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Attachment B - HdL Software, LLC - First Modification to Contract #9756 (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No.

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Attachment B - HdL Software, LLC - First Modification to Contract #9756 (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No.

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Attachment B - HdL Software, LLC - First Modification to Contract #9756 (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No.

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Attachment B - HdL Software, LLC - First Modification to Contract #9756 (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No.

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Attachment B - HdL Software, LLC - First Modification to Contract #9756 (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No.

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Attachment B - HdL Software, LLC - First Modification to Contract #9756 (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 1 SECOND MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT NO. 9756 (CCS)
This Second Modification of Agreement Number 9756 (CCS) ( Second Modification ), entered into as of _________________ ( Modification Execution Date ), by and between the City of Santa Monica, a municipal corporation ( City ), and HdL Software, LLC ( HdL ) is made with reference to the following:

RECITALS
A. On or about^^November 13, 2013, the City and HDL entered into Agreement Number 9756 CCS) for software maintenance and support services ( Original Agreement ).

B. On or about^^November 12, 2018, the City and HdL entered into a First Modification of Agreement Number 9756 to extend the term and increase the agreement amount to pay for additional services. The Original C. The City and HdL desire to modify the Agreement to extend the agreement term and to increase the agreement amount to cover the annual use fees and any additional services necessary to maintain the existing system.

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

1. Section 1 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following paragraph:

Term. This Agreement begins on the Execution Date and terminates on November 12, 2026, unless terminated earlier as set forth in the Original Agreement or extended by the parties in writing.

2. Section 5 of the Agreement Fees and Charges shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following paragraph:

Fees and Charges. The maintenance fees shall be as follows: the maintenance fee from the Modification Execution Date through June 30, 2024 shall be prorated at $16,689; the maintenance fee for fiscal year two and three will have a base fee of $28,609 per year with the fee adjusted annually per CPI and will not be less than 2% and no more than 4%. For the period from July 1, 2026 through November 12, 2026, the maintenance fee will be prorated and shall not exceed $13,409.

As outlined in Exhibit B-2 Revised Budget, the maximum fees for each year and the total compensation paid for all Services pursuant to the Agreement and this Second Modification shall not exceed $469,072.

Attachment C

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Attachment C - HdL Software, LLC - Second Modification to Contract #9756 (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement 2 3. Exhibit B-2 Revised Budget is attached hereto incorporated herein by this reference.

4. Execution in Counterparts. This Second 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 Second 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).

5. Except as expressly modified by this Second Modification, all other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall be and remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Second 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
HDL Corporation
#VENDOR
By: _______________________________

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Attachment C - HdL Software, LLC - Second Modification to Contract #9756 (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement 3 EXHIBIT B-2 Revised Budget
The annual maintenance fee from the Modification Execution Date through June 30, 2024 shall be prorated as set forth below. The maintenance fees for the contract years shall not exceed $90,797. Below is the maximum maintenance fee for each fiscal year and shall not exceed the amount listed below:

Fiscal Year Maximum Maintenance Fee
2023/24* $16,689
2024/25 $29,754
2025/26 $30,945
2026/27* $13,409
TOTAL $90,797
*Fiscal years 2023/24 and 2026/27 are prorated based on the contract start date and end date.

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Attachment C - HdL Software, LLC - Second Modification to Contract #9756 (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

OAKS INITIATIVE NOTICE

NOTICE TO APPLICANTS, BIDDERS, PROPOSERS

AND OTHERS SEEKING DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, CONTRACTS,

This information is required by City Charter Article XXII—Taxpayer Protection.

Examples of a “public benefit” include public contracts to provide goods or services worth more than $25,000 or a land use approval worth more than $25,000 over a 12- month period.

Docusign Envelope ID: 1F952741-893F-8A01-802B-14B7A86B1108

4.J.d
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Attachment D - HdL Software, LLC - FY 2026-27 OAKS Form (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Public benefits include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prepared by: Title:

Signature: Date:

Email: Phone:

Permit #
FOR CITY USE ONLY:

Bid/PO/Contract #
R. Andrew Nickerson President/CEO [email protected] 714-879-5000 Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates N/A 100% ESOP owned company, with shares owned by an ESOP trust. Andrew Nickerson, President/CEO; Gary Lott, COO; Robert Gray, CIO; Richard Park, CFO.

Docusign Envelope ID: 1F952741-893F-8A01-802B-14B7A86B1108 7/7/2026 | 2:11:36 PM PDT

4.J.d
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Attachment D - HdL Software, LLC - FY 2026-27 OAKS Form (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS) City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Code Regs. Section 18438.1, which states:

A list of Santa Monica Elected Officials and members of boards and commissions can be found at the following links. The party making this certification is responsible for determining whether a recipient of a political contribution is a City Officer prior to completing this form. https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/ https://www.santamonica.gov/departments/rent-control https://www.smgov.net/boards/ Have you, your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made any political contributions of more than $500 to any City Officer in the twelve months preceding the date of the submission of your application or proposal? ____YES ____ NO
Name of Councilmember or City Officer: _________________________________ Name of Contributor: _________________________________________________ Date(s) of Contribution(s): ____________________________________________ Amount(s) ________________________________________________________ Please specify below and/or add additional sheet(s) to identify additional Councilmembers or City Officers to whom you and/or your agents made campaign contributions.

Attachment E

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Attachment E - HdL Software, LLC - 2026 Levine Act Form (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS) City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form
Answering YES does not preclude the City of Santa Monica from awarding a contract, license, permit, or entitlement or taking any subsequent action related to the item. It does, however, preclude the identified City Officer from participating in any actions related to such item.

I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

Signed: ____________________________ Date: ____________________ Print Name: _________________________ Title: _____________________ Company: __________________________
Additional Disclosures:

Please note this form is a public record and subject to a California Public Records Act request.

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Attachment E - HdL Software, LLC - 2026 Levine Act Form (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS) SANTA MONICA CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
TO: Public
FROM: City Attorney’s Office
RE: Levine Act Disclosure Form
The Levine Act (Government Code 84308) is a California law aimed at preventing “pay to play” practices by prohibiting parties, participants, and their agents in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement from contributing more than $500 to an officer of the City during a 12-month period. The prohibition applies to any 12-month period while the proceeding is pending and for 12 months following the date a final decision is rendered in the proceeding.

For instance, the Levine Act applies to the following:

Building and development permits
Conditional use permits
Contracts generally (unless an exception applies):
o Real property contracts for purchase, sale, lease
o Contract amendments
o Settlement agreements
o Contracts for goods, services, professional services that are not awarded pursuant to a competitive process
Public street abandonments
Private development plans
Professional license revocations
Rezoning of specific real estate parcels
Event permits
Rulemaking procedures affecting a particular industry where only a small number of businesses are affected
Special district formation proceedings involving the creation of a special use or benefit to the person in the district
Tentative subdivision and parcel maps

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Attachment E - HdL Software, LLC - 2026 Levine Act Form (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

Page 2 ends

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

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

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Attachment E - HdL Software, LLC - 2026 Levine Act Form (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS)

Page 3 ends

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

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Attachment E - HdL Software, LLC - 2026 Levine Act Form (7897 : Approval of Third Modification to Agreement No. 9756 (CCS) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 22, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.K
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Monica adding Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.540 to Establish an Automated Traffic Enforcement System Program to Detect a Violation of a Traffic Control Signal
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Executive Summary
At its meeting on September 8, 2026, the City Council introduced for first reading an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Monica adding Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.540 to establish an Automated Traffic Enforcement System Program to detect a violation of a traffic control signal. The ordinance is now presented to the City Council for adoption.

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

4.K
Packet Pg. 737
2 of 2
Attachments:

A. ORD-Traffic Enforcement System 2d
B. Written Comments

4.K
Packet Pg. 738
1 City Council Meeting: September 22, 2026 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER_______ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.12.540 TO ESTABLISH AN

AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM PROGRAM TO DETECT A

VIOLATION OF A TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL
WHEREAS, in February 2026, the City Council directed City staff to further the City’s Vision Zero efforts and prioritize human life over vehicle throughput in design and engineering decisions regarding the city right-of-way and City staff subsequently studied a variety of Vision Zero initiatives including the use of an automated traffic enforcement system (“ATES”) at two intersections; and
WHEREAS, City staff’s research determined that violating traffic control signals is a significant contributing factor in severe right-angle and turning collisions at signalized intersections, and the State of California specifically recognizes that ‘red light running enforcement’ is critical to efforts in California to reduce factors that contribute to traffic collisions that result in fatalities or injuries; and
WHEREAS, the State of California also recognizes that traditional enforcement methods have had a well-documented disparate impact on communities of color, and implicit or explicit racial bias in police traffic stops puts drivers of color at risk; and WHEREAS, in 2025, to provide cities and counties with additional tools to combat red light running and related crashes, the State of California chaptered Senate Bill 720 (SB 720); and
WHEREAS, SB 720 allows cities and counties to implement ATES, a modernized, civil automated red-light camera program where, unlike traditional criminal red-light

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: ORD-Traffic Enforcement System 2d (7925 : Red Light Camera Ordinance-Second Reading) 2 enforcement, civil citations are issued to the vehicle’s registered owner rather than the driver; and
WHEREAS, under SB 720, civil penalties are limited by state law, additional administrative fees are restricted, and jurisdictions must comply with requirements related to public notice, impact reporting, privacy protection, site selection, and ongoing program evaluation; and
WHEREAS, in adopting SB 720, the Legislature found that the use of ATES through SB 720 can advance equity by improving reliability and fairness in traffic enforcement while making enforcement of violations of traffic control signals more predictable, effective, and broadly implemented, all of which help change driver behavior; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance authorizes the use of ATES and enables City staff to develop a SB 720-compliant ATES program utilizing fixed cameras to capture images and video of vehicles for the purpose of enforcing red-light violations at signalized intersections.

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

SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.540 is hereby added as follows:

3.12.540 Automated Traffic Enforcement System.
(a) Pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 21455.9, the City may operate an automated traffic enforcement system to detect a violation of a traffic control signal.

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: ORD-Traffic Enforcement System 2d (7925 : Red Light Camera Ordinance-Second Reading) 3 (b) Subject to all requirements set forth in California Vehicle Code section 21455.9, the City Manager, or designee, is authorized to create, operate, and enforce an automated traffic enforcement system program to detect a violation of a traffic control signal.
(c) A violation of a traffic control signal that is recorded by the automated traffic enforcement system operated pursuant to this Section shall be subject only to the civil penalties and enforcement procedures specified in Vehicle Code section 21455.9.

SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: ORD-Traffic Enforcement System 2d (7925 : Red Light Camera Ordinance-Second Reading) 4 SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty days after adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: ORD-Traffic Enforcement System 2d (7925 : Red Light Camera Ordinance-Second Reading) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2026 9:09 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: In Support : Item 4.K

EXTERNAL
Writing for myself, as a driver and pedestrian in Santa Monica, I support red-light cameras because they save lives. They enforce the law fairly and without human bias.

Jacob Wasserman
90403
Item 4-K
September 22, 2026
Item 4-K
September 22, 2026

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7925 : Red Light Camera Ordinance-Second Reading) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 12:02 PM
To: [email protected]; Dan Hall; [email protected]; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems
Subject: oppose Agenda Item 4.K. Automated Traffic Enforcement System

EXTERNAL
I oppose Agenda Item 4.K. Automated Traffic Enforcement System because there is a safer and less expensive alternative. The city should pay citizens for uploading dash cam videos of city employees and others violating traffic control signal laws. That would prevent the expense of buying automated traffic enforcement systems. It would also provide government transparency and accountability if the results of uploading dash cam videos were published so that citizens knew whether the violation were processed the same when a city employee violates the law.
"We found no evidence that red light cameras improve public safety. They don’t reduce the total number of vehicle accidents, the total number of individuals injured in accidents or the total number of incapacitating injuries that involve ambulance transport to a hospital."
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras-may-not-makestreetssafer__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!qAvE8ipMZTwlcxGDupqoGMIVKchyF5yXHva2Mk0Imk7EfE3dnvQTBpQNJGvv3uyZqZlS7aQoQ5JZP8bqbPfPtoiaVt7TPBy0OQ$ California Vehicle Code 21400(a)(1) requires that the decision to install traffic control should be based on an engineering study. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Section 2B.07.03. An engineering study shall be documented. MUTCD Section A1.13. The City of Santa Monica has several traffic control devices for which "There is no traffic study on file at this time." Therefore, City has had ample time to perform a study but has failed or refused to do so. Therefore, those traffic control devices are not "justified by an engineering study." The city knows that installing those traffic control devices where they were "not justified," where there wasn't even any "traffic study" or "engineering study" to determine justification, would result in "drivers largely" ignoring the signs. Therefore, City installed "unjustified" signs so that "drivers" would "largely" ignore them.

The city should not use Automated Traffic Enforcement because it will result in needless predatory revenue generating behavior.

Judge Revel allowed Officer Ramos to ambush the court and ruled that the letter of the law defeats the purpose of the law and thereby coerced me to focus on obeying the letter of the law despite its purpose in preventing collisions, which resulted in a collision that I otherwise would have prevented. Ex-city employee, Angela Jiminez Deterville, crashed into me and totaled my car within a few blocks of her apartment on Hill Street while she was violating a law that is never enforced (bus lane hours) and a city employee, Stuart Jose, was following us but refused to provide a witness statement. Then, SMPD Officers Carlton Palmer #3623, John Brooks #4083, and Lantz Lewis #4005 made twenty-nine errors on their four-page collision Report 2025-064908 to make it look like my fault, increase my car insurance rate by approximately $230/mo., hinder my appellate court proceedings, deteriorate my health, maximize the need for litigation, and force upon me unpaid work and extreme emotional distress. Then, Sgt. Austin Brown, Lt. Lowell Watson, and Chief Jacob refused to enter those corrections into the record.

The city should enact my alternative instead.

Elisabeth Green
1223 Wilshire Blvd #1656
Santa Monica CA 99403
Item 4-K
September 22, 2026
Item 4-K
September 22, 2026

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7925 : Red Light Camera Ordinance-Second Reading) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 22, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.L
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jenny Rogers, Recreation and Arts Director, Recreation and Arts Department Subject: Authorization to Accept a $50,000 Grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund for the Bay Street Beach Historical District Signage Project
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Authorize the City Manager to accept a grant awarded in the amount of $50,000 from the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund for the Bay Street Beach Historical District Signage Project in the Recreation and Arts Department, and to accept all grant renewals;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute all necessary documents required to implement the grant, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney; and

3. Authorize the budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts and Budget Actions section of this report. (Requires five affirmative votes.) Summary
The National Trust for Historic Preservation has awarded the City of Santa Monica a $50,000 African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund National Grant to support the Bay Street Beach Historical District Signage Project. The grant will fund the design, fabrication, and installation of four permanent interpretive signs commemorating the nationally significant history of Bay Street Beach Historic District, one of the few places in the United States recognized for its association with African American coastal history.

The project will expand public understanding of Santa Monica’s African American heritage by providing permanent, publicly accessible interpretation at the historic site while preserving and sharing stories that have historically been underrepresented. The City was selected through a highly competitive national grant program recognizing

4.L
Packet Pg. 745
2 of 4
exemplary projects that preserve and interpret African American historic places across the United States. Staff recommends that Council authorize acceptance of the grant and execution of all necessary grant documents.

Discussion
The Bay Street Beach Historic District, also known historically as “The Inkwell,” was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2019 for its significance in African American history, recreation, and civil rights. From approximately 1908 through 1965, Bay Street Beach served as one of the few coastal destinations where African Americans could gather for recreation and community during an era of segregation and widespread exclusion from many Southern California beaches. The district represents an important chapter in Santa Monica’s history and the broader story of equitable access to California’s coastline.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund is the nation’s largest resource dedicated to preserving African American historic places. Through a competitive national grant process, the City of Santa Monica was awarded $50,000 under the Programming and Interpretation category to implement permanent interpretation at Bay Street Beach.

Grant funds will support:
• Historical research and content development;
• Graphic design of four interpretive signs;
• Historical review to ensure cultural and historical accuracy; • Fabrication of durable outdoor interpretive signage;
• Installation of four signs throughout the Bay Street Beach Historic District; and • Public outreach and unveiling of the completed project.

The project addresses a longstanding need identified through years of community engagement, educational programming, and historic preservation efforts. While guided tours, public events, and educational programming have increased awareness of the site, there is currently no permanent on-site interpretation available to the thousands of

4.L
Packet Pg. 746
3 of 4
residents and visitors who use the beach each year. The installation of permanent interpretive signage will ensure that Bay Street Beach’s history remains visible and accessible for future generations while supporting educational opportunities leading into the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Project implementation is anticipated over a twelve-month period following execution of the grant agreement. Activities include consultant procurement, historical research, content development, design, fabrication, installation, public unveiling, and project evaluation.

Acceptance of this grant advances the City’s ongoing efforts to preserve Santa Monica’s cultural heritage, expand access to historically significant stories, and strengthen educational opportunities for residents and visitors alike. The project furthers the City’s Realignment Plan and Council priorities by investing in equitable access to cultural and historic resources, recognizing and elevating historically underrepresented communities, and strengthening opportunities for residents and visitors to engage with Santa Monica’s diverse cultural heritage.

Environmental Review
The proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (Common Sense Exemption), as it can be seen with certainty that acceptance of grant funding and execution of grant documents will not have a significant effect on the environment. Any future physical improvements associated with the project will undergo any required environmental review prior to implementation.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to accept a grant and all grant renewals from National Trust for Historic Preservation.

FY 2026-27 Grant Budget Changes
Establish Revenue Budget Appropriate Funds
Account Number(s) Amount Account Number(s) Amount

4.L
Packet Pg. 747
4 of 4
20430002.406360 $50,000 20430002.556890 $50,000
Total $50,000 Total $50,000
If renewals are awarded, budget changes will be included in subsequent year budgets, contingent on Council budget approval.

Prepared By: Sofia Klatzker, Cultural Affairs Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. African American Cultural Heritage Grant Award

4.L
Packet Pg. 748
From: National Trust Grants Office <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 4:12 PM
To: Sofia Klatzker <[email protected]>
Subject: Your 2026 National Grant Program Grant

EXTERNAL
Dear Ms Sofia Klatzker:

Congratulations! After careful review, the National Trust for Historic Preservation is pleased to award Santa Monica Cultural Affairs Division a 2026 National Grant Program grant from the African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund for $50,000.00 to implement the Bay Street Beach Historical District Signage project. We are deeply grateful for the opportunity to support your critically important work through the generosity of The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, The J. Paul Getty Trust, The Gardiner Foundation and others.

We plan to publicly announce all of this year’s grants at one time, so please keep the news of your award confidential until after the National Trust makes a public announcement on July 21 at 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time. We are working with specific national press outlets on exclusive arrangements for the release of all 2026 grantees, so it is very important that this information is not released to the public prior to the official public announcement. Attached is a promotional toolkit to be used on or after Tuesday, July 21st. This toolkit will include hashtags, handles and language for acknowledging the Action Fund in your promotion and celebration of this grant.

We will contact you with next steps by the end of this month. We look forward to continuing to provide technical assistance to your organization as your project moves forward. Should you have any questions, you can reach out to us at [email protected].

Again, we are delighted to congratulate your organization, and we thank you for your efforts to preserve African American history and culture. The work your organization is doing to tell the full American story is energizing and inspiring. We look forward to our partnership and working with you to advance your organizational goals.

Sincerely,
Erica Smith-Goetz
Co-Director, African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund Vice President, National Trust for Historic Preservation Tiffany Tolbert
Co-Director, African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund Vice President, National Trust for Historic Preservation

NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
600 14th Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005
www.savingplaces.org

African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund:
www.savingplaces.org/african-american-cultural-heritage

4.L.a
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: African American Cultural Heritage Grant Award (7850 : African American Cultural Heritage Action Grant) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 22, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.M
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Award Professional Services Agreement with Raftelis for Organizational Performance and Operational Assessment Services
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Raftelis for organizational performance and operational assessment services for the City Manager’s Office. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to the City’s Procurement Policy pursuant to Section 2.24.250 (b) and is for a total amount not to exceed $326,600 with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

4.M
Packet Pg. 750
2 of 6
Summary
Staff recommends entering into an agreement with Raftelis to support the City’s ongoing organizational improvement efforts. The proposed work includes development of a citywide performance measurement framework and operational assessments of Building and Safety, Code Enforcement, and Residential Habitability. The performance measurement work would help establish a consistent approach for how departments develop, maintain, and report performance measures. It would also support continued development of the Santa Monica Scorecard and, if needed, additional technical support for the ongoing build out of the City’s internal and public-facing performance dashboards.

The operational assessments would examine staffing, workload, organizational structure, business processes, service levels, technology, and coordination within the three areas. The work would result in recommendations to improve operations and inform future decisions about staffing, resources, processes, and service delivery.

Raftelis has previously worked with the City on the Organizational Workplans, Citywide Equity Plan, executive team retreats, and other organizational initiatives. Staff recommends continuing with Raftelis because the proposed work builds directly on the knowledge of City operations developed through those engagements.

Discussion
The City has been working to strengthen how it sets organizational priorities, measures progress, and evaluates City services. The proposed agreement would continue that work in two areas: citywide performance measurement and focused operational assessments.

Performance Measurement and Reporting
The City currently uses the Santa Monica Scorecard to report progress on key performance measures and projects. As the Scorecard has evolved, staff identified the need for a more consistent citywide approach to performance measurement so departments are working from a common methodology and reporting information that is useful for both management and public accountability.

4.M
Packet Pg. 751
3 of 6
Raftelis would begin by reviewing existing departmental measures, data collection practices, and projects currently included in the Scorecard. The firm would then work with departments to refine existing measures and develop new measures where needed. A citywide workshop with department leadership would provide training on performance measurement and serve as a working session for departments to define their measures.

The work would also establish standards and processes for maintaining the program after the initial engagement is complete. This includes training City staff and developing an approach for periodically reviewing measures as services, priorities, and available data change.

The agreement includes optional assistance with the City’s performance dashboard technology program. If used, Raftelis would help organize data sources, transition existing Scorecard measures, develop internal and public-facing dashboards, establish quality control procedures, and train staff responsible for maintaining the dashboards.

The proposed work is intended to reduce manual data handling where possible and make ongoing reporting easier to maintain.

Operational Assessments
Raftelis would also conduct operational assessments of Building and Safety, Code Enforcement, and Residential Habitability. While the functions differ, each assessment would look at how current staffing, workload, processes, technology, and service expectations affect the City’s ability to deliver services.

For Building and Safety, the work would include plan check and inspection functions and review staffing, workload, time standards, service delivery, contracting opportunities for peak workloads, and implementation of the City’s permitting system.

For Code Enforcement, Raftelis would evaluate workload and staff capacity, current service levels, organizational structure, processes, and use of technology. The assessment would identify opportunities to improve operations and better align available resources with service expectations.

4.M
Packet Pg. 752
4 of 6
The Habitability assessment would examine the program across the departments involved in delivering habitability services. Raftelis would document the current process, identify the staff resources involved, evaluate coordination between departments, and recommend changes to clarify responsibilities and reduce unnecessary or duplicative work.

The assessments would include interviews with staff and stakeholders, review of operational and workload data, benchmarking against peer cities, and review of applicable practices in other agencies. Raftelis would use that work to develop recommendations and an implementation plan for the City.

Staff recommends executing a contract with Raftelis for organizational performance and operational assessment services. This contract would enable the City Manager’s Office to continue to implement a multi-phase organizational effort focused on strengthening accountability, improving service delivery, and advancing performance-based management.

Vendor/Consultant Selection
Exception to Competitive Bidding
Staff recommends Raftelis to provide organizational performance and operational assessment services as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to the City’s Procurement Policy. Raftelis has worked with the City on several organizational initiatives, including the Organizational Workplans, Citywide Equity Plan, and executive team retreats. Through these engagements, the firm has developed familiarity with the City’s organizational structure, priorities, operations, and interdepartmental processes. The work proposed under this agreement was not included in Raftelis’ previous engagements. Rather, the need for the performance measurement work and operational assessments was identified as the City’s broader organizational improvement work progressed. Staff recommends an exception to the competitive process because changing consultants at this stage would require another firm to recreate much of the organizational context already developed through Raftelis’ work with the City. This would require additional discovery and staff interviews before substantive work could begin, resulting in additional cost, staff time, and delay.

Continuing with Raftelis allows the City to move directly into the proposed work and maintains continuity with the organizational work already completed. l. Other: Reasoning can include: Standardization; Temporary Procurement to allow for competitive solicitation process; Project completion shortfall of no more than 15% of overall project. The exception for standardization is limited to purchases that are

4.M
Packet Pg. 753
5 of 6
necessary to: (a) maintain compatibility with existing assets; (b) avoid loss or impairment of existing warranty or vendor support; or (c) avoid duplicate licensing or implementation costs.

Environmental Review
This agreement modification is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The agreement is covered by the common sense exemption which states that CEQA does not apply, “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The agreement modification will provide for organizational performance and operational assessment services that would not have a physical effect on the environment, and as such, is exempt from CEQA.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve available funding from the General Fund to award an agreement with Raftelis for organizational performance and operational assessment services.

Agreement Request
FY 2026-27
Request Amount Department Account # Total Contract Amount $326,600 01200009.552010 $326,600
Total $326,600
Future year funding is contingent on Council budget approval.

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

4.M
Packet Pg. 754
6 of 6
Attachments:

A. Levine Act Disclosure Form 2025_3-27-25
B. OAKS INITIATIVE FORM (2)
C. PowerPoint Presentation

4.M
Packet Pg. 755
City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Code Regs. Section 18438.1, which states:

4.M.a
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form 2025_3-27-25 (7938 : Raftelis Agreement) City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form
Answering YES does not preclude the City of Santa Monica from awarding a contract, license, permit, or entitlement or taking any subsequent action related to the item. It does, however, preclude the identified City Officer from participating in any actions related to such item.

I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIATHAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUEAND CORRECT.

Signed: ____________________________ Date: ____________________ Print Name: _________________________ Title: _____________________ Company: __________________________
Additional Disclosures:

Please note this form is a public record and subject to a California Public Records Act request.

4.M.a
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form 2025_3-27-25 (7938 : Raftelis Agreement) SANTA MONICA CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
TO: Public
FROM: City Attorney’s Office
RE: Levine Act Disclosure Form
The Levine Act (Government Code 84308) is a California law aimed at preventing “pay to play” practices by prohibiting parties, participants, and their agents in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement from contributing more than $500 to an officer of the City during a 12-month period. The prohibition applies to any 12-month period while the proceeding is pending and for 12 months following the date a final decision is rendered in the proceeding.

4.M.a
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form 2025_3-27-25 (7938 : Raftelis Agreement)

Page 2 ends

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

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

4.M.a
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form 2025_3-27-25 (7938 : Raftelis Agreement)

Page 3 ends

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

4.M.a
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form 2025_3-27-25 (7938 : Raftelis Agreement)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

OAKS INITIATIVE NOTICE

NOTICE TO APPLICANTS, BIDDERS, PROPOSERS

AND OTHERS SEEKING DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, CONTRACTS,

This information is required by City Charter Article XXII—Taxpayer Protection.

Examples of a “public benefit” include public contracts to provide goods or services worth more than $25,000 or a land use approval worth more than $25,000 over a 12- month period.

4.M.b
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: OAKS INITIATIVE FORM (2) (7938 : Raftelis Agreement)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Public benefits include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prepared by: Title:

Signature: Date:

Email: Phone:

Permit #
FOR CITY USE ONLY:

Bid/PO/Contract #

4.M.b
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: OAKS INITIATIVE FORM (2) (7938 : Raftelis Agreement)

FROM DATA TO DECISIONS

ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE

AND OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT

SERVICES
Santa Monica City Council
September 22, 2026
Item 4-M
September 22, 2026
Item 4-M
September 22, 2026

4.M.c
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7938 : Raftelis Agreement)

STARTING POINT
The City is not short on information
Across City operations, teams track services,
projects, demand, and results at significant scale.

A lot is being counted.

The next step is to make
the information work
together.

Item 4-M
September 22, 2026
Item 4-M
September 22, 2026

4.M.c
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7938 : Raftelis Agreement)

PURPOSE OF THE WORK
A common operating framework
DATA
• Measures
• Projects
• Service demand
• Workload

FRAMEWORK
• Shared definitions
• Clear ownership
• Meaningful targets
• Regular review

DECISIONS
• Priorities
• Efficiencies
• Resource allocation
• Operations
The framework creates a repeatable way to understand performance and act on the information.

Item 4-M
September 22, 2026
Item 4-M
September 22, 2026

4.M.c
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7938 : Raftelis Agreement)

CITYWIDE APPROACH
Raftelis will build the framework with departments
Each department keeps measures tied to its unique services while using a shared structure for review and accountability.
01 INVENTORY Document current measures, projects, definitions, and data sources 02 DEFINE Identify outcomes and measures that show service quality and results 03 STANDARDIZE Set ownership, targets, update schedules, and quality controls 04 USE Build management routines that inform operating and budget decisions Item 4-M
September 22, 2026
Item 4-M
September 22, 2026

4.M.c
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7938 : Raftelis Agreement) The proposal moves from evidence to implementation
Each assessment track follows a consistent approach before recommendations are finalized. 01 LISTEN
• 60 hours of City
interviews
• 8 hours of
stakeholder
interviews
• Building & Safety
and Code
Enforcement staff
survey
02 ANALYZE
• Workload and staff
capacity
• 5-7 peer cities
• Technology and process
review
• Current-state habitability
map
03 VALIDATE
• Initial issues meetings
• Preliminary
recommendations
presentation
• City review and
follow-up research
04 IMPLEMENT
• Draft and final report
• Implementation Action
Plan
• Optional process
mapping and
implementation
workshops
The result is a practical implementation plan that turns recommendations into assigned work with clear priorities and timelines.

Item 4-M
September 22, 2026
Item 4-M
September 22, 2026

4.M.c
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7938 : Raftelis Agreement) THE

OPERATIONAL

ASSESSMENT

IN PRACTICE

BUILDING & SAFETY
Plan check, inspections, workload, service standards, and technology

CODE ENFORCEMENT
Case volume, staffing capacity, service levels, processes, and supervision

RESIDENTIAL HABITABILITY
Cross-department roles, complaint-to-closure workflow,
resources, and resident experience

ANALYZE IMPROVE MEASURE TRACK
Item 4-M
September 22, 2026
Item 4-M
September 22, 2026

4.M.c
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7938 : Raftelis Agreement)

DELIVERABLES
The City receives tools to carry the work forward
The engagement delivers both a citywide performance system and an implementation-ready operational plan.

CITYWIDE PERFORMANCE
Performance framework
Shared definitions, ownership, targets, update
schedules, and review routines
Management and public dashboards
Information for operating decisions, Council
oversight, and public transparency
Department implementation support
Measure refinement and expanded dashboard
support as the framework is put into use

OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENTS
Validated findings
Initial issues meetings for each assessment track
and a preliminary recommendations presentation
Final assessment report
Data-based recommendations for Building &
Safety, Code Enforcement, and Habitability
Implementation Action Plan
Priorities, accountable staff, resources, tasks, and
timelines for implementation
Item 4-M
September 22, 2026
Item 4-M
September 22, 2026

4.M.c
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7938 : Raftelis Agreement)

TRANSPARENCY
One framework.

One team, one focus, ONE SaMo
• Review performance • Identify operational gaps • Inform resource decisions • Track implementation • Measure performance • Follow major projects • View progress • Create transparency

CITY MANAGEMENT, COUNCIL, AND THE COMMUNITY
Item 4-M
September 22, 2026
Item 4-M
September 22, 2026

4.M.c
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7938 : Raftelis Agreement) Staff
Recommendation

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

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement
with Raftelis for organizational performance and
operational assessment services for the City
Manager’s Office. This recommended award is made
as an exception to the competitive bidding process
pursuant to the City’s Procurement Policy pursuant to
Section 2.24.250 (b) and is for a total amount not to
exceed $326,600 with future year funding contingent
on Council budget approval.

Item 4-M
September 22, 2026
Item 4-M
September 22, 2026

4.M.c
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7938 : Raftelis Agreement) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 22, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.N
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend the Text of the Zoning Ordinance 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
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Executive Summary
At its meeting on September 8, 2026, the City Council introduced for first reading an Ordinance amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance 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. The ordinance is now presented to the City Council for adoption.

Simultaneous to the ordinance presented tonight for second reading and in response to public testimony at the September 8, 2026 meeting, Council gave additional direction to explore an alternative exclusion ordinance that incorporates the City of Los Angeles and

4.N
Packet Pg. 772
2 of 3
also consider the possibility of excluding from targeted upzoning specific uses such as daycares. Council also directed exploring a generally applicable citywide antidisplacement overlay for R1 rent-controlled homes, which will return to Council as a separate matter at a future date.

Regarding the use of City of LA numbers for the purposes of the exclusion ordinance, on September 17, 2026, HCD and City staff conducted a meeting where HCD informed staff that based on their review of the legislative history of the statute and considering the practical implementation challenges, HCD’s position is that jurisdictions may only consider the parcels and data within their own jurisdictional boundaries. For further context, other jurisdictions with cross-jurisdictional TOD zones (e.g. Culver City) also relied only on parcels and data within their own jurisdiction. What this means is that, for purposes of SB 79, Santa Monica cannot consider parcels located within or data from Los Angeles for the purposes of meeting qualifying thresholds, including those required for exclusion ordinances and/or TOD alternative plans.

On the issue of daycare exemptions from the exclusion ordinance, HCD indicated that they would likely review what the underlying zoning allows in terms of base standards and uses, meaning that it appears possible that a targeted upzoning could exclude specific uses such as daycares so long as the SB79 thresholds for exclusion were still met.

As a result, staff recommends that Council still proceed with adopting second reading of the ordinance presented on September 8.

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

4.N
Packet Pg. 773
3 of 3
Attachments:

A. ORD-SB 79 2d
B. Written Comments
C. PowerPoint Presentation

4.N
Packet Pg. 774
1 City Council Meeting: September 22, 2026 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _______ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

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

TEXT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO 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
WHEREAS, California faces a housing shortage both acute and chronic, particularly in areas with access to robust public transit infrastructure; and WHEREAS, building more homes near transit access reduces housing and transportation costs for California families, and promotes environmental sustainability, economic growth, and reduced traffic congestion; and
WHEREAS, public transit systems require sustainable funding to provide reliable service, especially in areas experiencing increased density and ridership; and WHEREAS, the State does not invest in public transit service to the same degree as it does in roads, and the State funds a smaller proportion of the State’s major transit agencies’ operations costs than other states with comparable systems; and WHEREAS, transit systems in other countries derive significant revenue from transit-oriented development at and near their stations; and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2025, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 79 (“SB 79”), the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, which became effective on July 1, 2026; and

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 2 WHEREAS, in adopting SB 79, the Legislature made findings and declarations, including that the State faces a housing crisis of availability and affordability, in large part due to a severe shortage of housing, and solving the housing crisis therefore requires a multifaceted, statewide approach, including, but not limited to, encouraging an increase in the overall supply of housing, encouraging the development of housing that is affordable to households at all income levels, removing barriers to housing production, expanding homeownership opportunities, and expanding the availability of rental housing; and
WHEREAS, SB 79 requires cities to permit, as an allowable use, housing development projects that meet applicable standards and are located within a half mile distance of a major transit stop, as defined, on any site zoned for residential, mixed use, or commercial development; and
WHEREAS, SB 79 further provides guaranteed height, density, and FAR standards for eligible housing projects near Transit-Oriented Development (“TOD”) stops and additional concessions beyond State Density Bonus Law; and WHEREAS, although SB 79 has certain mandated requirements, it provides flexibility and a measure of local control to jurisdictions with respect to its implementation; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a study session wherein staff presented an overview of SB 79 including its impact on Santa Monica and three implementation options permitted under SB 79: 1) implementation of SB 79 on July 1, 2026; 2) a temporary exclusion of certain sites in transit-oriented zones,

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 3 as defined, until 2030, one year after adoption of the City’s 7th Cycle (2029-2037) Housing Element; and 3) adoption of a TOD Alternative Plan; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the study session, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend that City Council direct staff to pursue adoption of an ordinance to temporarily exclude sites to allow time to adopt a TOD Alternative Plan; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, the City Council conducted a study session to review the same implementation options for SB 79, including the Planning Commission’s April 15, 2026 recommendations to the Council, and directed staff to proceed with adopting a temporary exclusion ordinance until such time a TOD Alternative Plan could be implemented; and
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.46.030(A), the City Council further adopted a Resolution of Intention, Resolution Number 11755 (CCS), declaring its intention to direct the Planning Commission to initiate the process of amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance to effectuate the requirements of Senate Bill 79; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, and after considering all oral and written testimony, adopted Resolution Number 26-008 (PCS), which recommended that the City Council amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to exclude certain sites from Senate Bill (SB) 79 implementation until 2030, one year following the adoption of the 7th Cycle (2029-2037) Housing Element, and to increase development standards for targeted parcels in the multi-unit residential zoning districts within one-half mile of the Metro E Expo/Bundy station, based on the findings set forth therein; and

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 4 WHEREAS, adoption of an ordinance that temporarily excludes certain sites from SB 79 implementation will, among other things, ensure that the City’s local implementation of SB 79 does not conflict with local land use initiatives and environmental concerns; and
WHEREAS, until such an ordinance is adopted, the City is prohibited from imposing certain height, density, and floor area ratio limits for eligible housing projects located within a half mile of a TOD stop; and
WHEREAS, implementing temporary exclusions to delay implementation of increased development standards mandated by SB 79 to one year after adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element protects the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, on July 2, 2026, as required by SB 79, the Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”), as the region’s metropolitan planning organization, adopted draft map of designated TOD stops and zones; and WHEREAS, the City conducted modeling analyses based on the SCAG map to evaluate sites within the City that are eligible for temporary exclusion pursuant to the criteria in Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1); and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly- noticed public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to exclude certain Sites from Senate Bill (SB) 79 implementation until one year following the adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element, and to increase development standards for parcels zoned Multi-Unit Residential that are located within one-half mile of the Metro E Expo/Bundy Station; and

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 5 WHEREAS, during the public hearing, the City Council discussed potential displacement risks on multiple-unit zoned parcels in the Expo/Bundy TOD zone; and WHEREAS, after considering all oral and written testimony, the City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to exclude certain sites from SB 79 implementation until one year following the adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element, excluding increasing development standards for parcels located within the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further directed staff to return with options to increase development standards for all, or a selected group, of parcels zoned R1 (Single-Unit Residential) that are located within the Expo/Bundy TOD zone to satisfy the criteria for exclusion from SB 79 implementation; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2026, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2861 (CCS) to temporarily delay applicability of SB 79 on qualifying sites until one year following adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element (the “Exclusion Ordinance”); and WHEREAS, the Exclusion Ordinance temporarily excludes sites: (1) that permit density and residential floor area ratios at no less than 50 percent of SB 79’s minimum standards; (2) with designated historic resources; and (3) located in a transit-oriented development zone in which at least 33 percent of sites have permitted density and residential floor area ratio no less than 50 percent of the standards specified in SB 79 and which includes sites with densities that cumulatively allow for at least 75 percent of the aggregate density for the transit-oriented development zone, as specified; and WHEREAS, the City has and will continue to comply with SB 79’s purpose and intent, including, without limitation, building more homes near transit access, promoting

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 6 environmental sustainability, economic growth, reducing traffic congestion, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing; and
WHEREAS, the additional time provided with adoption of the Exclusion Ordinance allows the City to make more informed, long-term land use decisions pending completion of a TOD Alternative Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Exclusion Ordinance allows the City to delay implementation of SB 79 in six of Santa Monica’s seven TOD zones because those areas are already zoned for sufficient housing capacity; and
WHEREAS, the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone does not currently meet the criteria for temporary exclusion pursuant to the Exclusion Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 2026, consistent with Council direction given on July 14, 2028, the City Council conducted a study session to review options for increasing development standards for residentially-zoned parcels within one half mile of the Metro E Expo/Bundy Station to qualify the Expo/Bundy Transit-Oriented Development Zone for temporary exclusion pursuant to the Exclusion Ordinance; and WHEREAS, after reviewing all three options and discussing potential displacement risks, Council directed staff to proceed with increasing 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, and return with amendments to the Zoning Ordinance consistent with that direction; and
WHEREAS, these parcels were selected for increased development standards as they are generally closest in walking distance to the Expo/Bundy station, are based on

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 7 clear geographical boundaries, and would minimize involuntary displacement risk of tenants on multiple unit zoned parcels; and
WHEREAS, on August 13, 2026, the City submitted its adopted Exclusion Ordinance to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for a 60-day review pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.160; and WHEREAS, on August 26, 2026, the City held an in-person and virtual community meeting at Santa Monica City Hall to provide information on SB 79, the Exclusion Ordinance, and the option to increase development standards for these selected R1- zoned parcels; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, and, after considering all oral and written testimony, the City Council desires to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance 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 pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1); and
WHEREAS, the increase in development standards will allow the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone to be excluded from SB 79 implementation until one year following the adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element.

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

SECTION 1. City Council hereby amends the text of the Zoning Ordinance related to parcels located within the R1 (Single-Unit Residential) zoning district and the area

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 8 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 ensure that the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone meets SB 79’s temporary exclusionary requirements. In amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council hereby finds and declares that, for the reasons articulated above, and in the staff report dated September 8, 2026:

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

2. The amendments are consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the amendments are necessary to implement State law pertaining to SB 79 on qualifying parcels in order to help meet local housing goals and to facilitate more diverse housing choices in the City’s highest opportunity areas.

SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code, Chapter 9.06, Transit-Oriented Development Zones, is hereby amended as follows:

Chapter 9.06 Transit-Oriented Development Zones

9.06.010 Purpose

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 9 This Chapter, in accordance with Government Code Section 65912.160(e), exempts certain qualifying sites from the provisions of Senate Bill 79, the “Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act” (codified in California Government Code Sections 65912.155 through 65912.162), until one year following the adoption of the 7th Cycle (2029-2037) Housing Element of the City’s General Plan.

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

A. A parcel, as identified on the City’s Official Zoning Districting map, that permits density and residential floor area ratio at no less than 50 percent of the standards specified under subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 65912.157.

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

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

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

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

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 10 9.06.030 Director Authority
The Director, or designee, may issue and update maps identifying eligible sites meeting the criteria for temporary exclusion as set forth in Section 9.06.020 and Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1), to ensure consistency with the transit-oriented development stops and zones map published by the Southern California Association of Governments pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.160(f).

9.06.040 Development Standards for Parcels located Within 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 and Within the R1 (SingleUnit Residential) Zoning District.

In addition to the land use regulations and development standards provided in Chapter

9.07, Single-Unit Residential District, Table 9.06.040, below, sets forth development standards for the construction of Multiple-Unit Dwellings on parcels located within the R1 District and that are located within 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. These standards shall remain in effect until adoption of a Transit Oriented Development Alternative Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.161, or as otherwise permitted under State law. Where provisions are not specifically addressed, the standards of the underlying zoning district shall apply.

TABLE 9.06.040: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTIPLE-UNIT DWELLINGS—LOCATED WITHIN 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 AND ON PARCELS WITHIN THE R1 (SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Parcel and Density Standards
Minimum Required Density

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 11 Multiple-Unit Dwelling 1 unit per 1,080 sq. ft.
of parcel area
Maximum FAR
Multiple-Unit Dwellings
meeting minimum required
density standard

1.25 Section 9.04.100,
Determining Floor Area Ratio
in Residential Zoning Districts
SECTION 3. Table 9.070.020 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended as follows:

TABLE 9.07.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL

DISTRICTS
Use Classification R1 Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Residential Dwelling Types
Accessory Dwelling Unit P Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit
P Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling
Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Multiple-Unit Dwelling L(1)/L(2) Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Duplex P Section 9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot Splits
on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit
Residential
Senior Citizen MultipleUnit DwellingL(1) Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Single-Unit Dwelling P
Housing Types for Specific Needs
Employee Housing P
Family Day Care See sub-classifications below.

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 12 TABLE 9.07.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL

DISTRICTS
Use Classification R1 Additional Regulations
Large P Section 9.31.140, Family Day Care, Large
Small P
Residential Facilities See sub-classifications below.

Residential Care,
Limited
P
Hospice, Limited P
Supportive Housing P
Transitional Housing P
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Adult Day Care CUP
Child Care and Early
Education Facility
CUP Section 9.31.120, Child Care and Early
Education Facilities
Bed and Breakfast CUP Within Designated Landmarks only.

Section 9.31.090, Bed and Breakfasts
Community Assembly CUP Section 9.31.100, Community Assembly Community Gardens P
Park and Recreation
Facilities, Public
P
Schools, Public or Private CUP
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
City Bikeshare Facility P
Utilities, Minor P
Specific Limitations
(1) Permitted only on parcels with existing surface parking lots:
(a) Owned in whole or in part by a Community Assembly use in accordance with requirements of Section 9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots; or
(b) Associated with existing multiple-unit dwellings or commercial uses in accordance with requirements of Section 9.31.197, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking Lots. (2) Permitted only on parcels located within 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.

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 13 SECTION 4: Table 9.070.030 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended as follows:

TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Parcel and Density Standards
Minimum Parcel Area (sq.
ft.)
5,000
Maximum Parcel Area (sq.
ft.)
See Section 9.21.030(B)
Minimum Parcel Width (ft.) 50 For parcels bounded by the centerlines of First Court Alley,
Seventh Street, Montana
Place North Alley, and
Adelaide Drive, the minimum
parcel width is 100 ft. and the
minimum parcel depth is 175
ft.

Minimum Parcel Depth (ft.) 100
Maximum Allowable
Density
1 unit per parcel Accessory Dwelling Units and
Junior Accessory Dwelling
Units shall be permitted as
provided in Section 9.31.125,
Accessory Dwelling Units and
Junior Accessory Dwelling
Units
A duplex shall be permitted as
provided in Section 9.31.125,
Duplexes and Lot Splits on
Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit
Residential
For parcels located within 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, see Section 9.06.040
for additional regulations.

Maximum FAR Section 9.04.100, Determining
Floor Area Ratio in Residential
Zoning Districts
For parcels located within the
area bounded by the I-10
Freeway to the south,
Dorchester Avenue to the west,

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 14 TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Exposition Boulevard to the
north, and Centinela Avenue to
the east, see Section 9.06.040
for additional regulations.

One-story structure less
than 18 ft. in height

0.5 For parcels less than 5,000
sq. ft., a maximum FAR
equaling 2,500 sq. ft. shall be
permitted.

One-story structure 18 ft.
or more in height

0.45 For parcels less than 5,000
sq. ft., a maximum FAR
equaling 2,250 sq. ft. shall be
permitted.

Two-story structure 0.45 For parcels less than 5,000
sq. ft., a maximum FAR
equaling 2,250 sq. ft. shall be
permitted.

Two-story structure 0.45 For parcels less than 5,000
sq. ft., a maximum FAR
equaling 2,250 sq. ft. shall be
permitted with no more than
1,125 sq. ft. allowable on the
second story.

Existing structure with
addition (Applies to
projects that do not result
in a demolition as defined
in Chapter 9.25,
Demolition and
Relocation.)

0.55 For parcels less than 5,000
sq. ft., a maximum FAR
equaling 2,750 sq. ft. shall be
permitted with no more than
1,375 sq. ft. allowable on the
second story.

Building Form and Location
Maximum Number of
Stories
2 Maximum Building Height
(ft.)
Section 9.04.050, Measuring
Height
Parcels up to 20,000 sq. ft.
in area
28 ft
with no wall height above
23 ft.

Walls associated with roof
structure design such as gables
and dormers are permitted
above 23 ft., provided such
walls comply with upper-story
stepback requirements.

Parcels greater than
20,000 sq. ft. in area and
with a front parcel line at
least 200 ft. in length
• 28 ft. for flat roof
• 32 ft. for pitched roof

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 15 TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Projections into Height
Limits
See Section 9.21.060,
Height Projections
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Front Per Official Districting
Map or 20 ft. if not
specified
Side - One-story structure
less than 18 ft. in height
10% of parcel width or 3.5
ft., whichever is greater,
but no more than 15 ft.
required
Side - Aggregate of both
sides for a two-story
structure or one-story
structure 18 ft. or more in
height
30% of parcel width, but
no more than 45 ft.
required and each side
shall be at least 10% of
the parcel width or 3.5 ft.,
whichever is greater
The aggregate side setback
requirement does not apply to
the following:
• New structures on parcels
that are 45 ft. or less in
parcel width;
•Additions to existing
structures on parcels that are
less than 50 ft. in width; or
•Structures on parcels less
than 5,000 sq. ft.

Rear 15 ft. from rear parcel line
Additional Minimum
Stepbacks for Upper
Stories
Front Upper-Story
Stepback
The sum of all stepback
areas along the entire
front building elevation
shall be at least 1% of
total parcel area and
comply with the
requirements below.

However, if the entire
upper story is set back
at least 3% of total
parcel depth from the
required front setback,
no front upperstory
stepback is required.
• Each stepback area
shall begin at the
required front setback
and shall comply with
the following:
○ The minimum
stepback depth

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 16 TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
shall be 3% of total
parcel depth and
shall be measured
from the required
front setback.
○ The maximum
stepback depth
shall be 6% of total
parcel depth and
shall be measured
from the required
front setback.
○ Any stepback depth
beyond 6% of total
parcel depth shall
not be included in
calculating
compliance with
this standard.
• Any stepback area
used to comply with a
side upper-story
stepback requirement
shall not be included in
calculating compliance
with this standard.

Side Upper-Story
Stepbacks
The sum of all stepback
areas on each side
building elevation shall
be at least 1% of total
parcel area and comply
with the requirements
below. However, if the
entire upper story is set
back at least 20% of
total parcel width from
the side parcel line, no
side upper-story
stepback is required for
the subject elevation.
• Each stepback area
shall begin at each
respective minimum
side setback line and
shall comply with the

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 17 TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
following:
○ The minimum
stepback depth
shall be 20% of total
parcel width and
shall be measured
from the side parcel
line.
○ The maximum
stepback depth shall
be 25% of total
parcel width and
shall be measured
from the side parcel
line.
○ Any stepback
depth beyond 25%
of total parcel width
shall not be
included in
calculating
compliance with
this standard.
• Any stepback area
used to comply with a
front upper-story
stepback requirement
shall not be included in
calculating compliance
with this standard.

Sides—All portions of
buildings exceeding 23 ft.
in height
• No portion of a building
other than a permitted
projection shall
intersect a plane
commencing at 23 ft. in
height at the minimum
side setback that
extends at an angle of
45-degrees from the
vertical toward the
interior of the site.
• The 23 ft. height
measurement shall be
taken from the same
reference grade as

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 18 TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
determined for the
subject site pursuant to
Section 9.04.050.

Upper-Story Outdoor
Space
Maximum size of
individual balcony, terrace,
deck, first-story roof deck,
or similar outdoor space
3% of parcel area or 300
sq. ft., whichever is less
Individual balconies, terraces,
decks, first-story roof decks, or
similar outdoor spaces larger
than 100 sq. ft. located in the
rear half of the parcel shall be
set back a minimum distance of
20% of the parcel width from
the side parcel lines.

Maximum size of roof deck
above second story
3% of parcel area or 300
sq. ft., whichever is less
Maximum of 1 per dwelling unit,
which shall be set back a
minimum of 7 ft., measured
from minimum setbacks.

Openness and Use of
Setbacks
Maximum Front Setback
Paving (% of required
front setback area)
Parcels 25 ft. or more in
width
50%
Parcels less than 25 ft. in
width
60%
Building Projections into
Setbacks
See Section 9.21.110,
Projections from
Buildings into Minimum
Setbacks and Daylight
Plane
Excavation for Lightwells,
Stairwells, and Access to
Subterranean Garages
and Basements
Basements and
subterranean garages
No basement or
subterranean garage
shall extend into any
setback area, except for
any basement or garage
located beneath an
accessory building
which is otherwise
permitted within a
setback area, if such

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 19 TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
basement, semisubterranean, or
subterranean garage is
located at least 5 ft.
from any parcel line
Lightwells and stairwells • Side and rear
setbacks may be
utilized for lightwells
or stairways to belowgrade area
•Excavated areas shall
be set back a
minimum of 10% of
the parcel width from
any parcel line
measured to the
interior wall surface of
these excavated
areas
• For parcels where the
aggregate side setback is not
required, up to a total of 50
sq. ft. within the side and rear
setbacks may be utilized for
lightwells or stairways to
below-grade areas.
• Retaining walls shall not be
included in calculations for
these excavated areas.

Excavation for access Excavation in the front
setback area for a
driveway, stairway,
doorway, or other such
element for access
purposes shall be no
deeper than 3 ft. below
existing grade
Vehicle Accommodation
Parking • See Sections 9.28.070, Location of Parking
• Section 9.28.120, Parking Design and Development
Standards
Driveways • On parcels less than 100 ft. in width, no more than one driveway permitted
• See Section 9.28.120, Parking Design and Development
Standards
Incentives for Retention of Existing Homes
Building Additions Section 9.21.170, Building Additions Extending into Minimum Side Setbacks
Modifications to
Development Standards
Chapter 9.43, Modification and Waivers
Architectural Review
Architectural Review See Section 9.07.030(A)

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 20 TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Additional Standards
Accessory Buildings and
Structures
Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures
Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Affordable Housing
Production Program
Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program
Basements Section 9.52.020.0230, Basement Definition
Duplexes and Lot Splits on
Parcels Zoned for SingleUnit Residential
Section 9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels
Zoned for Single-Unit Residential
Fences, Walls, and
Hedges
Section 9.21.050, Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Home Occupation Section 9.31.160, Home Occupation
Junior Accessory Dwelling
Units
Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units
Landscaping Chapter 9.26, Landscaping
Lighting Section 9.21.080, Lighting
Multiple-Unit Dwelling
Projects
Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Multiple-Unit Dwelling
Projects Located on
Community Assembly
Surface Parking Lots
Section 9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots
Multiple-Unit Dwelling
Projects Located on
Residentially Zoned
Surface Parking Lots
Section 9.31.197, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking Lots
Off-Street Parking Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation Private Tennis Courts Section 9.31.250, Private Tennis Courts Projections from Buildings
into Minimum Setbacks
Section 9.21.110, Projections from Buildings into
Minimum Setbacks and Daylight Plane
Projections into Height
Limits
Section 9.21.060, Height Projections
Refuse and Recycling
Screening and Enclosure
Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling
Standards
Solar Energy Systems Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems A. Architectural Review.

1. Proposed development in the R1 Single-Unit District shall not be subject to

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 21 architectural review if it conforms to the development standards set forth above except as follows:
a. The Architectural Review Board shall review any proposed duplex pursuant to Section 9.55.140.
b.
i. The Architectural Review Board shall review proposed development that is located on a parcel with a grade differential of 12.5 feet or more between the front and rear parcel lines, and associated with the following:
(1) New residential building; or
(2) A 50% or greater square foot addition to an existing dwelling unit.
ii. A proposed structure may be approved if its size, mass, and placement are found to be compatible with improvements in the immediate neighborhood.

2. The Architectural Review Board shall review and may approve proposed development that does not conform to the development standards set forth above as follows:
a. The Architectural Review Board shall review any proposed addition of 500 square feet or less that is regarded as a third story that is located on a parcel with a grade differential of 12.5 or more between the front and rear parcel lines. The Architectural Review Board may approve such an addition if the following findings of fact are made:

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 22 i. The street frontage and overall massing are compatible with the existing scale and neighborhood context;
ii. The addition does not enlarge the first-story of the existing residence such that a nonconforming condition is expanded; and iii. The properties in the immediate neighborhood will not be substantially impacted.
b.
i. The Architectural Review Board shall review the following:
(1) Any proposed new structure on a parcel that is more than 45 feet in width that does not comply with the minimum aggregate side setback but that is set back a minimum of 10% of parcel width on each side,
(2) Any proposed addition to an existing structure on a parcel 50 feet or more that does not comply with the minimum aggregate side setback but that is set back a minimum of 10% of parcel width on each side,
(3) Any proposed two-story structure that does not
conform to the standard set forth above for additional minimum stepbacks for upper stories,
(4) Any proposed structure that does not conform to the standards for subterranean garages and basements set forth in Table 9.07.030, Chapter 9.28 (Parking), and Section 9.52.020.0230 of this Code,

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 23 (5) Any proposed individual upper story balcony, terrace, deck, first-story roof deck, or similar outdoor space that does not conform to the standard set forth above,
(6) Any proposed structure with garage doors that face
the public street, are located within the front half of the parcel, and:
(i) are not set back from the primary façade facing the public street a minimum of 5 feet, or (ii) are more than 16 feet in width, or (7) Any proposed structure that includes a first-story
porch or second-story balcony that: (i) is open on at least three sides, (ii) has a height of no more than 14 feet, including parapets and railings, (iii) projects into the minimum front setback, and (iv) exceeds 50% of the front building width as measured at the front façade.
ii. The Architectural Review Board may approve a design modification set forth in this subsection if the following findings of fact are made:
(1) There are special circumstances or exceptional
characteristics applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, surroundings, or location of the existing improvements or mature landscaping on the site,
(2) Granting the design modification will not be
detrimental or injurious to the property or to improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located,

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 24 (3) Granting the design modification will not impair the integrity and character of surrounding context, or impact the light, air, open space, or privacy of adjacent properties,
(4) If the design modification includes a modification or addition to a building on the City's Historic Resources Inventory, the modification or addition is compatible with the building's historic architectural character, does not result in the removal of historic building features, and is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, and
(5) The design modifications comply with the criteria set forth in Section 9.55.140.

SECTION 5. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 25 SECTION 7. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN

CITY ATTORNEY

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: ORD-SB 79 2d (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 1 David Yakobson
From: ci dixon <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2026 9:55 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Pull Item 5.N From the Consent Calendar

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to oppose the increased development standards proposed under Agenda Item 5.N and to ask that the item be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

I do not live within the particular R1 neighborhood bounded by I-10, Dorchester Avenue, Exposition Boulevard and Centinela Avenue. However, I have lived in Santa Monica for approximately 31 years, and I am deeply concerned about decisions that significantly alter individual neighborhoods without adequately listening to the residents who will live with the consequences.

This is the ordinance’s second reading and final adoption. A change of this importance should not be approved on the Consent Calendar without public discussion, particularly when residents are asking to be heard and a neighborhood task force is working on possible alternatives.

Please pull Item 5.N and give the affected residents a meaningful opportunity to present their concerns and proposed alternatives before the ordinance becomes law.

Thank you,
Caroline Dixon
Santa Monica resident
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 2 David Yakobson
From: info <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2026 10:33 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; Devan Sipher; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Council Meeting 9/22, Item 5.N, Mayor Torosis: Which Pico Residents Count? Attachments: 2026-04 Pico_Corridors_of_Opportunity_Final(2).pptx; Pico Corridor Explanation Letter.png

EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and Members of the City Council,
Mayor Torosis, after re-reading your Pico Corridors of Opportunity project, I am no longer simply disappointed. I am angry! How dare you!
Your presentation is filled with beautiful words about restorative justice, community ownership, antidisplacement, homeownership, generational wealth and listening to the people most affected.

But principles are easy to proclaim in a Harvard fellowship presentation.

Character is revealed when you are actually given the power to live by them.

And that is where, in my view, your words and your actions become impossible to reconcile.

You describe Pico's low homeownership rate as an injustice. You argue that ownership gives families stability, an appreciating asset and generational wealth. You propose increasing homeownership as part of repairing decades of harm.

Then what do you say to the Pico families who already achieved exactly what you claim to want for us? Apparently, our homeownership matters when it supports the narrative in your presentation, but our voices matter considerably less when we object to what wants to city council wants to do to our neighborhood.

You write extensively about the damage government inflicted on Pico: racist covenants, eminent domain, destruction of Belmar, the freeway and generations of displacement.

And somehow the lesson you appear to have taken from that history is that today's government should once again decide what is best for this community over the objections of the people who actually live here.

That is breathtakingly contradictory.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 3 You wrote that this work "must be led by the people most affected." You wrote, "Nothing has been decided, and nothing will be decided without the input from our residents."
So why is it so hard for you to listen to us?
Why is it so hard to hear the residents standing directly in front of you telling you what they are experiencing and what they fear for their neighborhood? And please don't confuse allowing residents two minutes at a microphone with giving residents a meaningful voice.

You cannot build a political identity around restorative justice while dismissing the people asking you to practice it.

You cannot champion homeownership while treating existing homeowners as impediments to your landuse vision.

You cannot condemn previous generations of City leaders for imposing decisions on Pico and then expect today's residents not to recognize the contradiction when their own government tells them, once again, that it knows what is best for their neighborhood.

And you certainly cannot write that "Pico residents deserve investment that lifts them, not displaces them" without answering a very basic question:

Which Pico residents?
Do homeowners count?
Do multigenerational families count?
Do the residents who stayed, invested, raised families and built generational wealth here count? Or do we only count when our stories are useful in a fellowship presentation? Mayor Torosis, you wrote that repair is "not mine to define." On that, we agree.

Neither is this neighborhood yours to define.

I intend to make sure my neighbors and the broader Santa Monica community know what you wrote, what you promised, what you acknowledged about Pico's history, and how you governed when the people living in that historically harmed community challenged your decisions.

People can read your words.

They can examine your record.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 4 And they can decide for themselves whether the two match.

Because accountability does not end when the Council meeting adjourns.

If "community ownership," "anti-displacement," "community-led governance" and "resident input" are truly your principles, then demonstrate them when residents disagree with you.

Otherwise, stop using our neighborhood's painful history as the backdrop for lofty promises you are unwilling to apply when exercising your own political power.

Pico's history is not a case study.

It is not a fellowship project.

And it is not a political talking point.

It is our history. This is our community. And these are our homes.

We are paying attention.

And we will make sure Santa Monica is paying attention, too.

Christine Parra
Pico Neighborhood Resident, Former Santa Monica Councilmember and now one of the 89 Homeowners Affected by YOU
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading)

SANTA MONICA PROJECT
Pico Corridors
of Opportunity
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Proposed Project: Pico Corridors of Opportunity
Program Overview
Pico Corridors of Opportunity is Santa Monica's Restorative Justice & Wealth-Building Program — one of the nation's most ambitious locallyfunded efforts to address historical racial harm through direct economic action.

Rooted in a $3.5M Restorative Justice Fund seeded by funding from the Ebony Beach Club settlement, the program targets residents of Pico, Santa Monica's most diverse and historically displaced community.

Key strategies: stabilizing legacy businesses, investing in Pico Blvd, and piloting a Community Land Trust to create permanently affordable housing and commercial space.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- PART 1:

STATE OF THE CITY
5-6 MINUTES
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Population: City & Pico Neighborhood
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census (2000, 2010, 2020); ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates 91,535
Santa Monica
Population (2023)
11,019
Pico Neighborhood
Population (2023)
+3.7%
SM Citywide Growth
2010–2020
Pico Growth 2010
–1.5%–2020
vs. +3.7% citywide
0 20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
2000 2010 2020 2023
Santa Monica Pico Neighborhood

KEY FINDING
Pico's population dipped 2010–2020 even as
the city grew - an early signal of
displacement. At 18,000 people/sq mi, it is
already one of the densest neighborhoods in
Santa Monica.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Racial & Ethnic Composition and Change
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census (2000–2020); ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates 35%
35%
12%
11%
7%
Pico Neighborhood (2023)
White (Non-Hispanic) Hispanic/Latino Black/African American Asian Other/Two+
62% 16%
9%
5%
8%
Santa Monica Citywide (2023)
White (Non-Hispanic) Hispanic/Latino Asian
Black/African American Other/Two+

64.6%
of Pico
residents
are nonwhite
vs. 38.2%
citywide
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Median Income: City & Pico Neighborhood
Source: ACS 2018 & 2023 5-Year Estimates; Decennial Census 2000, 2010 0 20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
2000 2010 2018 2023
Santa Monica Pico Neighborhood
$109K
SM Median Income (2023)
$85K
Pico Median Income (2023)

22.8%
Pico Homeownership
(vs. 29% citywide)
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Poverty & Displacement Risk
Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates; UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project

15.9%
Pico Poverty Rate
(vs. 11.6% citywide)
77%
Pico Renters
(vs. 71% citywide)
$2K+
Median Gross Rent
Pico (2023)
81 CalEnviroScreen –85%
Percentile (State)

KEY JUSTICE FINDING
UC Berkeley identifies Pico tracts as Santa Monica's highest displacement risk. Low homeownership (22.8%) means most residents have no owned asset as values rise. I-10 freeway compounds environmental harm daily.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- State of the City Justice/Injustice SWOT

STRENGTHS / ASSETS
• Most racially diverse neighborhood in SM — decades of documented stable integration
• Strong Pico Neighborhood Association & grassroots civic engagement • Vibrant Latino-owned Pico Blvd corridor, cultural anchors, walkable retail
• Virginia Ave Park (9.3ac), Memorial Park (10.3ac), Gandara Park • Big Blue Bus, Metro E Line, bike infrastructure — mobility without a car

OPPORTUNITIES
• Expand homeownership via shared equity & down payment assistance • Business Ownership Fund for local Pico entrepreneurs
• Pico Community Land Trust pilot for permanent affordability • I-10 freeway cap / reconnective infrastructure study
• Youth workforce & entrepreneurship pathways
• Replicable national model for place-based restorative investment

CHALLENGES
• ~$85K median income vs. $109K citywide — gap persists 30+ years • 22.8% homeownership — lowest in Santa Monica
• 15.9% poverty rate — 37% above citywide
• Freeway proximity: elevated pollution & health risks
• Educational achievement gap; resource inequity persists

THREATS
• Highest displacement risk in SM — UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project
• ~$1.6M median home price fueling gentrification
• Loss of Black & Latino cultural anchors
• Airport conversion (post-2028) projected to spike adjacent land values • State limits on local tenant protections
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- PART 2:

MAYOR'S JUST CITY

MANIFESTO
3-4 MINUTES
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-

MAYOR'S MANIFESTO
My Just City is Santa Monica
Santa Monica is a coastal city where prosperity is truly shared, and where historic harms, especially those endured by the Pico Neighborhood, are actively repaired through community ownership, cultural recognition, and inclusive economic opportunity.

Restorative Justice Community Ownership Anti-Displacement Economic Inclusion Cultural Recognition Health & Environmental Justice Community-Led Governance Poverty Alleviation
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Mayor's Manifesto: Conditions of Injustice We Must Address Historic Displacement
Belmar Triangle demolished via eminent
domain. I-10 freeway bisected Pico,
displacing hundreds of families.

Persistent Income Gap
$85K Pico median vs. $109K citywide — a
structural gap persisting for 30+ years with no
intervention.

Low Homeownership

22.8% — the lowest in Santa Monica. Most
Pico residents have no appreciating asset to
anchor them.

High Poverty

15.9% poverty rate — 37% above citywide.

Child poverty disproportionately high.

Environmental Burden
Two Pico tracts at 81–85th CalEnviroScreen
percentile statewide. I-10 pollution is a daily
harm.

High Displacement Risk
UC Berkeley: Pico tracts are Santa Monica's
highest displacement risk. Median home price
~$1.6M.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Mayor's Manifesto: What a Just Pico Looks Like
PLACES
Neighborhood Needs
• Safe, affordable & habitable housing
for all
• Community-owned commercial spaces
• Revitalized Pico Blvd corridor
• Freeway cap / reconnective
infrastructure
• Cultural landmarks and memorial
spaces
• Quality public education & outdoor
recreation
PEOPLE
Wellbeing Needs
• Workforce development programs
• Small business capital & technical
assistance
• Down payment assistance programs
• Youth career pathways
• Anti-displacement housing protections
• Healthy food options & affordable
childcare

PARTICIPATION
Governance Needs
• Community-led Restorative Justice
Commission
• Accessible opportunities for public
input
• Participatory design processes
• Capacity building for local
organizations
• Inclusion of displaced
families/descendants
• Transparent funding and decisionmaking
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- PART 3:

PRIORITY PROJECT
SITE
10-12 MINUTES
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Priority Project Site: Pico Neighborhood Today
Virginia Avenue Park

9.3 acres — Pico's anchor park, home to after-school
programs, youth sports, and community events serving
10,000+ annually
Pico Blvd Commercial Corridor
The spine of neighborhood commerce — home to
Latino-owned restaurants, family shops, service
businesses, and cultural institutions for decades
18th Street Arts Center
National artists-in-residence program anchoring creative economy and cultural identity on the west side of Pico
McCabe's Guitar Shop
50+ year Pico institution — live music venue and
independent music retailer that has defined the
neighborhood's cultural character
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Priority Project Site: Cultural Assets & Legacy Sites
01 Site of the Belmar Triangle
Now: Civic Auditorium & parking lot, Pico/4th St
Interpretive installation + memorial designation
at Historic Belmar Park. Storytelling that names
what was destroyed.
02 Silas White's Ebony Beach
Club
Now: The Viceroy Hotel, 1819 Ocean Ave
Silas White Day (Oct. 12) + Silas White Street
at Vicente Terrace + permanent exhibit at Main
Library — all underway.
03 Pico Youth & Family Center
(PYFC)
2781 Pico Blvd
Priority anchor tenant for any CLT commercial
space. Youth workforce & entrepreneurship
pipeline to Pico businesses.
04 McCabe's Guitar Shop
3101 Pico Blvd — 50+ year legacy business
Priority stabilization candidate for Business
Ownership Fund. Long-term commercial lease
lock-in or acquisition support.
05 18th Street Arts Center
1639 18th St — national artists-in-residence
program
Cultural anchor for creative economy corridor.

Explore CLT partnership to protect institutional
space from redevelopment pressure.
06 Virginia Avenue Park &
Gandara Park
2200 Virginia Ave / 1819 Pico Blvd
Program delivery hubs for workforce, youth, and
community services. Partnership sites for
outdoor activation and cultural programming.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Priority Project Site: Land Use, Income & Displacement Maps Source: ACS 2023; UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project; City of Santa Monica Low-to-Moderate Income Population by Census Tract Pico Neighborhood Land Use — Opportunity Site Identification Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Priority Project Site: Existing Conditions
B.P.O. Elks #906 — Civic & Community Institution Vacant Pico Blvd storefront — Opportunity site Pico Blvd commercial corridor retail Julio's Upholstery — Legacy small business Gilbert's — Latino-owned neighborhood restaurant Pico neighborhood residential housing stock Commercial Corridor Under Pressure
Pico Blvd hosts a mix of legacy Latino-owned businesses, civic institutions, and small retail, but rising rents and vacancies signal active displacement risk. Without intervention, these anchors will not survive the next cycle of appreciation.

Legacy Businesses Need Stability
Julio's Upholstery, Gilbert's Restaurant, and dozens of familyowned businesses represent decades of community investment.

Many operate without long-term leases. A single rent increase can end a 30-year institution overnight.

Housing Stock: Renters Dominant
The Pico neighborhood's mix of single-family homes and small multifamily buildings reflects 77% renter occupancy. With homeownership at just 22.8% — the lowest in Santa Monica — residents have no asset to anchor them as values rise.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Neighborhood/Site History: A Timeline of Displacement & Repair
Pre-1950s
Racist Covenants
Covenants confined Black
residents to Pico/Belmar — the
only area where they could legally
rent or own.
1950s
Belmar Erasure
City demolished Belmar Triangle
via eminent domain. Silas White's
Ebony Beach Club seized. Site is
now the Viceroy Hotel.
1960s
I-10 Freeway
Freeway bisected Pico, displacing
hundreds more families and
severing neighborhood
connections.
2022
Formal Apology
Santa Monica formally
apologized, acknowledging its
role in condemning Belmar
Triangle properties.

Nov 2025
Ebony Beach Settlement
$350K settlement with Constance
White. Named Silas White Day &
Silas White Street.

Jan 2026
$3.5M RJ Program
City Council unanimously
approved one of the largest
locally-funded reparations
initiatives in the country. Seed
funding from land use deal.
← HARM REPAIR →
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Existing Conditions & Program Pillars
Low-to-Moderate Income Population by Tract
1 Small Business Stabilization and Growth
Provide grants, technical assistance, and access to capital to help neighborhood-serving businesses start, grow, and remain in the Pico Boulevard corridor. 2 Ownership and Community Wealth Building
Create pathways to homeownership and business ownership and pilot a Pico Community Land Trust to support permanently affordable housing and commercial space. 3 Workforce and Youth Opportunity Pathways
Expand workforce training, youth career pathways, and local hiring opportunities that connect Pico residents to quality jobs.
4 Corridor Investment and Revitalization
Invest in streetscape improvements, public spaces, and neighborhood activation to strengthen the Pico Boulevard corridor as a thriving community hub.
5 Community Capacity and Leadership
Support and increase capacity for community organizations and neighborhood leadership that provide services, advocacy, and cultural connection for Pico residents.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Shared Ownership Models: The Framework for Pico
5x
more households served
per dollar vs. traditional
down payment programs
(Champlain Housing
Trust)

RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNERSHIP
Community Land Trust (CLT)
Nonprofit holds the land in perpetuity. Homeowner buys the structure at below-market cost and builds equity. When they sell, resale formula keeps the home affordable for the next buyer forever.

Breaks the speculation cycle. Every dollar of public subsidy serves multiple households over generations, not just one. $49K
avg. seller equity gain
at Champlain Housing
Trust
(2019–2023, 115 sales)
DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE + DEED

RESTRICTION
Shared Equity Homeownership
City or nonprofit provides down payment gap funding. In return, buyer agrees to a resale restriction — they keep a portion of appreciation, the rest stays in the affordable pool for the next buyer.

Immediately deployable with existing $3.5M RJ Fund. Fastest path to moving the 22.8% homeownership rate in Pico.
9,300
sf
permanently affordable
commercial space built
by Rondo CLT, St. Paul
MN

SMALL BUSINESS STABILIZATION
Commercial CLT / Ground Lease
CLT acquires commercial buildings or ground leases along Pico Blvd. Businesses lease at below-market rates long-term.

Owners build equity in their business without paying
speculative rent.

Addresses the core threat: even if we help businesses grow, rising rents on Pico will displace them unless the land is removed from the speculative market.
388
member-owners in
PREC
Oakland model — Black,
Indigenous & POC-led

COMMUNITY CO-OWNERSHIP MODEL
Permanent Real Estate
Cooperative (PREC)
Hybrid of CLT and member cooperative. Community
members buy shares in a portfolio of properties — housing and commercial. Builds collective wealth while keeping
individual properties affordable.

Allows Pico residents who can't buy a home to still build wealth from neighborhood investment. Pioneered by EB PREC in
Oakland specifically for communities displaced by redlining.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Best Practices: Residential Shared Equity & CLT
Homeownership

RESIDENTIAL CLT
Champlain Housing Trust
Burlington, Vermont — founded 1984 with $200K city seed investment 650+
shared-equity
homes stewarded
68%
of sellers go on to
market-rate ownership
$49K
avg. equity gain
per seller (2019–23)
5x
more households served
vs. traditional subsidy
"The big idea: affordable housing is a community asset too valuable to be left to the shifting winds of the speculative market." The model has helped families earning 30% below area median access homeownership — and kept those homes affordable for 40+ years.

PARALLEL STORY TO PICO
Rondo Community Land Trust
St. Paul, Minnesota — named for the Black corridor destroyed by I-94 Origin story mirrors Pico: I-94 sliced through Rondo Avenue in the 1950s — displacing hundreds of Black families and thriving Black-owned businesses, exactly as I-10 did to Pico.

Right to Return: "Right to Return to Rondo" is a reparative justice effort for descendants of I-94 displaced families — guided by a Rondo Elders Council. A direct model for Pico's descendant household priority.

CLT + commercial combined: First CLT in Minnesota to apply the model to commercial development. Built 9,300 sf of permanently affordable commercial space + 34 affordable senior apartments on two long-vacant parcels.

Legacy business stewardship: In 2023, Rondo CLT purchased Golden Thyme Coffee & Café from its owner of 25 years to steward the legacy business and ensure it remains in community hands — a model for McCabe's and other Pico anchors.
rondoclt.org · Founded 1993
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Project Goals, Objectives & Desired Just City Outcomes

SHORT-TERM
1–2 Years
• Launch with community-informed
governance
• Business fund: support 10–15 Pico
entrepreneurs
• Pilot Pico Community Land Trust
exploration
• Home acquisition assistance in highestrisk tracts
• Pico Blvd streetscape improvements
• Launch Silas White exhibit & cultural
installations

MEDIUM-TERM
3–5 Years
• Increase homeownership: 22.8% →
30%
• Support 30+ Pico businesses
• Complete harms report; expand claims
process
• Advance I-10 freeway cap study

LONG-TERM
5–10 Years
• Measurable reduction in income gap
• Pico tracts removed from 'high
displacement risk'
• Pico corridor vacancy ≤ citywide
average
• Improved CalEnviroScreen & HPI
scores
Ultimate measure: Pico residents themselves
report the neighborhood reflects their history,
their ownership, and their belonging.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Design Scope of Work Needed

GOVERNANCE
Community-Led: A Restorative Justice Commission including Pico residents and descendants of displaced families will govern the program, not City staff alone.

DESIGN
Interpretive installations at Historic Belmar Park telling the story of the Belmar Triangle and Ebony Beach Club
Permanent Silas White Exhibit at Santa Monica Main Library (underway)
Silas White Street designation at Vicente Terrace (underway) Community-participatory design process for any capital improvements in Pico
Freeway Cap Exploration: I-10 freeway land reuse for restorative justice Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- PART 4:

MAYOR'S DISCUSSION

QUESTIONS
2 MINUTES
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Key Questions for Design Resource Team Members
01 What does a governance model look like that centers community voice without creating an unaccountable body? 02 How do we design physical interventions — installations, renamed streets, a freeway cap — that do real commemorative work, not performative gestures?
03 What spatial strategies can prevent the Business Ownership Fund from being undermined by rising commercial rents on Pico Blvd?
04 How do we structure the Home Acquisition Program to prioritize descendant households while navigating fair housing law?
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- SANTA MONICA · PICO CORRIDORS OF OPPORTUNITY
Backed by $3.5M, one of the nation's most
ambitious locally-funded acts of repair.

Pico residents deserve investment that lifts them, not displaces them. Santa Monica is ready to become a national model for equitable, place-based development.

Mayor Caroline Torosis · Just City Mayoral Fellowship · 2026 Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 1 David Yakobson
From: Miriam Macias <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 11:17 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: URGENT: Tonight's Vote on Pico Neighborhood TOD Ordinance — Additional Resident Concerns

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to follow up on my previous message ahead of your vote tonight regarding the ordinance paving the way for large transit-oriented development (TOD) in the Pico Neighborhood.

As a resident directly impacted by these proposals, I want to emphasize several crucial points before final approval is considered:

1. Profit over Community: In direct conversations with the developer, it became clear this is purely a commercial transaction, not a commitment to our neighborhood's shared prosperity. Tellingly, the developer even admitted that adding parking to the four units was driven strictly by marketability, rather than local need or urban planning logic.

2. Existing High Density: Our area is already doing its part. We already have an entire street dedicated to apartment buildings along Exposition Boulevard.

3. Irreversible Harm vs. Minimal Relief: Incrementally converting homes into townhomes or upzoning small parcels will provide negligible relief to Santa Monica’s broader housing crisis. However, the resulting disruption to our neighborhood’s character, parking, and traffic will be permanent.

4. Smarter Alternatives Elsewhere: Countless underutilized sites and major commercial corridors across Santa Monica—such as Broadway, along with ongoing new construction on Wilshire, Lincoln, and Broadway—are far better suited for high-density housing. These corridors can absorb larger-scale developments that actually make a meaningful dent in housing supply, rather than inserting three or four units into a single-family pocket simply to enrich developers.

5. Protecting Neighborhood Character: I rented in Santa Monica for seven years before saving enough to purchase my home here. Homeownership in Santa Monica is achievable without upzoning every residential block. I specifically chose to move to this neighborhood for its unique density, scale, and character, qualities that deserve protection.

Please do not sacrifice the fabric of our stable residential community for minimal housing gains that primarily benefit developers. I urge you to reject or amend this ordinance tonight.

Respectfully,
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 2 Miriam Macias
Gandara Park Resident
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 3 David Yakobson
From: Board of The Neighborhood Taskforce <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 11:09 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems; Ross Fehrman; Jing Yeo; Heidi von Tongeln; Oliver Chi Subject: 9/22/26 - Agenda Item 4.N
Attachments: September 22 2026 - Item 4N - TNT Letter to Council .pdf

EXTERNAL
Please see the attached letter.

Respectfully submitted,
The Board of Directors
The Neighborhood Taskforce
A California nonprofit public benefit corporation
www.theneighborhoodtaskforce.org
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) September 22, 2026
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:

HCD instructed City Staff late last week that the City cannot include the LA side of the Expo/Bundy TOD when calculating the number of parcels required to reach SB 79’s exclusion threshold. While we disagree with that conclusion, we understand that the Council will focus exclusively on parcels in Santa Monica. The Neighborhood Taskforce asks the Council to still follow the remainder of the approach we described in our September 7th letter and in public comments at the September 8th Council meeting.

More specifically, we ask that you refrain from introducing the proposed ordinance for second reading. We ask instead that you direct staff to return with a revised emergency ordinance that would significantly reduce the number of parcels upzoned based on the approach described below. While we believe emergency ordinances should be used extremely sparingly, it is amply warranted here.

We have always supported qualifying the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone for temporary exclusion. Our disagreement is narrow: how many parcels must the City upzone to obtain that protection, and how should these parcels be selected. Local control has long been a principle underpinning our local governance; we have strived to exercise it to advance the interests of the City and its residents while doing our fair share to address California's overall housing needs. The proposed ordinance unnecessarily diminishes the limited local control that SB 79 preserves for the City. It upzones far more properties than the exclusion requires, without sufficiently analyzing which parcels are least likely to cause tenant displacement as a result—unnecessarily surrendering local control over too many parcels and unnecessarily placing tenants at risk.

We ask Council to weigh several elements before acting: that no more parcels be upzoned than the threshold requires; that whichever parcels are chosen be selected after an explicit analysis of the risk of displacement due to redevelopment; and that among the parcels selected because they will not result in involuntary tenant displacement, priority goes to those parcels whose redevelopment would be most in-balance with the height and scale of surrounding parcels.

1. Upzone the minimum number required — and no more
By staff's own assessment, the Santa Monica–only calculation requires 52 parcels. That is the ceiling. Yet, the ordinance before you upzones 89. Those 37 extra parcels are unnecessarily being upzoned.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading)

2. Select parcels through an explicit tenant displacement risk analysis We support the Council's objective to protect tenants in R2 and R3. Our concern for them does not diminish our concern for tenants throughout the TOD zone, who could also face involuntary displacement. The displacement question should be analyzed before any parcel is upzoned to meet this exclusion. At least two factors should inform that analysis. a. First, take the 30 parcels with no displacement potential. Staff has said on several occasions, including at the September 8th Council meeting, that 30 R2/R3 parcels have zero risk of displacement, for reasons such as the parcel operates as a surface parking lot. Assuming there is truly no risk of displacement, a claim which absolutely should be verified, these 30 parcels would provide well over half of the necessary parcels to meet the threshold. Only 22 additional R1 parcels would need identification.
b. Weigh evidence of which parcels, in addition to the 30 parcels already identified by staff, will not lead to tenant displacement. R1 parcels can, and do (according to recent testimony at SB 79 community meetings) have tenants in them. R1 parcels can also have rent-controlled homes with long-term tenants, and, when they do, those tenants are likely to be low-income. Establishing as quickly as possible which of the parcels in the TOD zone do not have tenants on them is essential. The Rent Control Board has access to robust data on the City’s rent-controlled units and should be able to establish this .

3. Among the parcels that are chosen because they will not result in tenant displacement, prioritize those that would, should they redevelop, be most in balance with the allowable height and scale of the parcels closest to them.

This would likely argue for parcels that are closer to the Expo/Bundy stop itself, and to edges of neighborhoods – nearer to Exposition, Centinela, or Pico, for example. Contiguous parcels that meet this standard should be selected, if feasible.

4. Selective designation is not a spot zoning problem
Claims have been raised that this approach would constitute spot zoning because the combination of parcels selected may not be contiguous. The council shouldn’t presume that what we’re proposing would be spot zoning. And in any event, under California law, “spot zoning” is not in and of itself illegal. Spot zoning is a factual description that a small parcel or small area has been zoned more or less restrictively than the land surrounding it. A claim of illegal spot zoning is subject to a two-part test which was most clearly articulated in Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange (2014). First, has spot zoning actually occurred? Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) Here, given the large number of parcels that would be up zoned, it is not clear that this ordinance would even fail this initial inquiry. More importantly, the second part of the test asks - is it in the public interest. We are quite confident that the Council can articulate a strong public interest in legislating as we propose. The goal is to retain local control over this TOD to the greatest extent feasible, while ensuring that the parcels selected are those where upzoning creates no risk of displacing a household. There is no question that this action fits into the City’s broader, rational planning scheme and that preventing unnecessary displacement of tenants is in the public interest. Even SB 79 expressly recognizes this. The selection of these non-contiguous parcels would not be arbitrary, capricious, or lacking in evidentiary support.

Indeed, quite the opposite, it would be in keeping with both local and State policy.

5. Reasons for the emergency ordinance
Notwithstanding that the City reached out to HCD for guidance on the Whole-TOD vs.

Municipal-Only TOD in April of this year, the City did not receive this guidance until late last week. As the Council is well-aware, receiving an answer to this inquiry was essential to determining the appropriate structure and scope of the City’s proposed ordinance. SB 79 became effective in July and the lack of a local ordinance continues to subject the entire Municipal-Only TOD to the maximum upzoning authorized by this State law. We are thankful that HCD has provided the requested guidance, but the delay is a major contributor to the necessity of adopting the proposed ordinance by emergency.

6. Investigate the feasibility of amending the relocation law to provide additional tenant protections
Council should investigate the feasibility that either, through amending the Tenant Relocation Law, or enacting standalone legislation, owners of upzoned parcels be required to provide comparable housing in the City that would be available at the time of the tenant displacement.

Comparable housing should enable these displaced tenants to replicate the services and benefits that their current housing provides, at the same price to the tenant, carrying the same tenancy protections at the time of displacement, and with a right to return to the redeveloped property. That obligation should run with the parcel for as long as the increased development standards apply to it. If the owners fail to meet this obligation, the City should act as a backstop while taking enforcement action against the owners. SB79 may require that this new provision be generally applicable and not directly solely to SB79 projects.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) Requested Action
The State has given the City an opportunity to implement SB79 in a more orderly and appropriate fashion; the City should take advantage of this and aim to preserve as much of our ability to plan for the future as possible in ways that work best for our city. To this end, The Neighborhood Taskforce respectfully requests that the Council:

1. Decline to introduce for 2nd reading the ordinance as presently drafted.

2. Direct staff to return with an emergency ordinance.

3. Direct that the ordinance upzone only parcels that have no displacement risk, and only the minimum number of such parcels (52) as is necessary to satisfy the applicable threshold.

4. Direct that all approximately 30 R2 and R3 parcels that, according to staff, contain no risk of displacement be included, subject to staff’s parcel by parcel verification.

5. Direct staff to select 22 R1 parcels using an explicit displacement-risk methodology.

6. Among the parcels that are chosen because they will not result in tenant displacement, prioritize those that would be most in balance with the allowable height and scale of the parcels closest to them. This would likely argue for parcels that are closer to edges of neighborhoods – nearer to the Expo/Bundy stop, and/or nearer to Exposition, Centinela, or Pico, for example. Contiguous parcels that meet this standard should be prioritized.

7. Direct that the ordinance include express findings stating the public purpose served, the criteria used to select parcels, and why the number selected is the minimum necessary.

8. Direct staff to investigate the feasibility of drafting legislation requiring owners of parcels upzoned by this ordinance and later redeveloped, at any time while the increased development standards apply to the parcel, to provide displaced tenants comparable, timely replacement housing in the City at the same price, carrying the same tenancy protections, and with a right to return. Where an owner fails to comply, the City should act as a backstop and pursue enforcement against the owner.

We appreciate the work staff has put into a difficult statutory problem, and we share the Council's goal of preserving the City's ability to plan for its own growth. We ask only that the ordinance adopted to protect local control not give away more of it than the law requires.

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 4 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 11:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Fw: July 22, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 4-N - Oppose Upzoning R1

EXTERNAL
Shame on you, City Council.

Forwarding my comment from the July 8 meeting, which still applies. Also, everyone needs to know that Caroline bragged about busting up R1 BEFORE SHE TOOK THIS VOTE in her YIMBY endorsement. She is willing to destroy a community for her own political advancement.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 5 Go back to Option 3.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 at 11:58:49 AM PDT
Subject: July 8 City Council Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose Upzoning R1 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.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 6 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.

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 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 7 David Yakobson
From: Maria Loya <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 11:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox; Oliver Chi; Council Mailbox Cc: PNA SM; PNA Freddy Luis; PNA~Kiana Choy; PNA; Berenice Onofre; Brian O'Neil; Esther Hickman; Gina DeBaca; Mary Cornejo; Marisela Herrera; Irma Santiago Subject: PNA Letter: SB79 Ordinance -Opposing Option 1

EXTERNAL
Pico Neighborhood Association
Board of Directors
Re: Consent Calendar Item: SB79 Ordinance to upzone R1 in Pico September 22, 2026
Santa Monica City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Opposition to Option 1 and Support for Option 3 (Planning Commission Recommendation) to Increase Development Standards for 66 R2/R3-Zoned Parcels in the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone It is important to establish that SB 79 did not happen to Santa Monica by accident. This Council and its representatives in Sacramento supported the state housing agenda that produced SB 79, and now that the predictable consequence of that agenda is displacement pressure on multi-unit, rent-controlled parcels is landing on Pico neighborhood renters, it would be unacceptable for the Council to turn around and place the burden of averting that harm on the Pico Neighborhood Association or on the very renters in Pico's R2 and R3 zoned buildings who will eventually bear the risk. The city helped create this exposure. The responsibility for managing it, and for choosing the option that does the least harm to the tenants most likely to be affected, belongs to this Council not to the neighborhood organization or the renters being asked, in effect, to absorb the fallout of a policy they did not write and did not ask for.

With that context and setting aside who is ultimately responsible for the position the City of Santa Monica is in, Option 3 is still the better of the two options presented by city staff. While all three options presented in the staff report would technically satisfy the 33% statutory threshold required to qualify the Expo/Bundy TOD zone for temporary exclusion from SB 79, Option 3 is the more responsible, better-targeted, and lower-risk path forward. Our reasons follow.

1. Option 1 sets a far more disruptive precedent by upzoning single-family (R1) neighborhoods.

Option 1 would increase the by-right development potential of R1 parcels from a single unit to as many as six units per lot a six-fold jump on land that has never been zoned for anything beyond one home. That is a fundamentally different and more consequential change than adjusting standards on parcels already zoned for multi-unit housing. Once the Council upzones one contiguous swath of single-family neighborhood to satisfy a state transit mandate, it becomes far harder to resist similar demands for the remaining R1-zoned parcels citywide, whether in future TOD zones, future Housing Element cycles, or future SB 79 amendments. Option 3 achieves compliance without touching a single R1 parcel or opening that door.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 8 2. On closer inspection, Option 1's rent-controlled households carry more displacement risk, not less.

Staff's report frames Option 1 as the more protective choice because only 5 of its 89 parcels contain rent-controlled units, compared to 44 of 66 parcels under Option 3. But that comparison is misleading once SB 79's own displacement safeguard is considered. SB 79 bars use of its provisions on any site with three or more units where redevelopment would require demolishing rent-controlled or deed-restricted affordable housing. Because all five of Option 1's rent-controlled parcels are developed with a single dwelling unit, none of them qualify for that protection; everyone of those households is fully exposed. Under Option 3, by contrast, 40 of the 44 rent-controlled or affordable parcels are multi-unit properties that SB 79's demolition bar does cover, leaving only 4 parcels unprotected. In practical terms, Option 3 leaves fewer vulnerable households exposed to displacement (4) than Option 1 does (5), even though Option 3's raw parcel count with rent control looks larger on paper. The Council should weigh protected status, not gross counts.

3. Option 3 already carries a documented, parcel-by-parcel displacement analysis; Option 1 does not.

Staff's review of all 66 parcels under Option 3 found no displacement risk on 30 parcels (vacant lots, ownership housing, or parcels where existing unit counts already exceed the new potential) and only low displacement risk on the remaining 36, where replacement-unit requirements under State law, the City's Affordable Housing Production Program, and Rent Control provisions make redevelopment unlikely in practice. No comparable parcel-level risk analysis has been presented for Option 1's 89 R1 parcels. The Council should not trade a thoroughly vetted option for one that has not received the same scrutiny.

4. Option 3 reflects the deliberative recommendation of the Planning Commission, reached after public review.

Option 3 is not a new idea; it is the Planning Commission's own recommendation from its June 17, 2026, meeting, developed through the Commission's normal public process. Option 1 was generated afterward, in response to Council's request for R1-based alternatives. Absent a compelling reason to override the Commission's considered judgment and the record does not supply one the Council should give real weight to the recommendation of the body charged with vetting these land use questions in the first instance.

Conclusion
Option 3 accomplishes everything the City of Santa Monica needs to achieve temporary exclusion of the Expo/Bundy TOD zone from SB 79: it clears the statutory 33% threshold, it does so by affecting the fewest parcels, it builds on standards the City and State already permit for multi-unit zoned land, and once SB 79's own displacement protections are correctly accounted for it leaves fewer households exposed to involuntary displacement than Option 1. Option 1, by contrast, asks the Council to upzone single-family neighborhoods for the first time under an SB 79 mandate, based on an incomplete displacement analysis, to reach a result Option 3 already delivers more safely.

The PNA Board of Directors would also ask the Council to be honest with the community about where responsibility lies.

This crisis was set in motion by state and local support for SB 79, not by the Pico Neighborhood Association and not by Pico's renters. Choosing the option that protects the greatest number of vulnerable tenants Option 3 is the least the Council can do given its role in creating the situation renters in Pico now face. I respectfully urge the Council to adopt Option 3, reject Option 1, and own its part in getting us here.

Respectfully,
Pico Neighborhood Association Board of Directors
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 1 Clerk Mailbox
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 2:39 PM
To: Clerk Mailbox
Cc: Heidi von Tongeln
Subject: Fw: July 22, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 4-N - Oppose Upzoning R1 Pico Neighborhood
Attachments: 2026-04 Pico_Corridors_of_Opportunity_Final.pptx; Pico_Corridors_of_Opportunity_Project_Context_and_Status.pdf

EXTERNAL
This is not in the public comment packet for 4N. Please add it ASAP.

Thanks,
Nikki Kolhoff
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>
Cc: Oliver Chi <[email protected]>; Heidi Von Tongeln <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 at 11:56:35 AM PDT
Subject: July 22, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 4-N - Oppose Upzoning R1 Pico Neighborhood Hello -
My comment below was not included by staff in the packet for the last meeting, although timely submitted. I am resubmitting it for Item 4N today because it is likely related.

Mayor Caroline Torosis and Staff have not been forthcoming about what the ultimate goal is for all the components of her "Pico Corridors of Opportunity Plan". We need an independent investigation. In the meantime, there should be a moratorium on upzoning in the Pico Neighborhood.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 at 11:59:18 AM PDT
Subject: July 8 City Council Agenda Item 11A - OPPOSE Westside Community Land Trust Dear City Council -
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 2 I am asking you to oppose joining a Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust when Mayor Caroline Torosis and Staff have not been forthcoming about what the ultimate goal is all the components of this plan. The full plan needs to be presented for community feedback, especially in the impacted neighborhoods.

Mayor Torosis has been methodically pushing each piece of her plan without disclosing the plan. Attached is her "Pico Corridors of Opportunity" presentation to Harvard in April. This is for a program she applied for months before that, and brought Oliver Chi with her to present.

Most galling is that she presents this as something the Pico residents have been asking for, but she didn't work at all with the Pico Neighborhood Association! And nowhere in any City Council Agenda item has she used the project name "Pico Corridors of Opportunity". Instead she had pushed the components of her plan deceptively independently, including:
- Rand deal
- Restorative Justice Commission
- Funding of Restorative Justice Commission to be used to buy property for the CLT - Exploring CLTs
- Freeway cap
It's worth noting that Caroline's presentation includes data re rent v own statistics and displacement data that staff claimed not to have for the SB79 item and that Caroline did not produce.

Caroline's pitch statement calims this is merely her plan being offered as a suggestion to the Restorative Justice Commission to consider, but she is the Mayor and the City Manager traveled with her to the presentation, giving the impression it's a city program. How much did this duplicity cost the residents?
It should be noted that Caroline Torosis proudly posted images of her making this presentation on social media but then refused to provide the materials upon the request of a resident. These attachments had to be obtained via PRA.

Please vote NO and require Mayor Torosis to be transparent with the Santa Monica residents, especially the Pico community that is the subject of her pet project, before moving forward on any piece of Caroline's personal plan.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Sunset Park Resident
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) Pico Corridors of Opportunity Project Context and Status Earlier this year, I was honored to be selected as one of a small group of mayors from across the country for the 2026 Just City Mayoral Fellowship at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. I pursued the fellowship because here in Santa Monica, we have begun real restorative work, and I wanted to bring back the best thinking available to help us do it well
My fellowship project, Pico Corridors of Opportunity, examines how Santa Monica might invest in the Pico Neighborhood. And just as importantly, the project studies how we can do so without contributing to the displacement of the residents who live there now. Because a public records request has been made for these materials, I am sharing them openly, along with the context I believe they need.

First, I wanted to describe what these materials are. They are my academic work product from the Harvard fellowship and constitute an exploration of ideas and of approaches other cities have tried, including places like St. Paul, where the I-94 freeway cut through the Rondo neighborhood, much as the I-10 did here.

Of note, this work is not adopted City policy, it was not produced by City staff, and it does not commit the City of Santa Monica to any specific project, site, business, or course of action. The materials constitute a contribution of ideas to a conversation that belongs to the whole community.

Second, and most important to me, I wanted to share a word about history. The Pico Neighborhood’s story holds several distinct chapters that are too often collapsed into one. Racist housing covenants confined Black families to a small part of our city. The City of Santa Monica then used eminent domain to condemn and clear the Belmar Triangle, a harm the City caused directly and for which it formally apologized in 2022. Then, in the 1960s, the construction of the I-10 freeway cut through Pico and displaced even more families.

Today, the residents of Pico continue to carry environmental burdens that deserve to be understood and addressed on their own terms. These chapters are connected and they fell on the same neighborhoods, and often the same families, but they are not the same. They involved different actors, different decades, and different responsibilities. Honest repair has to begin by telling each of them accurately.

That leads to my final point. Repair is not a single thing, and it is not mine to define. What repair means to the descendants of the families displaced from Belmar is not identical to what it means to a longtime Pico renter facing rising rents today, or to a family concerned about the air near the freeway. A presentation can only paint in broad strokes. The real work is specific, and it must be led by the people most affected.

That work now has a home. In January, the City Council unanimously created a $5 million Restorative Justice Fund. This month, the Council established a Restorative Justice Commission to lead a genuine public process and to recommend the City’s next steps. The materials that were developed out of the Harvard fellowship I participated in are offered to that process as one source of ideas among many.

I want to reiterate that nothing has been decided, and nothing will be decided without the input from our residents. I am releasing these materials now because transparency is part of doing this work with integrity, and I welcome the conversation ahead.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading)

S A N T A M O N I C A P R O J E C T
Pico Corridors
of Opportunity
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Proposed Project: Pico Corridors of Opportunity
Program Overview
Pico Corridors of Opportunity is Santa Monica's Restorative Justice & Wealth-Building Program — one of the nation's most ambitious locallyfunded efforts to address historical racial harm through direct economic action.

Key strategies: stabilizing legacy businesses, investing in Pico Blvd, and piloting a Community Land Trust to create permanently affordable housing and commercial space.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- PART 1:

STATE OF THE CITY
5-6 MINUTES
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Population: City & Pico Neighborhood
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census (2000, 2010, 2020); ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates 91,535
Santa Monica
Population (2023)
11,019
Pico Neighborhood
Population (2023)
+
SM Citywide Growth

3.7%
2010–2020
Pico Growth 2010
–1.5%–2020
vs. +3.7% citywide
0 20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
2000 2010 2020 2023
Santa Monica Pico Neighborhood

K E Y F I N D I N G
Pico's population dipped 2010–2020 even as
the city grew - an early signal of
displacement. At 18,000 people/sq mi, it is
already one of the densest neighborhoods in
Santa Monica.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Racial & Ethnic Composition and Change
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census (2000–2020); ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates 35%
35%
12%
11%
7%
Pico Neighborhood (2023)
White (Non-Hispanic) Hispanic/Latino Black/African American Asian Other/Two+
62%
16%
9%
5%
8%
Santa Monica Citywide (2023)
White (Non-Hispanic) Hispanic/Latino Asian
Black/African American Other/Two+

64.6%
of Pico
residents
are nonwhite
vs. 38.2%
citywide
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Median Income: City & Pico Neighborhood
Source: ACS 2018 & 2023 5-Year Estimates; Decennial Census 2000, 2010 0 20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
2000 2010 2018 2023
Santa Monica Pico Neighborhood
$109K
SM Median Income (2023)
$85K
Pico Median Income (2023)

22.8%
Pico Homeownership
(vs. 29% citywide)
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Poverty & Displacement Risk
Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates; UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project

15.9%
Pico Poverty Rate
(vs. 11.6% citywide)
77%
Pico Renters
(vs. 71% citywide)
$2K+
Median Gross Rent
Pico (2023)
81 CalEnviroScreen –85%
Percentile (State)

K E Y J U S T I C E F I N D I N G
UC Berkeley identifies Pico tracts as Santa Monica's highest displacement risk. Low homeownership (22.8%) means most residents have no owned asset as values rise. I-10 freeway compounds environmental harm daily.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- State of the City Justice/Injustice SWOT

S T R E N G T H S / A S S E T S
• Most racially diverse neighborhood in SM — decades of documented stable integration
• Strong Pico Neighborhood Association & grassroots civic engagement • Vibrant Latino-owned Pico Blvd corridor, cultural anchors, walkable retail
• Virginia Ave Park (9.3ac), Memorial Park (10.3ac), Gandara Park • Big Blue Bus, Metro E Line, bike infrastructure — mobility without a car

O P P O R T U N I T I E S
• Expand homeownership via shared equity & down payment assistance • Business Ownership Fund for local Pico entrepreneurs
• Pico Community Land Trust pilot for permanent affordability • I-10 freeway cap / reconnective infrastructure study
• Youth workforce & entrepreneurship pathways
• Replicable national model for place-based restorative investment

C H A L L E N G E S
• ~$85K median income vs. $109K citywide — gap persists 30+ years • 22.8% homeownership — lowest in Santa Monica
• 15.9% poverty rate — 37% above citywide
• Freeway proximity: elevated pollution & health risks
• Educational achievement gap; resource inequity persists

T H R E A T S
• Highest displacement risk in SM — UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project
• ~$1.6M median home price fueling gentrification
• Loss of Black & Latino cultural anchors
• Airport conversion (post-2028) projected to spike adjacent land values • State limits on local tenant protections
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- PART 2:

MAYOR'S JUST CITY

MANIFESTO
3-4 MINUTES
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-

M A Y O R ' S M A N I F E S T O
My Just City is Santa Monica
Santa Monica is a coastal city where prosperity is truly shared, and where historic harms, especially those endured by the Pico Neighborhood, are actively repaired through community ownership, cultural recognition, and inclusive economic opportunity.

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Mayor's Manifesto: Conditions of Injustice We Must Address Historic Displacement
Belmar Triangle demolished via eminent
domain. I-10 freeway bisected Pico,
displacing hundreds of families.

Persistent Income Gap
$85K Pico median vs. $109K citywide — a
structural gap persisting for 30+ years with no
intervention.

Low Homeownership

22.8% — the lowest in Santa Monica. Most
Pico residents have no appreciating asset to
anchor them.

High Poverty

15.9% poverty rate — 37% above citywide.

Child poverty disproportionately high.

Environmental Burden
Two Pico tracts at 81–85th CalEnviroScreen
percentile statewide. I-10 pollution is a daily
harm.

High Displacement Risk
UC Berkeley: Pico tracts are Santa Monica's
highest displacement risk. Median home price
~$1.6M.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Mayor's Manifesto: What a Just Pico Looks Like
PLACES
Neighborhood Needs
• Safe, affordable & habitable housing
for all
• Community-owned commercial spaces
• Revitalized Pico Blvd corridor
• Freeway cap / reconnective
infrastructure
• Cultural landmarks and memorial
spaces
• Quality public education & outdoor
recreation
PEOPLE
Wellbeing Needs
• Workforce development programs
• Small business capital & technical
assistance
• Down payment assistance programs
• Youth career pathways
• Anti-displacement housing protections
• Healthy food options & affordable
childcare

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- PART 3:

PRIORITY PROJECT
SITE
10-12 MINUTES
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Priority Project Site: Pico Neighborhood Today
Virginia Avenue Park

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Priority Project Site: Cultural Assets & Legacy Sites
01 Site of the Belmar Triangle
Now: Civic Auditorium & parking lot, Pico/4th St
Interpretive installation + memorial designation
at Historic Belmar Park. Storytelling that names
what was destroyed.
02 Silas White's Ebony Beach
Club
Now: The Viceroy Hotel, 1819 Ocean Ave
Silas White Day (Oct. 12) + Silas White Street
at Vicente Terrace + permanent exhibit at Main
Library — all underway.
03 Pico Youth & Family Center
(PYFC)
2781 Pico Blvd
Priority anchor tenant for any CLT commercial
space. Youth workforce & entrepreneurship
pipeline to Pico businesses.
04 McCabe's Guitar Shop
3101 Pico Blvd — 50+ year legacy business
Priority stabilization candidate for Business
Ownership Fund. Long-term commercial lease
lock-in or acquisition support.
05 18th Street Arts Center
1639 18th St — national artists-in-residence
program
Cultural anchor for creative economy corridor.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Priority Project Site: Land Use, Income & Displacement Maps Source: ACS 2023; UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project; City of Santa Monica Low-to-Moderate Income Population by Census Tract Pico Neighborhood Land Use — Opportunity Site Identification Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Priority Project Site: Existing Conditions
B.P.O. Elks #906 — Civic & Community Institution Vacant Pico Blvd storefront — Opportunity site Pico Blvd commercial corridor retail Julio's Upholstery — Legacy small business Gilbert's — Latino-owned neighborhood restaurant Pico neighborhood residential housing stock Commercial Corridor Under Pressure
Pico Blvd hosts a mix of legacy Latino-owned businesses, civic institutions, and small retail, but rising rents and vacancies signal active displacement risk. Without intervention, these anchors will not survive the next cycle of appreciation.

Legacy Businesses Need Stability
Julio's Upholstery, Gilbert's Restaurant, and dozens of familyowned businesses represent decades of community investment.

Many operate without long-term leases. A single rent increase can end a 30-year institution overnight.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Neighborhood/Site History: A Timeline of Displacement & Repair
Pre-1950s
Racist Covenants
Covenants confined Black
residents to Pico/Belmar — the
only area where they could legally
rent or own.
1950s
Belmar Erasure
City demolished Belmar Triangle
via eminent domain. Silas White's
Ebony Beach Club seized. Site is
now the Viceroy Hotel.
1960s
I-10 Freeway
Freeway bisected Pico, displacing
hundreds more families and
severing neighborhood
connections.
2022
Formal Apology
Santa Monica formally
apologized, acknowledging its
role in condemning Belmar
Triangle properties.

Nov 2025
Ebony Beach Settlement
$350K settlement with Constance
White. Named Silas White Day &
Silas White Street.

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Existing Conditions & Program Pillars
Low-to-Moderate Income Population by Tract
1 Small Business Stabilization and Growth
Provide grants, technical assistance, and access to capital to help neighborhood-serving businesses start, grow, and remain in the Pico Boulevard corridor. 2 Ownership and Community Wealth Building
Create pathways to homeownership and business ownership and pilot a Pico Community Land Trust to support permanently affordable housing and commercial space. 3 Workforce and Youth Opportunity Pathways
Expand workforce training, youth career pathways, and local hiring opportunities that connect Pico residents to quality jobs.
4 Corridor Investment and Revitalization
Invest in streetscape improvements, public spaces, and neighborhood activation to strengthen the Pico Boulevard corridor as a thriving community hub.
5 Community Capacity and Leadership
Support and increase capacity for community organizations and neighborhood leadership that provide services, advocacy, and cultural connection for Pico residents.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Shared Ownership Models: The Framework for Pico
5x
more households served
per dollar vs. traditional
down payment programs
(Champlain Housing
Trust)

RESIDENTIAL HOMEOW NERSHIP
Community Land Trust (CLT)
Nonprofit holds the land in perpetuity. Homeowner buys the structure at below-market cost and builds equity. When they sell, resale formula keeps the home affordable for the next buyer forever.

Immediately deployable with existing $3.5M RJ Fund. Fastest path to moving the 22.8% homeownership rate in Pico.
9,300
sf
permanently affordable
commercial space built
by Rondo CLT, St. Paul
MN

SMALL BUSINESS STABILIZATION
Commercial CLT / Ground Lease
CLT acquires commercial buildings or ground leases along Pico Blvd. Businesses lease at below-market rates long-term.

Owners build equity in their business without paying
speculative rent.

COMMUNITY CO-OW NERSHIP MODEL
Permanent Real Estate
Cooperative (PREC)
Hybrid of CLT and member cooperative. Community
members buy shares in a portfolio of properties — housing and commercial. Builds collective wealth while keeping
individual properties affordable.

Allows Pico residents who can't buy a home to still build wealth from neighborhood investment. Pioneered by EB PREC in
Oakland specifically for communities displaced by redlining.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Best Practices: Residential Shared Equity & CLT
Homeownership

R E S I D E N T I A L C L T
Champlain Housing Trust
Burlington, Vermont — founded 1984 with $200K city seed investment 650+
shared-equity
homes stewarded
68%
of sellers go on to
market-rate ownership
$49K
avg. equity gain
per seller (2019–23)
5x
more households served
vs. traditional subsidy
"The big idea: affordable housing is a community asset too valuable to be left to the shifting winds of the speculative market." The model has helped families earning 30% below area median access homeownership — and kept those homes affordable for 40+ years.

P A R A L L E L S T O R Y T O P I C O
Rondo Community Land Trust
St. Paul, Minnesota — named for the Black corridor destroyed by I-94 Origin story mirrors Pico: I-94 sliced through Rondo Avenue in the 1950s — displacing hundreds of Black families and thriving Black-owned businesses, exactly as I-10 did to Pico.

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Project Goals, Objectives & Desired Just City Outcomes

MEDIUM-TERM
3–5 Years
• Increase homeownership: 22.8% →
30%
• Support 30+ Pico businesses
• Complete harms report; expand claims
process
• Advance I-10 freeway cap study

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Design Scope of Work Needed

G O V E R N A N C E
Community-Led: A Restorative Justice Commission including Pico residents and descendants of displaced families will govern the program, not City staff alone.

D E S I G N
Interpretive installations at Historic Belmar Park telling the story of the Belmar Triangle and Ebony Beach Club
Permanent Silas White Exhibit at Santa Monica Main Library (underway)
Silas White Street designation at Vicente Terrace (underway) Community-participatory design process for any capital improvements in Pico
Freeway Cap Exploration: I-10 freeway land reuse for restorative justice Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- PART 4:

MAYOR'S DISCUSSION

QUESTIONS
2 MINUTES
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- Key Questions for Design Resource Team Members
01 What does a governance model look like that centers community voice without creating an unaccountable body? 02 How do we design physical interventions — installations, renamed streets, a freeway cap — that do real commemorative work, not performative gestures?
03 What spatial strategies can prevent the Business Ownership Fund from being undermined by rising commercial rents on Pico Blvd?
04 How do we structure the Home Acquisition Program to prioritize descendant households while navigating fair housing law?
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- S A N T A M O N I C A · P I C O C O R R I D O R S O F O P P O R T U N I T Y Backed by $3.5M, one of the nation's most
ambitious locally-funded acts of repair.

Pico residents deserve investment that lifts them, not displaces them. Santa Monica is ready to become a national model for equitable, place-based development.

Mayor Caroline Torosis · Just City Mayoral Fellowship · 2026 Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79- 1 David Yakobson
From: Casey Shapiro <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 12:33 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Serious Concerns Regarding Proposed Zoning Changes and Housing Affordability Attachments: image.png

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing regarding Agenda Item 5.N and the proposed zoning changes affecting the R1 neighborhood bounded by I-10, Dorchester Avenue, Exposition Boulevard, and Centinela Avenue.

I wanted to bring to your attention the development at the corner of Centinela Avenue and Delaware Avenue that illustrates many residents' concerns about the claim that increased density will create affordable housing.

A former single-family home at 2017 Centinela Avenue was demolished and replaced with two new properties: a townhouse and a two-unit apartment building. The rents currently being advertised for these units are well beyond what most working families can afford.

Apartment 1 is currently listed at $5,500 per month:
https://www.apartments.com/2017-centinela-ave-santa-monica-ca/ Apartment 2 is currently listed at $5,775 per month:
https://www.apartments.com/2017-centinela-ave-santa-monica-ca/ In addition, the five-bedroom townhouse is being marketed for approximately $16,000 per month (see attached image).

If developments like this are being cited as examples of how increased density will improve housing affordability, then the public deserves an honest discussion about the actual results. These are not affordable units.

For context, RentHop reports that the median rent for a two-bedroom unit in the 90404 ZIP code is approximately $3,590 per month. See:
https://www.renthop.com/average-rent-in/90404-santa-monica-ca At $5,500 and $5,775 per month, the units at 2017 Centinela Avenue are approximately 53% to 61% higher than the median two-bedroom rent in 90404, making them difficult to characterize as affordable housing.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 2 This example raises an important question: will the proposed zoning changes truly create housing opportunities for middle-income residents, or will they primarily result in additional high-cost housing that remains out of reach for most Santa Monica residents? The evidence from this recent development suggests the latter.

Additionally, as part of this redevelopment, the original garage was removed and replaced with a small turnaround area that appears to accommodate only two vehicles. As a result, cars are frequently parked on Delaware near the entrance to the property. Because vehicles must enter from a one-way driveway off Centinela, this parking situation often reduces visibility and creates potential safety concerns for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians.

As the Council considers final adoption of these zoning changes, I respectfully ask that you evaluate whether they will genuinely advance housing affordability and neighborhood livability. Based on this recent example, there is reason to question whether increased development alone will produce housing that is affordable to the residents these policies are intended to serve.

I urge the Council to carefully consider whether these zoning changes will meaningfully improve affordability for Santa Monica residents or simply facilitate the construction of additional market-rate housing at prices far above what most residents can afford.

Sincerely,
Casey Shapiro
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 3 David Yakobson
From: info <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 2:10 PM
To: Miriam Macias
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: URGENT: Tonight's Vote on Pico Neighborhood TOD Ordinance — Additional Resident Concerns

EXTERNAL
Fantastic letter! Thank you!
On Sep 22, 2026, at 11:17 AM, Miriam Macias <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to follow up on my previous message ahead of your vote tonight regarding the ordinance paving the way for large transit-oriented development (TOD) in the Pico Neighborhood.

As a resident directly impacted by these proposals, I want to emphasize several crucial points before final approval is considered:

2. Existing High Density: Our area is already doing its part. We already have an entire street dedicated to apartment buildings along Exposition Boulevard.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 4 5. Protecting Neighborhood Character: I rented in Santa Monica for seven years before saving enough to purchase my home here. Homeownership in Santa Monica is achievable without upzoning every residential block. I specifically chose to move to this neighborhood for its unique density, scale, and character, qualities that deserve protection.

Please do not sacrifice the fabric of our stable residential community for minimal housing gains that primarily benefit developers. I urge you to reject or amend this ordinance tonight.

Respectfully,
Miriam Macias
Gandara Park Resident
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 5 David Yakobson
From: Cecilia Haggerstrom <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 4:16 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; [email protected]; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems Subject: Agenda item 5N

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I am Cecilia Haggerstrom and I live in the neighborhood you have unethically targeted for R1 upzoning. I am writing you as a local childcare provider and renter in the area, to ask a critical question that this council has yet to answer: How exactly do you plan to provide affordable childcare for the families you want to move into these new multi-unit developments across the entire city—specifically for children with special needs? Statistically 1 out of 8 children in Santa Monica has special needs and requires specialized services.

The narrative behind high-density housing is that it automatically creates affordability, but as a childcare provider on the ground, I can tell you that high-density development does not promote affordable childcare. Upzoning drives up land values and rents, making it nearly impossible for new daycare facilities to find affordable commercial or residential space. When childcare operations face soaring overhead, those costs are passed directly to parents, or worse, providers are forced to close their doors.

In the next 3 years at least 5 facilities will close due to an aging population of childcare providers and economic pressures.

Data from First 5 LA reveals a staggering reality: licensed child care centers in our region have the capacity to serve only 13% of working parents with infants and toddlers. That means nearly 6 out of 7 local families with children under three are left with absolutely nowhere to go. On top of that, skyrocketing real estate costs push Westside infant care upwards of $21,000 a year, absorbing nearly half of a median family's income. For families of children with special needs, working isn’t optional; it is an absolute economic necessity to survive here. Yet, special-needs childcare requires lower child-tostaff ratios and specialized training, making it even scarcer. By adding high-density housing without building the physical, affordable infrastructure for specialized infant and toddler care, you are creating a mathematical impossibility for these families to live and thrive in Santa Monica.

You cannot look at housing policy in a vacuum. If you vote to increase density, you have an administrative and ethical obligation to detail the exact infrastructure that will support it.

Before you cast your vote to upzone our neighborhood, I demand to know: What specific zoning protections, subsidies, or community benefits agreements will you implement to guarantee that affordable, specialized childcare isn't priced out of Santa Monica entirely? You want families to live here, you will have to offer them more than just cheap housing.

Thank you,
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 6 Cecilia Haggerstrom
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) Second Reading
Amendments to Increase
Development Standards
on Select Parcels in
SB 79 Expo/Bundy TOD Zone
City Council
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.c
Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7939 : SB79-Second Reading)  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
• FAR – 1.25
• Density – 40 dwelling unit per acre
• Applies only to projects
maximizing density for subject
parcel
 Applies to 89 R1 zoned parcels within
area bounded by:
• I-10 Freeway – south
• Dorchester Avenue – west
• Exposition Boulevard – north
• Centinela Avenue – east
Increased Development Standards
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.c
Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) September 8 - Council Action & Direction
 Council introduced for first reading an…
• Ordinance amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance 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.  In response to public testimony, Council gave additional direction to:
• Explore an alternative exclusion ordinance that incorporates the City of Los Angeles and also consider the possibility of excluding from targeted “upzoning” specific uses such as daycares.
• Explore a generally applicable citywide anti-displacement overlay for R1 rentcontrolled homes, which will return to Council as a separate matter at a future date.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.c
Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) HCD Response
On September 17, City staff met with HCD staff, and HCD provided the following responses:
 Santa Monica Cannot Use City of Los Angeles Parcels or Data for SB 79 • HCD informed staff that based on their review of the legislative history of the statute and considering the practical implementation challenges, HCD’s position is that jurisdictions may only consider the parcels and data within their own jurisdictional boundaries. • Other jurisdictions with cross-jurisdictional TOD zones (e.g.: Culver City) also have only relied on parcels and data within their own jurisdiction.
• Santa Monica cannot consider parcels located within or data from Los Angeles for the purposes of meeting qualifying thresholds, including those required for Exclusion Ordinances and/or TOD Alternative Plans.
 Excluding Daycares Could be Possible
• HCD indicated that they would likely review what the underlying zoning allows in terms of base standards and uses.
• Therefore, it appears possible that a targeted “upzoning” could exclude specific uses such as daycares so long as the SB 79 thresholds for exclusion were still met.

Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.c
Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) Preliminary Assessment of Written Comments
Overview
 Correspondence received requesting whether there would be an alternative way to minimize the number of parcels that are “upzoned” (i.e., as close to 52 parcels as possible)  Summary of request includes:
• Not proceeding with introducing ordinance for 2nd reading • Directing staff to return with an emergency ordinance that minimizes the number of “upzoned” parcels
• Basing parcel selection on:
o Assessing tenant displacement risk - include 30 multi-unit zoned parcels that were identified to have no displacement risk + 22 more R1-zoned parcels o Sites where new development would be most in balance with the allowable height and scale of the parcels around them
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.c
Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) Preliminary Assessment of Written Comments
Staff’s Preliminary Assessment
 Additional information regarding 30 parcels in R2/R3 zones with no displacement risk:
• No existing units (e.g., surface parking lot) – 4 parcels • Ownership housing:
o Condo/TORCA conversion – 8 parcels
o Single Unit Dwelling – 11 parcels
• More existing units than potential upzoned density – 3 parcels • Existing affordable deed-restricted units – 4 parcels  Using tenant displacement risk to select parcels in order to qualify for exclusion is a new concept that would need to be discussed with HCD (proposed ordinance relied primarily on basis of increased standards on parcels most in proximity to transit stop)  Staff is aware that at least 3 cities have been sued on SB 79, therefore litigation risk remains  Concerns that adopting an emergency ordinance for only Expo/Bundy TOD zone would not be consistent with the City’s record of having adopted other ordinances by regular ordinance and that the City has been discussing this issue for the past 9 months Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.c
Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) Staff Recommendation & Next Steps
 Proceed with adopting second reading of the ordinance presented on September 8 • Consistent with the goal of closing the door on SB 79 as quickly as possible • Council can still direct staff to return with additional direction on options to minimize the number of parcels that need to be “upzoned” which could include a mix of residentially zoned parcels
Next Steps:
• Upon adoption, staff will submit a revised SB 79 Ordinance, including the targeted increases to development standards, to HCD for a 90-day review (which may be extend an additional 30 days)
• Expo/Bundy TOD Zone will become excluded from SB 79 starting October 23 Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

4.N.c
Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7939 : SB79-Second Reading) 1 July 27, 2026
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 27, 2026
A special joint meeting of the Santa Monica City Council and Rent Control Board was called to order by Mayor Torosis at 4:02 p.m., on Tuesday, July 27, 2026, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Caroline Torosis
Councilmember Lana Negrete (Arrived 4:07 p.m.)
Councilmember Dan Hall
Councilmember Ellis Raskin
Councilmember Barry Snell
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya

Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Jesse Zwick
Rent Control Board Chair Daniel Ivanov (Joined remotely) Rent Control Board Vice-Chair Kay Ambriz
Rent Control Board Commissioner Ericka Lesley
Rent Control Board Commissioner Kurt Gonska
Rent Control Board Commissioner Phillis Dudick
Also Present: City Manager Oliver Chi
City Attorney Heidi von Tongeln
Assistant City Clerk Maria Dacanay-Wisner
Rent Control Administrator Jonathan Holub
Rent Control General Counsel Kevin Mitchell
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened to a joint meeting with the Rent Control Board at 4:02 p.m., with Mayor Pro Tem Zwick absent.

Councilmember Snell led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

STATEMENT OF

ACCOUNTABILITY
(LAND

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

BROWN ACT AND

LEVINE ACT

DISCLOSURES
Rent Control Board Chair Ivanov disclosed that he is joining remotely under the Brown Act’s Just Cause provision due to a family emergency; is participating with audio and video; and there are several adults present in the airport terminal he is joining from but they are unrelated public

4.O
Packet Pg. 886 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 27, 2026 4:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 July 27, 2026
members. Due to Chair Ivanov joining remotely, Mayor Torosis facilitated the meeting for the Commissioners in the Chambers.

No Councilmembers or Rent Control Board Commissioners made disclosures regarding the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308).

PUBLIC INPUT ON

REMAINING AGENDA
ITEMS:

Members of the public Mathew L. Millen and Michael Millman commented on item 11.A.

STAFF

ADMINISTRATIVE
ITEMS:

CHARTER AMENDMENT

BALLOT MEASURE
UPDATE

11.A. Update on Resolutions Placing Proposed Ballot Measures Amending Articles XVIII, Rent Control Law, and XXIII, Housing Policies, of the City Charter on the November 3, 2026 Ballot Previously Adopted on July 14, 2026 and Possible Further Direction to Staff to Return with Revisions, was presented by City and Rent Control staff.

Clarifying questions asked by the Rent Control Board and answered of staff included but was not limited to: how the City compares to other jurisdictions if the Board restores the hardship nexus, death and incapacity triggers, and narrow the definition of “covered occupants”; if other jurisdictions with similar or narrower provisions such as West Hollywood, San Francisco, Pasadena, East Palo Alto, and Oakland have been challenged; if the concerns with circumventing Costa Hawkins and property owners being unable to recover possessions were raised recently; what degree do the four available options address legal concerns: if the protections in place for limited classifications would be in jeopardy if they were pulled out to new classifications; if legal precedent exists that could support the City by modifying and narrowing the proposed amendments; alternative provisions such as adding a tenant to the lease within 30 days of the original lessee vacating a unit; protections for remaining the spouses and children; and how many people will be covered by this measure.

Questions asked by the City Council and answered of staff included but was not limited to: the likelihood of litigation if the City moves forward with the measure as is; if the issue is separate from small rent debt; and if spouses and children are protected when the original lessee vacates for reasons other than incapacitation or death.

Considerable discussion by the Rent Control Board ensued on topics including, but not limited to: protecting expanded family members; moving forward with the measure and Option 2 to modify and narrow the proposals on death and incapacitation; Option 4 to not move forward with the measure to further explore the issue and other opinions and submit a measure for a later election; and taking alternative and conservative approaches by using existing housing protections laws.

4.O
Packet Pg. 887 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 27, 2026 4:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 3 July 27, 2026
Motion by Vice-Chair Ambriz, seconded by Chair Ivanov to keep the ballot measure and add back the death or incapacitation language in Section 1806 on Eviction.

Substitute motion by Commissioner Gonska, seconded by Commissioner Lesley, to seek Council’s comments before the Rent Control Board votes on a motion. The substitute motion was approved by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Commissioner Gonska, Lesley, Vice-Chair Ambriz
NOES: Commissioner Dudick, Chair Ivanov
ABSENT: None
Council requested a redline version of Section 1806. The City Council commented on topics including, but not limited to: unintended consequences in preventing tenants from being unhoused or impacting small property owners with making less units available to the housing market and businesses being created with subleases; Option 4 to defer advancing the measure for more study and community input; the lack of a staff report and making redline changes at the dais; Option 3 with a new resolution proposing only to extend just cause protections to single unit dwellings and updating ownermove in regulations, and deferring limiting evictions based on new occupants and remaining household members for further study and to the next election; aligning rent control with non-rent control laws and re-structure proposals to protect tenants and the City; and the process to develop the amendments with broad community input and support and its potential to solve current tenant issues.

New motion by Commissioner Gonska, seconded by Chair Ivanov, to pull back from the Rent Control Board’s recommendation the limiting evictions based on new occupants and remaining household members. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Commissioners Dudick, Gonska, Lesley, Vice-Chair Ambriz, Chair Ivanov
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Mayor Torosis, to provide direction to rescind Resolution 11785 (CCS) and return with a new resolution containing only the items to extend just cause protections to single unit dwellings and updating owner move in regulations to bring Article XXIII in line with Article XVIII. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Negrete, Hall, Snell, Zernitskaya, Mayor Torosis

4.O
Packet Pg. 888 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 27, 2026 4:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 4 July 27, 2026
NOES: Councilmember Raskin
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Zwick
Councilmember Raskin stated that he voted “no” because: the matter was vetted with a great deal of community input and work; community members need further protection; and he is concerned about what will occur in the next two years.

ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the special joint meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Pro Tem Zwick absent.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Maria Dacanay-Wisner Caroline Torosis
Assistant City Clerk Mayor

4.O
Packet Pg. 889 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 27, 2026 4:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 22, 2026
Agenda Item: 5.A
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1):

John U.N.B. Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 23STCV12746; John Doe 1, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 23STCV15009; Hector Orozco v. John Doe: Does 1-2, LASC # 23SMCV03120; John JPC Doe v. Doe City, et al., LASC # 23STCV22020; John AD Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 23STCV26548; John CW Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 23STCV29623; John Doe (A.G.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al., LASC # 23SMCV06066; John GA DOE, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV06484; John U.L.W. Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV06768; Joseph Garcia v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al., LASC # 24SMCV01368; John Doe 15, et al. v.

City, et al., LASC # 24STCV07647; John Doe 18, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV08239; John RR Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV09398; John Doe 33, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV15580; John Doe 48 v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV15420; John Doe 49 v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV19296; John DD Doe v.

City, et al., LASC # 24SMCV04421; Jane EB Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV24146; John Doe (V.D.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al., LASC # 24SMCV05049; John Doe (D.F.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al., LASC # 24SMCV05050; John Doe (D.G.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al., LASC # 24SMCV05051; Jane Doe 13, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV27233; John AM Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV28433; John Doe v. City, et al., LASC # 24SMCV05527; John Doe (Y.M.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al., LASC # 24SMCV06355; Jane Doe 16, et al. v. a Public Entity, et al., LASC # 25STCV02235; John Doe 62, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 25STCV04414; John Doe 23 v. City, et al., LASC # 25STCV05850; John Doe (E.B.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al., LASC # 25STCV06354; Jane PB Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 25STCV06880; John Doe 67 v. City, et al., LASC # 25STCV10142; John Doe 68 v. City, et al., LASC # 25STCV12089; John Doe 69, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 25STCV14031; John OR Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 25STCV16251; John RD Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 25STCV24158; John Doe 71, et al. v. City of Santa Monica, et al., # 25STCV32120; John Doe 76 v. Roe 1, a public entity; et al., # 25STCV32032; John Doe 77 v. City of Santa Monica, et al., # 26STCV07769

5.A
Packet Pg. 890
2 of 2
Prepared By: Ivan Larios, Legal Assistant
Approved Forwarded to Council

5.A
Packet Pg. 891
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 22, 2026
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 11
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Christopher Dishlip, Director of Public Works, Water Resources Division Subject: Sustainable Water Master Plan Update
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15307 of the CEQA Guidelines; and

2. Receive and provide direction on the 2026 Sustainable Water Master Plan Update.

Summary
To diversify the City’s water supply portfolio and reduce its reliance on imported water supplies, City Council adopted the 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (SWMP) on November 27, 2018, and directed staff to implement water self-sufficiency projects outlined in the plan with the goal of achieving 99% water self-sufficiency. The majority of the projects outlined in the 2018 SWMP have been completed as of January 2026 with the exception of those impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., expanding water conservation programs, the recycled water distribution network, and groundwater production).

As the original water self-sufficiency projects approached completion, staff initiated an update to the 2018 SWMP. This update aims to assess the City’s new baseline for local water supply, identify remaining supply gaps associated with projects delayed by the pandemic, and incorporate new data and information (e.g., the 2022 Groundwater

7.A
Packet Pg. 892
2 of 11
Sustainability Plan) that impact local water supply availability. The updated SWMP also evaluates a range of water supply alternatives to address the remaining gap between projected local water supplies and the City’s water self-sufficiency objectives. These alternatives reflect current water demand projections, updated groundwater management requirements, and lessons learned from the implementation of the 2018 SWMP. The findings of the update will provide a framework for evaluating potential investments and strategies to further enhance local water supply reliability and resiliency.

Background
On January 25, 2011, City Council directed staff to develop a water self-sufficiency plan with the goal of meeting 100% of Santa Monica’s water demand using local water sources by 2020 (Attachment A). On October 28, 2014, Council adopted the SWMP, which outlines a strategy to achieve water self-sufficiency (Attachment B). The 2014 SWMP involves a combination of water demand reduction strategies through various water conservation and efficiency programs designed to permanently reduce residential and commercial water use, along with increased water supply from; 1) alternative water sources such as captured rainwater and treated wastewater; 2) increased efficiency of the City’s water treatment systems; and 3) additional pumping from existing groundwater wells and new wells in the local groundwater basin. Implementation of the SWMP has been proceeding since 2014, with updates provided during Council’s annual consideration of water rate adjustments.

Between 2014 and 2018, other elements of the SWMP, including completion of a preliminary Sustainable Yield Analysis of the Santa Monica groundwater basin and finalizing plans for the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP), progressed to support further analysis and refinement of alternatives to reduce reliance on imported water supply and meet the City’s self-sufficiency goal. Staff initiated a comprehensive update of the SWMP in 2017 to incorporate new information regarding local groundwater resources, regulatory updates, and to integrate new water conservation programs and alternative water supply opportunities.

7.A
Packet Pg. 893
3 of 11
On January 9, 2018, staff reported to Council that further analysis was needed in order to assess whether the City could meet its water self-sufficiency goal by 2020 (Attachment C). An updated SWMP was presented to and adopted by City Council on November 27, 2018. The 2018 SWMP outlined three components: Component 1 – Increasing Water Conservation, Component 2 – Develop Sustainable and Drought Resilient Alternative Water Supplies, and Component 3 – Expanding Local Groundwater Production to achieve water self-sufficiency by 2023.

Implementation of the 2018 SWMP was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent City-wide organizational restructuring. Component 1 – Increasing Water Conservation of the 2018 SWMP was not fully implemented, as the Water Conservation Division was reduced by 50 percent, leaving two staff members focused primarily on maintaining existing programs and services. In addition, projects to expand the City’s recycled water distribution network (Component 2) and develop additional groundwater production wells (Component 3) were deferred due to financial constraints. The original implementation schedule, which anticipated completion by 2023, was further extended to summer 2025 as ongoing projects experienced supply chain disruptions and regulatory delays. Despite these challenges, staff successfully completed the majority of the projects identified in the 2018 SWMP, including:
• Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project. The SWIP is a first of its kind facility that leverages stormwater, urban runoff, municipal wastewater, and brackish groundwater to produce highly purified water for groundwater recharge and nonpotable uses such as irrigation. The SWIP has received several regional, national, and global awards for its innovative approach to provide an alternative and resilient water supply for the community. Additional information on the SWIP can be found in Attachment D.
• Olympic Well Field Restoration. Through settlement funds received from the responsible party, the City constructed two new groundwater production wells, a dedicated transmission main, and a new Olympic Advanced Water Treatment

7.A
Packet Pg. 894
4 of 11
Facility to restore local groundwater in the Olympic Well Field that had been impaired by industrial contaminants. Additional information on the project is available in Attachment E.
• Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Production Efficiency and Enhancement Project.

The City’s Arcadia Water Treatment Plant was upgraded and expanded by implementing a first-of- its- kind Flow Reversal Reverse Osmosis system to increase the treatment efficiency to 90% or greater. This upgrade enables the plant to produce approximately 10 percent more potable water without pumping more groundwater, supporting more sustainable groundwater management.

Additional information on the project is available in Attachment E. • Advanced Water Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Project. Staff deployed the AMI system for the City’s 18,000+ water service connections to provide each customer with real-time information about their water usage, billing, and leak detection. The AMI Project also allows the City to enhance customer service, including providing leak alerts through the EyeOnWater app and enabling quicker responses to bill inquiries and service requests. Additional information on the project and instructions on how to sign up for EyeOnWater are available in Attachment F.

Following pandemic-related impacts to the original project financing plan, staff secured nearly $40 million in state and local grant funding and more than $150 million in lowinterest financing to support project implementation. These funding efforts enabled the City to advance the majority of the water self-sufficiency projects while minimizing rate impacts to the community.

Discussion
To build upon the progress made under the 2018 SWMP and address changing conditions, staff initiated an update to recalibrate the City’s local water supply, update water demand projections to reassess the remaining gap to water self-sufficiency, evaluate current and future local water supply opportunities, and identify both near-term

7.A
Packet Pg. 895
5 of 11
and long-term strategies to improve water supply reliability. The update also considers new data and information including the 2022 Groundwater Sustainability Plan, emergency preparedness (e.g., regional wildfire response), and peak day/week water demand that affects local water supply availability and demand.

Based on current information, staff estimates that local water supplies can meet approximately 80 to 85 percent of the City’s annual water demand on average.

However, this estimate remains uncertain because two of the City’s largest groundwater production wells at the Charnock Well Field are currently being replaced. The City’s actual local water production capacity will not be fully known until the replacement wells are completed and operational at the end of 2026.

Water Supply Gap Analysis
The 2026 SWMP Update evaluated several scenarios to assess the City’s water supply gap over a 20-year planning horizon (2025–2045). A summary of the projected water supply gap to achieve water self-sufficiency is presented in Figure 1. The range shown reflects varying assumptions regarding the effectiveness of water conservation measures and future population growth associated with regional housing requirements.

The upper blue dashed line represents the worst-case scenario, in which water demand increases as new housing is developed and no additional water conservation measures are implemented. The lower green dashed line represents the best-case scenario, in which the proposed water conservation program outlined in the 2024 Water Conservation Master Plan (Attachment G) achieves its projected savings. Under this scenario, existing local water supplies would be sufficient to meet both current and future water demands. However, actual future conditions are expected to fall between these two scenarios. As a result, the City will likely continue to rely on some level of imported water supplies to meet future water demand, with the amount dependent on the success of conservation efforts and the rate of population growth.

7.A
Packet Pg. 896
6 of 11
Figure 1: Projected Water Supply Gap (2025-2045)
Water Supply Alternatives to Meet Supply Gap
To support the City’s goal of achieving water self-sufficiency, a total of five major alternatives were developed and evaluated to meet the supply gap. These alternatives considered a combination of water demand reduction, increasing local water supplies, partnering in regional reuse and water supply programs, and adding new water supply sources. A summary of the alternatives developed and evaluated is provided below. • Alternative 1: Water Demand Reduction - Water Conservation Program B.

Increase water conservation and efficiency programs to reduce the City’s overall water demand, as outlined under Program B of the 2024 Water Conservation Master Plan (Attachment G). Program B includes additional water rebate programs and implementing/enforcing upcoming building code changes to increase water use efficiency.
• Alternative 2: Maximize Local Water Recycling – Expand Recycled Water System and Direct Potable Reuse. Expanding the recycled water distribution system to replace potable water consumption assists with replacing potable water consumption. This alternative seeks to increase the use of recycled water

7.A
Packet Pg. 897
7 of 11
within the City by expanding the recycled water distribution system to serve additional non-potable customers, including new developments with dualplumbing systems, and by implementing direct potable reuse to supplement the City’s groundwater supply.
• Alternative 3: Local Supply Resilience - Groundwater Remediation (Airport). The Coastal Sub-basin beneath the Santa Monica Airport is an untapped groundwater aquifer that could potentially provide one to two million gallons per day of additional groundwater. However, the Coastal Sub-basin is impaired by contamination from historical industrial uses at the airport site. The extent of contamination is currently under investigation by the responsible party with oversight from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. • Alternative 4: Regional Reuse and Water Supply Exchange. Two large-scale water recycling projects are currently in planning and preliminary design phases and could provide opportunities for the City to enhance local water supply reliability and resilience through regional partnerships. The first project is the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Pure Water Southern California’s Program, which is proposed in Carson. While the City would not receive purified water directly from this project, it could potentially enter into a water exchange agreement with MWD, whereby the City would receive potable water in exchange for purified water produced by the regional facility. The second project is the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s Pure Water Los Angeles Program, which is being developed at the Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant in El Segundo. Under this partnership, the City could receive purified water for groundwater replenishment at the Charnock Well Field or further treat the purified water to meet direct potable reuse standards for incorporation into the City’s drinking water supply. Both regional projects have implementation timelines that extend well beyond the planning horizon of Alternatives 1 through 3 and are not expected to be operational until after 2035. • Alternative 5: Seawater Desalination. This alternative increases local supply by developing a new, standalone seawater desalination facility with capacity to provide up to 7 MGD to the City’s water supply portfolio. To minimize

7.A
Packet Pg. 898
8 of 11
environmental impacts on aquatic life, a sub-surface intake would be used to extract seawater from the ocean. The seawater desalination facility could be located sub-surface similar to the SWIP, or be integrated into its surrounding environment.

Alternatives Evaluation and Recommended Project Portfolio The above water supply alternatives were evaluated using the five key criteria listed below and a portfolio approach was recommended for implementation. • Environmental and Social Considerations – impacts on natural environment, public acceptance, and environmental justice
• Technical Considerations - treatment process and infrastructure complexity, innovative technology, permitting, beneficial use, and maximizing existing facilities
• Operational Considerations – impacts on staffing, operational complexity, and energy efficiency
• Life Cycle Cost – capital and annual operating costs
• Alignment with City’s Overall Goals – water self-sufficiency, project schedule, and control over implementation
Two different weights for the scoring criteria (evenly distributed and prioritizing alignment with City goals) were also used as a sensitivity analysis for the recommended portfolio. Given the uncertainty in future water demand projections, timeline of recommended project alternatives, and long-term reliability of local groundwater supplies, staff divided the recommendations into two separate portfolios:
• Near-Term Portfolio (5-10 years). Implement Alternative 1: Water Demand Reduction – Water Conservation Program B and Alternative 2: Maximize Local Water Recycling – Expand Recycled Water System and Direct Potable Reuse.

Both alternatives were already included in the recently adopted 2025 Water and Wastewater Rate Study approved by City Council. Staff has already begun planning and design efforts and is exploring funding opportunities for these projects.
• Long-Term Portfolio (10+ years out). Under Alternative 4, the City would continue

7.A
Packet Pg. 899
9 of 11
to engage with regional agencies and stakeholders to explore partnership opportunities as large-scale regional water recycling projects advance through planning, design, and implementation. These partnerships could provide future opportunities to enhance local water supply reliability and reduce reliance on imported water. In addition, emerging seawater desalination technologies may create new opportunities over the long term. New technologies currently in research and development could reduce implementation costs, energy demands, and environmental impacts, potentially making seawater desalination a more viable future option. These two alternatives should be revisited within the next 5- 10 years.

Environmental Review
The 2026 SWMP update is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The intent of the 2026 SWMP is to provide an update on the City’s strategic initiative on water selfsufficiency and to assess alternatives to close the supply gap. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the agreement would not result in adverse physical impacts on the environment, and as such, is exempt from CEQA. Furthermore, the 2026 SWMP update is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15307 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. The SWMP update analyzes alternatives to ensure a resilient, reliable and sustainable water supply for the City and as such, is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15307.

Past Council Actions

7.A
Packet Pg. 900
10 of 11
Meeting Date Description
01/25/2011
(Attachment A)
Request by Councilmember O'Day that Council act on the
September 2010 recommendation from the Environmental
Task Force that the City develop a plan to achieve 100%self sufficiency on local water sources by 2020 by scheduling a study session in early March to examine the City's water supply and to potentially direct staff to develop the plan for self-sufficiency by 2020
10/28/2014
(Attachment B)
Sustainable Water Master Plan Status Update, Presentation of Rate Analyses, and Discussion of Proposed Rate Options 11/27/2018
(Attachment C)
Sustainable Water Master Plan Update and Pathway to
Water Self-Sufficiency
Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment Actions
A summary and recommendation of the 2026 SWMP update were presented to the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment on May 18th, 2026. The Commission supports the findings and recommendations presented in the 2026 SWMP Update.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future to implement the near-term portfolio projects.

Prepared By: Sunny Wang, Water Resources Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council

7.A
Packet Pg. 901
11 of 11
Attachments:

A. January 25, 2011 City Council Direction to Develop Plan for Water SelfSufficiency (web link) B. October 28, 2014 Staff Report (web link)
C. November 27, 2018 Staff Report (web link)
D. Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Website
E. Olympic Well Field Restoration and Arcadia WTP Production Efficiency Enhancement Project Website
F. Advanced Water Metering Infrastructure Project Website G. Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted
H. Written Comments
I. PowerPoint Presentation

7.A
Packet Pg. 902
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan
1 Prepared by:

March 29, 2024
Water Conservation Master
Plan

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................................................5

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................5

1.2 Plan Objective .............................................................................................................................................................5

1.3 Plan Process................................................................................................................................................................5

1.3.1 Identify Conservation Measures for Analysis..................................................................................................6

1.3.2 Estimate Water Savings and Cost for Each Measure ......................................................................................7

1.3.3 Create and Model Three Program Options.....................................................................................................7

1.3.4 Selected Program and Implementation Recommendations.........................................................................10 2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................11

2.1 Overview of the Santa Monica Water System ..........................................................................................................11

2.2 Plan Purpose .............................................................................................................................................................13

2.2.1 California Legislation and the Water Use Objectives....................................................................................13

2.3 Plan Background and Development..........................................................................................................................15 3 ANALYSIS OF WATER DEMAND .........................................................................................................................................17

3.1 Information Review and Data Collection Methods...................................................................................................17

3.2 Total Consumption....................................................................................................................................................17

3.3 Consumption by User Category ................................................................................................................................19 4 CONSERVATION MEASURE EVALUATION..........................................................................................................................21

4.1 Conservation Measure Screening .............................................................................................................................21

4.2 Conservation Measures Evaluated............................................................................................................................22

4.3 Conservation Measure Analysis................................................................................................................................26 5 CONSERVATION PROGRAM EVALUATION.........................................................................................................................29

5.1 Measure Selection for Conservation Program Alternatives......................................................................................29

5.2 Conservation Program Analysis ................................................................................................................................31

5.3 Selected Program B (Strategic) .................................................................................................................................34 6 PROGRAM B IMPLEMENTATION........................................................................................................................................37

6.1 Implementation Costs and Schedule ........................................................................................................................37

6.2 Staffing for Modeled Programs and Future Legislation Compliance ........................................................................40

6.2.1 Recommended Staffing for Program B .........................................................................................................40

6.3 2024-2030 Implementation: Strategic Recommendations.......................................................................................43

6.4 Suggestions for Future DSS Model Updates .............................................................................................................43

6.5 Recommended Funding Sources and Partnerships ..................................................................................................44

6.6 Track and Update for New Codes and Emerging Technologies................................................................................44

6.7 Tracking and Monitoring Progress............................................................................................................................45 7 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................................................47 APPENDIX A. DSS MODEL DESCRIPTION AND ASSUMPTIONS.................................................................................................49 APPENDIX B. INDIVIDUAL CONSERVATION MEASURE DESIGN INPUTS AND RESULTS ...........................................................61

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 3

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Water Conservation Master Plan Key Steps........................................................................................................... 6 Figure 1-2. Measures Selected for Evaluation.......................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 1-3. Water Conservation Programs Comparison Summary .......................................................................................... 9 Figure 2-1. City of Santa Monica Potable Water System........................................................................................................ 11 Figure 2-2. City of Santa Monica Water Supply Profile .......................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2-3. Plan Development Process................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 3-1. Data Collection Workbook Topics and Items....................................................................................................... 17 Figure 3-2. Bi-Monthly Consumption ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 3-3. Gallons Per Capita Per Day and Population ......................................................................................................... 18 Figure 3-4. Consumption by Customer Category 2017-2019, 2022 (Baseline Period)........................................................... 19 Figure 3-5. Overall Use: Indoor vs. Outdoor 2017-2019, 2022 (Baseline Period) .................................................................. 20 Figure 4-1. Measure Screening Criteria.................................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 4-2. Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/AF) based on cumulative water savings in 2035 ......................................... 28 Figure 4-3. Cumulative Projected Water Savings in 2035 (AF)............................................................................................... 28 Figure 4-4. Cumulative Projected Water Savings vs. Cost of Savings per Unit Volume (2035).............................................. 29 Figure 5-1. Conservation Programs Comparison Summary ................................................................................................... 32 Figure 5-2. Water Demand with Different Program Options................................................................................................. 33 Figure 5-3. GPCD Demand...................................................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 5-4. Program B (Strategic) Results Summary .............................................................................................................. 35 Figure 6-1. Program B (Strategic): Implementation Schedule (2023-2040+) ......................................................................... 39 Figure 6-2. Program Staffing Comparison - Modeled & Recommended................................................................................ 40 Figure 6-3. State Regulations Implementation Timeline........................................................................................................ 42 Figure 6-4. Program Tracking and Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 46 Figure A-1. DSS Model Main Page.......................................................................................................................................... 49 Figure A-2. Sample Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary .............................................................................................................. 50 Figure A-3. DSS Model Analysis Flow ..................................................................................................................................... 51

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Measures by Program.............................................................................................................................................. 8 Table 1-2. Water Savings and Costs of Evaluated Water Conservation Programs................................................................... 9 Table 2-1. SB 606 and AB 1668 Key Requirements - Completed and Proposed .................................................................... 14 Table 4-1. Measure Descriptions............................................................................................................................................ 23 Table 5-1. Measures by Program............................................................................................................................................ 30 Table 5-2. Water Savings and Costs of Evaluated Water Conservation Programs................................................................. 31 Table 5-3. Program B (Strategic) Water Demand, Savings, GPCD, and Costs......................................................................... 36 Table 6-1. Program B (Strategic): Total Modeled Utility Expenses Through 2028……………………………………………………………… 38 Table 6-2. Recommended Staffing for Program B (Strategic)……………………………………………………………………………………………. 41 Table A-1. List of Key Assumptions......................................................................................................................................... 55 Table A-2. Key Assumptions Resources.................................................................................................................................. 55

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AB Assembly Bill
acct Account
AMI Advanced Metering Infrastructure
AF acre-feet or acre-foot
AFY acre-feet per year
AWE Alliance for Water Efficiency
AWWA American Water Works Association
AWWARF American Water Works Association
Research Foundation
BMP Best Management Practice
CalWEP California Water Efficiency Partnership
CEC California Energy Commission
COM Commercial
CII Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
DIM Dedicated Irrigation Meter
DSS Model Demand Side Management Least Cost
Planning Decision Support System
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FTE Full-Time Equivalent
GPCD gallons per capita per day
gpd gallons per day
gpf gallons per flush
gpm gallons per minute
HCF Hundred Cubic Feet
IRR Irrigation
PHET Premium High Efficiency Toilet
MF Multi-Family
MG million gallons
MGD million gallons per day
MGY million gallons per year
MWELO Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance
MWM Maddaus Water Management
N/A not applicable
Plan Water Conservation Master Plan
psi pounds per square inch
RES Residential
SB Senate Bill
SF Single Family
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWMP
SMURRF
Sustainable Water Master Plan
Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling
Facility
ULWU Ultra Low Water Urinal
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WBIC weather based irrigation controller
WELIS Water Efficient Landscape and Irrigation
Standards
WTP Water Treatment Plant
WUE Water Use Efficiency
ZWU Zero Water Urinal

WATER VOLUME UNITS AND CONVERSIONS
1 Hundred Cubic Feet (HCF) = 748 gallons
1 Acre-Foot (AF) = 325,851 gallons
1 Million Gallons (MG) = 3.068887 AF

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 5
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction
Water conservation is a key component of the City of Santa Monica (City) Water Resources Division’s mission to provide safe, sustainable, high-quality drinking water to the community. As described in the City’s 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (SWMP), water conservation helps attain the SWMP goals of diversifying the City’s water supply portfolio, enhancing water supply resiliency in the face of climate change and periods of extreme drought, and reducing reliance on imported water supplies (water self-sufficiency).

Water conservation activities are outlined in the SWMP; however, three significant developments have occurred since it was last updated in 2018:
• Pandemic: The three-year COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the City’s finances and staffing. As a result, the water conservation staff was reduced from 6 FTEs to 2 FTEs in 2020 and can now only maintain the status quo on the City’s existing water conservation program and policies (e.g., Water Neutrality and Cash for Grass Landscape Rebates).
• Drought: 2020-2022 was the driest three-year period on record in California. • Legislation: New mandatory California water conservation regulations have been passed that start on January 1, 2025. These regulations include:
o Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life: Senate Bill 606 (Hertzberg), Assembly Bill 1668 (Friedman), and Senate Bill 1157 (Hertzberg)1
o Potable Water Nonfunctional Turf: Assembly Bill 1572 (Friedman) As such, this Water Conservation Master Plan (Plan) presents a comprehensive program to realign the City’s water conservation efforts in light of the above recent developments to achieve the SWMP goals and comply with the new California legislative requirements. The Plan analyzes new and existing water conservation measures and provides scheduling and resource recommendations to implement the selected measures, collectively called a Program.

1.2 Plan Objective
The Plan’s objective is to help the City realign and advance its water conservation efforts by providing a program that will attain the SWMP water self-sufficiency and sustainability goals while taking into account the impacts of the Pandemic, ongoing drought, and new state regulatory requirements. This analysis is designed to be used in support of the City’s water conservation program planning for budgeting, staffing, and workload prioritization.

1.3 Plan Process
City staff and Maddaus Water Management (MWM) worked together as a team to develop the WCMP using the following step-by-step process summarized in Figure 1-1.
1 California Department of Water Resources, et al. (2018). Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life: Primer of 2018 Legislation on Water Conservation and Drought Planning Senate Bill 606 (Hertzberg) and Assembly Bill 1668 (Friedman).

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 6
Figure 1-1. Water Conservation Master Plan Key Steps

1.3.1 Identify Conservation Measures for Analysis
First, City staff conducted a screening of more than 100 water conservation measures targeting residential and commercial customers, irrigation systems, and system-wide issues. The screening followed the methodology presented in the American Water Works Association Manual of Practice, M52 Water Conservation Programs – A Planning Manual (AWWA, 2017). The screening process resulted in the City selecting 16 applicable conservation measures (11 existing and five new), listed below in Figure 1-2, for detailed analysis and modelling.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 7
Figure 1-2. Measures Selected for Evaluation

1.3.2 Estimate Water Savings and Cost for Each Measure
An analysis of each of the selected 16 measures was then conducted by MWM using the Least Cost Planning Decision Support System (DSS Model). All 16 evaluated measures are described in Table 4-1 and the DSS Model outputs for each measure are in Appendix B. See Appendix A for details about the DSS Model itself.

1.3.3 Create and Model Three Program Options
After modeling, the 16 selected conservation measures were combined into three different suites for further evaluation as Program options.

A. Program A (Current) includes the existing 11 measures only. This suite generally reflects the City’s current conservation efforts.

B. Program B (Strategic) includes 13 measures (nine existing and four new) that balance water savings with cost to save significant amounts of water and provide enhanced community outreach and education. This is the Plan’s recommended program.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 8
C. Program C (All-Inclusive) includes all 16 measures modeled, making it the most expensive suite of measures as well as the one that will achieve the most water savings.

Table 1-1. Measures by Program
Measure Name New
Program
A
Current
B
Strategic
C
AllInclusive

1. Leak Detection and Alerts: Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)   

2. Leak Detection and Alerts: Toilet Flow Sensors  

3. Free Water Saving Devices   

4. Public Messaging and Education   

5. Rebate: Toilets (Residential)   

6. Rebate: Toilet/Urinals (CII)   

7. Rebate: Clothes Washers (Residential)   

8. Rebate: Commercial Equipment (CII)   

9. Rebate: Irrigation Conversion (Spray to Drip)  

10. Rebate: Landscape Conversion (Cash for Grass)   

11. Water Neutrality Direct Install: Indoor Devices   

12. Direct Install: Irrigation Devices   

13. Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor Residential   

14. Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor CII   

15. Enforcement: Outdoor Water Waste  

16. Compliance: CA Water Budgeting (Dedicated Irrigation Meters)    A comparison of the water savings and costs resulting from the DSS Model analysis for the three programs is provided in Table 1-2 below. Actual savings will depend on a variety of factors including staff resources, implementation schedule, population dynamics, and climate variability. For instance, by 2040, one measure has ended (Measure 16: Compliance- CA Water Budgeting (Dedicated Irrigation Meters), see Figure 6-1) and population growth has slowed. As a result, annual savings slightly decline.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 9
Table 1-2. Water Savings and Costs of Evaluated Water Conservation Programs Water Savings Program A
(Current)
Program B
(Strategic)
Program C
(All-Inclusive)
Year MGY AFY % MGY AFY % MGY AFY %
2025 77 236 2.2% 101 310 2.8% 106 327 3.0%
2030 162 496 4.6% 255 782 7.3% 264 810 7.6%
2035 220 675 6.5% 330 1013 9.7% 340 1043 10.0%
2040 241 740 7.1% 300 922 8.9% 310 953 9.2%
2045 243 747 7.4% 301 924 9.1% 311 956 9.4%
Lifetime Present Value of
Water Savings (2023-2045) $8,075,000 $11,301,000 $11,704,000 Lifetime Present Value of
Utility Costs (2023-2045) $13,873,000 $13,001,000 $18,699,000 Water Utility Average Cost of
Water Saved (2023-2045) $3,290/MG $1,070/AF $2,250/MG $730/AF $3,120/MG $1,020/AF 2024-2028 Average Annual
Utility Cost $980,000 $932,000 $1,331,000
Notes:

1. Water savings are relative to the Plan baseline period (2017-2019, 2022) average annual demand of 3,599 MGY (11,045 AFY). The Plan baseline is 18.3% below the 2013 baseline (used in other analysis and reporting) of 13,519 AFY.

2. Program savings do not include savings from plumbing codes.

3. Costs are attributable only to the utility’s conservation team.

4. Present value costs and savings are rounded to the nearest $1,000.

5. Water utility cost of water saved is rounded to the nearest $10.

6. 2024-2028 average annual utility cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.

7. 2024-2028 average annual utility cost for all three programs includes all direct City costs but does not include any costs related to partners’ programs or grants.

Figure 1-3. Water Conservation Programs Comparison Summary

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 10

1.3.4 Selected Program and Implementation Recommendations The final step in the Plan process was to select a program and develop recommendations to successfully implement the selected program including the staffing and resources. Based on MWM’s analysis of the DSS Model output, the City selected Program B (Strategic) for implementation for the following reasons:
• Projected savings will provide the necessary conservation water supply (or water demand reduction) to help meet the City’s SWMP goal of water self-sufficiency.
• The cost of water savings is approximately $730/AF which is in the same range as the City’s local groundwater supply, but less than the cost of MWD imported water (approximately $1,250/AF in 2024). • Program B has the highest cost-effectiveness of the three programs, offering the most water savings per unit cost.
• Excludes measures that have been determined to be a cost burden for little savings or water conserved.

Recommendations to assist with Program B implementation include:
• Prioritize Measures for Implementation: Measures that are relatively easy to operate with limited staff and contribute the most to meeting water saving targets should be prioritized for implementation. For example, each of the following are low in cost, result in significant water savings, and require less than 0.3 FTE to implement:
o Compliance: CA Water Budgeting (Dedicated Irrigation Meters) o Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor (Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional - CII) o Rebate: Toilet/Urinals (CII)
• Prepare an Annual Work Plan: Annually review the prior year’s measures including their performance and contribution to water conservation goals (e.g., overall demand, projected water savings, and gallons per capita demand). Prepare an updated annual work plan that accounts for budget, staff resources, regulation compliance dates, and contracts. Consider partnerships, grants, and new contracts where appropriate. • Maintain Program Data Management: Track and measure participation, cost, and other data to gauge successes and areas that need improvement. This data can also assist staff in preparing required DWR reports and plans such as the Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment (Annual Assessment), Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (Annual Shortage Report), and, every five years, the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).
• Increase Staff Resources: To implement Program B (Strategic), MWM recommends that the City increase the water conservation staff by two full-time equivalent (FTE). MWM recommends increasing staff by two FTEs (one Sustainability Analyst and one Program Support Assistant) to account for additional unforeseen programming to comply with upcoming state reporting requirements. (Many details of the new California water conservation legislation have yet to be finalized. When requirements are formally adopted, the Plan may need to be modified to include any new or revised actions needed by the City for compliance.)

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 11
2 INTRODUCTION
This section provides an overview of the City’s water system and service area. This section also describes the purpose and objectives of the Plan, and the steps used to complete it.

2.1 Overview of the Santa Monica Water System
The City is an urban coastal community, bordered to the west by the Pacific Ocean and the City of Los Angeles to the north, east, and south. The City’s Water Resources Division provides water, wastewater, and recycled water service to approximately 18,000 metered customers. The City maintains three well fields (total of 11 groundwater production wells), two well head treatment facilities to remove industrial contaminants (Charnock Treatment Plant and Olympic Advanced Water Treatment Facility), a brackish groundwater desalination facility (Arcadia Water Treatment Plant), four water storage reservoirs, two stormwater harvesting tanks, and two advanced water recycling facilities (Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility and the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Advanced Water Treatment Facility). The City's water service area consists entirely of the City of Santa Monica with limited service in the City of Los Angeles (Figure 2-1).

Figure 2-1. City of Santa Monica Potable Water System
The City experiences a Mediterranean climate, ranging from warm and generally dry summers to cool, relatively wet winters. Water usage in the City varies with changes in temperature and rainfall throughout the year. Climate change and a significant increase in housing units in the coming decades is expected to test the City’s ability to sustainably manage its local water resources and maintain its goal of reducing its reliance on imported water supplies.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 12
Besides local groundwater, the City’s current potable water supply also includes imported water from Northern California and the Colorado River, provided through the wholesale water agency Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). Santa Monica’s water supply profile2 according to the City’s 2018 SWMP is displayed in Figure 2-2.

Figure 2-2. City of Santa Monica Water Supply Profile
As described in the City’s 2018 SWMP, the City was working towards a goal of water self-sufficiency by meeting 99% or more of the City’s water demand using local water sources. The 2018 SWMP outlined a comprehensive approach to achieve this goal with a combination of water demand reduction strategies, increased development of local water supplies, and implementation of alternative water supply projects to collectively offset imported water purchases from MWD. The original 99% water self-sufficiency goal has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and revised to approximately 80% in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan if water conservation efforts are not realigned and advanced. With increased water conservation efforts, the City may be able to meet roughly 90% of its water supply through local water resources.

To increase local groundwater and alternative water supplies, the City has implemented several projects scheduled to be completed in 2023 and early 2024:
• The Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP): SWIP will collect and treat stormwater, dry weather urban runoff, brackish groundwater, and municipal wastewater for permitted non-potable reuse applications and indirect potable reuse via aquifer recharge. The SWIP and upgrades to the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF) are expected to produce up to 1,680 AFY of advanced treated recycled water. • Olympic Well Field Restoration: This project will restore the well field’s pumping capacity which has been limited due to prior industrial activities that contaminated the groundwater water aquifer. Restoring the Olympic Well Field will expand local groundwater production by up to 3,200 AFY. • Arcadia Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Expansion: By retrofitting the plant’s existing reverse osmosis system with innovative Flow Reversal Reverse Osmosis (FRRO) technology, production efficiency will increase from 82% to 90% or greater. This will allow the City to produce additional high-quality drinking water from the same amount of raw 2 Data in this figure represents the percentage of the City’s demand that was met by each source received in 2017.

Local Groundwater
52%
Imported
29%
Conservation
18%
Recycled
1%

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 13
groundwater. Upon project completion, the raw water treatment capacity of the Arcadia WTP will expand from 10 million gallons per day (MGD) to approximately 13 MGD.

2.2 Plan Purpose
The primary purpose of this Plan is to help the City realign and advance its water conservation efforts by providing a program that will attain the SWMP water self-sufficiency and sustainability goals while taking into account the impacts of the Pandemic, ongoing drought, and new state regulatory requirements. The Plan details the assessment and analysis of existing conservation measures and identifies new water use efficiency (WUE) opportunities. The Plan analyzes program costs and water savings, thereby evaluating whether expanding existing efforts is a feasible and cost-effective way to meet future water needs in comparison to using and/or developing other sources of water. This analysis is designed to be used in support of the City’s water conservation program planning for budgeting, staffing, and workload prioritization.

Other purposes of the Plan are to refine water demand forecasts through the year 2045 using the most recent data available, and to support the City’s parallel update of the Water and Sewer Master Plan and development of the Recycled Water Master Plan.

Through identification and prioritization of conservation measures, the City can project long-range demands, advance, and identify attainable conservation goals, develop strategies, and raise awareness. Additionally, potential water savings from the individual conservation measures and/or combinations thereof were determined in this Plan to assess potential per capita water use reduction. By combining new initiatives with existing activities, water conservation can contribute even further to the sustainable management of water supplies in the City’s service area.

A key driver of the Plan is the need to achieve compliance with the new California state legislative requirements (described in Section 2.2.1 below) whereby the City is required to meet a water use objective and submit an annual report on progress.

Moreover, this Plan also aims to support compliance with the AWWA G480-20 Water Conservation and Efficiency Program Operation and Management Standard (G480 Standard), which is a voluntary standard that can be adopted by water providers at their own discretion. The G480 Standard describes the critical elements of an effective water conservation program and encompasses activities undertaken by a utility within its own operations to improve water use on the supply side through distribution system management and on the demand side through customer billing and education practices.

An agency’s water conservation program meeting this standard has the potential to impact all water users.3

2.2.1 California Legislation and the Water Use Objectives In the aftermath of yet another drought from 2014-2017, the California Legislature established a framework centered on “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life: Primer of 2018 Legislation on Water Conservation and Drought Planning Senate Bill 606 (Hertzberg) and Assembly Bill 1668 (Friedman).”4 This framework was designed to help the state better prepare for droughts and climate change by establishing statewide water efficiency standards and incentivizing recycled water. The supporting state legislation, SB 606 and AB 1668, established guidelines for efficient water use and a framework for the implementation and oversight of the new standards by 2024. These efforts and requirements, along with any future regulations, will have profound effects on water providers over the coming years by requiring annual water budgets for urban retail water suppliers, per-person indoor water use goals, and documented preparation for long-term droughts.

In addition to performance measures for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) water use, and with stakeholder input, the SWRCB will adopt long-term efficiency standards for outdoor water use and water loss through leaks. The legislation will require each urban retail water supplier to calculate and report an urban water use objective, which is an estimate of aggregate efficient water use for the previous year based on the adopted water use efficiency standards. As of March 1, 2024, reports are due by January 1, 2025, and every year thereafter. Senate Bill 1157 (Hertzberg), signed into law 3 American Water Works Association. G480 Standard and AWE Leaderboard web page:
https://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/resources/topic/g480-standard-and-awe-leaderboard 4 California Department of Water Resources, et al. (2018). Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life: Primer of 2018 Legislation on Water Conservation and Drought Planning Senate Bill 606 (Hertzberg) and Assembly Bill 1668 (Friedman).

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 14
in September 2022 by Governor Gavin Newsom, lowered limits for indoor residential water use even further than those established just four years prior.

The bills grant the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) the authority to enforce compliance with the Urban Water Use Objectives, which is expected to include monetary penalties for non-compliance. The bills also establish a schedule for state agencies to develop the methodology for implementing the requirements. This Plan will be used for compliance in meeting the many requirements of recent legislation and additional expected state mandates. A list of key requirements and proposed regulations from the legislation is included in Table 2-1.

This Plan is aligned to the state legislative framework; however, as illustrated in Table 2-1, details of the final state regulations have yet to be released. When detailed guidance becomes available, this Plan may need to be modified to include any new or revised actions needed by the City. Per the SWRCB, draft regulations will be released in the fall of 2024.

City staff plans to track state legislation metrics as the standards are developed through the state’s stakeholder process by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the SWRCB.

Table 2-1. SB 606 and AB 1668 Key Requirements - Completed and Proposed as of March 1, 2024 Date AB 1668/SB 606 Key Requirements
Completed

1. California Legislature standards for indoor residential water SB 1157 (Hertzberg) was signed by Governor Newsom in September 2022 with the following standards:
55 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) until 2025
47 GPCD from 2025 until January 2030
42 GPCD beginning in 2030

2. DWR provided each urban retail water supplier with data regarding irrigable lands at level of detail sufficient to verify accuracy at the parcel level
September 30, 2022 DWR recommended standards for outdoor residential use, performance measures for CII water, variance provisions, incentive provisions for recycled water and standards for outdoor irrigation of landscape areas with dedicated irrigation meters (DIMs).

March 22, 2023
SWRCB staff provided alternate recommendations to the Board on standards, measures, incentives, and CII Performance Measures. Notable revisions include lowering the outdoor residential and CII standard to an evapotranspiration factor of 0.55 and 0.45 after Oct. 1, 2035 respectively, replacing the CII-DIM conversion threshold of 1 acre with a volumetric water usage of 500 thousand gallons or more annually (process water excluded), and changing the CII classification categories from the 19 NAICS codes recommended by DWR to the 18 categories used by the U.S. EPA’s ENERGYSTAR Portfolio Manager tool.

Pending August 2024

1. SWRCB to adopt long-term standards for efficient water use:

Outdoor residential
Outdoor irrigation of landscape with dedicated irrigation meters at CII customer sites Water loss (consistent with Senate Bill 555)

2. SWRCB to adopt performance measures for CII water use Pending 2025
Urban water supplier shall calculate its urban water use objective and report its actual water demand for the previous calendar or fiscal year:

Efficient indoor residential water use, plus
Efficient outdoor residential water use, plus
Efficient outdoor water use through dedicated irrigation meters (DIMS) at CII customer sites, plus Efficient water loss, plus
Variances and incentives as appropriate

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 15

2.3 Plan Background and Development
This Plan provides detailed information for planning a conservation program that aligns with the following:
• Current and pending state regulations.
• California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) resolutions. • Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) guidelines.
• Utility supply reliability goals.
• American Water Works Association Manual of Practice, M52 Water Conservation Programs – A Planning Manual (AWWA, 2017).

The Plan development (see Figure 2-3) included review of past documentation and data analyses. The City provided data per a list of requirements. The information requested and received included:
• Water production and consumption data on a bi-monthly basis for the different classes of water users. • Complete descriptions of past, present, and proposed future conservation programs including historical annual participation rates.
• Results of any independent analyses of water savings due to prior City programs. • Historical and projected water system service area population, employment, land use data, and growth projections through the year 2045, or other suitable end year, along with maps of the water system, political jurisdiction boundaries, and study area(s).
• Customer characteristics and data needed to characterize water conservation measures such as the number of facilities or businesses of a particular type.

Figure 2-3. Plan Development Process
City staff worked closely with MWM to compile the data which was then input into MWM’s Least Cost Planning Decision Support System (DSS Model). This DSS Model, developed by MWM, provided an update to the DSS Model which was initially developed as part of the 2018 SWMP. The project team at MWM verified and tested data against historical records to ensure accuracy and logic as the DSS Model was developed. More detailed information about the DSS Model can be found in the appendices of this Plan, including a description of the assumptions, analysis, and methodology used.

MWM reviewed existing City practices and procedures to create a comprehensive list of water use conservation measures currently in place. The team also reviewed relevant literature and practices of other agencies to determine potential measures that could be implemented by the City. MWM used its master database of over 100 measures and followed the screening process outlined in the American Water Works Association Manual of Practice, M52 Water Conservation Programs – A Planning Manual (AWWA, 2017).

Throughout the planning process, the City and MWM conducted multiple meetings, primarily to complete the individual measure design sheets of the DSS Model which identify criteria such as fixture costs, applicable customer classes, length of implementation, measure life, administrative costs, end uses, end-use savings per replacement, and a target number or

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 16
percentage of accounts per measure year. Following the DSS Model completion and evaluation of program options, the draft and final Water Conservation Master Plan reports were prepared.

With detailed measure information readily available, the City has the flexibility to use this Plan as a guide to implement additional measures to help increase water savings whenever statewide drought occurs.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 17
3 ANALYSIS OF WATER DEMAND
This section presents information about the data collection process, historical production, and customer category consumption data, as well as a summary of the City’s conservation efforts.

3.1 Information Review and Data Collection Methods
A thorough collection and review of information relevant to this effort was conducted and entered into the City’s Data Collection Workbook. Using the provided consumption and accounts values from the City, MWM and City staff confirmed the number and types of customers within the service area and identified the unique customer categories to be tracked.

Figure 3-1 presents data topics and items requested, gathered, and stored in the City’s Data Collection Workbook.

Figure 3-1. Data Collection Workbook Topics and Items

3.2 Total Consumption
The City’s water use patterns were analyzed based on twelve years of water consumption data provided by the City (years 2010 to 2022). Figure 3-2 illustrates the total consumption for the City’s service area, not including recycled water consumption. Water consumption data was measured at the customer meters. Note the overall decreased water use since 2013 (approximately 20%) is related to the severe California drought from 2013-2017and the water conservation efforts implemented during this period. Consumption can also be measured using gallons per capita per day (GPCD). Figure 3-3 illustrates the historical GPCD demand and how it has decreased as population has increased.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 18
Figure 3-2. Bi-Monthly Consumption
Figure 3-3. Gallons Per Capita Per Day and Population
Note: GPCD values include both indoor and outdoor water use.

Drought
(2013-2017)
Drought
(2021-
2022)
Pandemic
(2020-2022)
Bad
Economy
(2008-2011)

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 19

3.3 Consumption by User Category
The City has a variety of customer categories utilized in their billing system. Data from each customer category was analyzed separately. This Plan has organized users into Single Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential, Commercial/Industrial, Institutional, Landscape Irrigation, and Fire categories to align with the City’s 2020 UWMP customer categories. Figure 3-4 illustrates the water use breakdowns within the City based on water use data. The period 2017-2019, 2022 was selected as the baseline period for the water use profiles in this section to avoid potential abnormal impacts to the data from drought and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Figure 3-4. Consumption by Customer Category 2017-2019, 2022 (Baseline Period) Note: Customer category water use is based on averaging 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2022 (Plan baseline period) historical water use per account by customer category, representing post-drought and non-Covid conditions.

Approximately 70% of the City’s service area water usage is associated with residential water use. Consequently, residential and irrigation conservation programs will produce the most savings. The City’s service area does include significant commercial and industrial activity as well (approximately 25% of total water use), and thus the conservation potential for this sector should not be overlooked.

Using the DSS Model, historical data was segregated into indoor and outdoor water use by customer type. To determine the indoor and outdoor water use split, it was assumed that indoor use is approximately equal to the minimum use in the winter. While there may be minimal landscape watering in the winter, or leakage from irrigation systems, it is assumed this is minor, at less than 5-10% of the average winter water use. Figure 3-5 shows the breakdown of water use into indoor and outdoor components based on these assumptions.

Single Family
Residential, 24.1%
Multi-Family
Residential, 44.6%
Commercial/Industrial,

26.0%
Landscape Irrigation,

4.5%
Institutional, 0.7%
Fire, 0.1%

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 20
Figure 3-5. Overall Use: Indoor vs. Outdoor 2017-2019, 2022 (Baseline Period) Note: Figure is based on average 2017-2019 and 2022 estimated indoor water use (Plan baseline period).

Indoor Total , 87.6%
Outdoor Total, 12.4%

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 21
4 CONSERVATION MEASURE EVALUATION
The analysis for this Plan examined existing and new conservation measures the City could implement and how their savings contribute to water conservation. To estimate savings, MWM and City staff conducted a robust evaluation process to limit and define the appropriate conservation measures. City staff identified 16 conservation measures for further evaluation in the DSS Model, consisting of both existing and new measures. This section presents descriptions, baseline assumptions, and output comparison of the conservation measures that were evaluated as part of this Plan’s development, as well as an overview of the conservation measure evaluation process conducted.

4.1 Conservation Measure Screening
The experience of many utilities has shown there is a reasonable limit to how many conservation measures can be feasibly implemented at one time. Programs that consist of many measures are historically difficult to implement successfully.

Therefore, prioritization of measures is important both as an outcome of this planning effort and as the program is implemented.

The approach to program implementation is viewed as a “living” process where opportunities may arise and be adopted as new technologies become available and as conditions change over time. Program timelines can also be adjusted, with the recognition that doing so may impact the savings objectives.

An important step in developing this Plan included the identification and screening of a library list of over 100 measures to a short-list for detailed evaluation (benefit-cost analysis). The library list of measures was drawn from MWM and City experience and a review of what other water agencies with innovative and effective conservation programs are implementing. Each measure screened included devices and/or activitiesto achieve water conservation and the distribution method, or mechanism (direct install, incentive, ordinance, etc.). A thorough screening process was necessary to identify a reasonable short-list of measures for evaluation in the DSS Model. City staff reduced the library list of existing and new measures down to 16 measures based on a quantitative and qualitative ranking of each measure’s estimated water savings, cost to the City, public acceptance, and ease of implementation. The 16 selected measures target water conservation across all relevant customer categories. Figure 4-1 shows the City’s measure screening criteria.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 22
Figure 4-1. Measure Screening Criteria

4.2 Conservation Measures Evaluated
Table 4-1 defines all 16 measures that were thoroughly analyzed for the Plan. Information about the DSS Model analysis approach to measure unit costs, water savings, and lifetimes are in Appendix C. Actual measure inputs used in the DSS Model to evaluate the water conservation measures selected by the City, and their results, can be found in individual measure screenshots from the DSS Model provided in Appendix B.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 23
Table 4-1. Measure Descriptions
Measure Name Description

1. Leak Detection and Alerts: Advanced Metering
Infrastructure (AMI)
The City plans to have AMI fully deployed and operational by 2026. The rollout includes web portals to access AMI data: one for the utility, and one for customers (which includes a mobile app). This measure consists of two aspects: 1) Water resources or billing staff will reach out to customers when usage is flagged as a leak by the web portal if there are no immediate response by the customer, and 2) Education for customers on accessing the web portal/mobile app and setting up their own leak detection alerts (which has been shown to improve
accountability and reduce water use). Note: this measure does not include watering restrictions, monitoring, or enforcement.

2. Leak Detection and Alerts: Toilet Flow Sensors The City will provide rebates or other financial incentives to Multi-Family (MF) property owners for a toilet leak detection technology system (e.g., Sensor Industries SI-Flush Sensor).

These sensors send data to a server that alerts property owners of potential leaks. This measure can be a starting component of a follow-on comprehensive MF program (modeled after Santa Clarita Valley Water's MF program).

3. Free Water Saving Devices The City's Water Resources Division bulk purchases high efficiency showerheads, faucet aerators, toilet dye strips, and hose nozzles and gives them away for free at the City office or community events. The City is planning to add pre-rinse spray valves for restaurants. Free devices are also included in the Office of Sustainability's residential sustainability kit. The City also partners with Sustainable Works to distribute devices through their Green Business Program.

4. Public Messaging and Education The City conducts several public education and training efforts including:
• Printed and electronic materials to raise awareness of conservation measures available to customers. This includes newsletters, bill stuffers, brochures, working with local newspapers, signage at retailers, signs on public buses, social media campaigns, and website updates.
• Community outreach: Conducting presentations at various neighborhood groups, BIDs, and booths at relevant
community events with free device giveaways. Workshops
giveaways. Workshops or other means for educating
customers, landscapers, and contractors in efficient
landscaping and irrigation principles (e.g., Sustainable Landscape Workshops at the Airport Demonstration
Gardens).
• School education program.
• Recognition program for water saving businesses- through Green Business Program efforts by Sustainable Works
• Non-Functional Turf Education
• Fixture replacement compliance (SB 407)
• Signage in public landscape areas (e.g., using recycled water, reduced watering, etc.)

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 24
Measure Name Description

5. Rebate: Toilets (Residential) The City provides a rebate for installing a Premium High Efficiency Toilet (PHET: i.e., a toilet that uses 1.06 gpf (4 liters/flush) or less) that replaces a toilet using >= 1.6 gpf in residential properties. The current rebate covers up to nine toilets (SF only, unlimited for MF) and covers the material cost up to $200/toilet ($40 from MWD and supplemental $160 from the City). A new incentive amount going forward would provide $70 in supplemental funds from the City per toilet for a total rebate of $110. California (CA) code requires toilets flush at 1.28 gpf or less.

6. Rebate: Toilet/Urinals (CII) The City provides a rebate for the installation of a Premium High Efficiency Toilet (PHET: i.e., a toilet that uses 1.06 gpf (4 liters/flush) or less) that replaces a toilet using >= 1.6 gpf in CII properties. The current rebate covers the material cost up to $200/toilet ($40 from MWD and supplemental $160 from the City). A new incentive going forward would provide a $70 rebate from the City per toilet for a total rebate of $110. CA code requires toilets flush at 1.28 gpf or less.

The City provides a rebate for the installation of an Ultra-Low Water Urinal (ULWU: 0.125 gpf) or Zero Water Urinal (ZWU) that replaces a urinal using >= 1.5 gpf. The current rebate covers the material cost up to $400/urinal ($200 from MWD and
supplemental $200 from the City). The City proposesto keep the same incentive amount moving forward. CA code requires
urinals flush at 0.125 gpf or less.

7. Rebate: Clothes Washers (Residential) The City provides a rebate for High Efficiency Clothes Washers (meet or exceeds the CEE Tier 1 standard) to Single Family homes. The current rebate covers the material cost up to $400/HECW ($85 from MWD and supplemental $315 from the
City). A new incentive amount going forward would provide $120 in supplemental funds from the City for a total rebate of $205.

8. Rebate: Commercial Equipment (CII) The City provides rebates for water efficient indoor commercial equipment. This includes air-cooled ice machines, steamers, dry vacuum pumps, and controllers on cooling towers. The City can add cooling tower submeters as an additional item, but this would be a City rebate and not through MWD.

9. Rebate: Irrigation Conversion (Spray to Drip) The City's Spray to Drip program provides a rebate for waterefficient landscape irrigation retrofits that replace overhead spray irrigation (sprinklers) in non-turf areas (e.g., hedges and planter beds) with highly efficient drip irrigation. The rebate is $2.00/sqft up to $4,000 for SF, $6,000 for MF and CII.

10.Rebate: Landscape Conversion (Cash for Grass) The City's Cash for Grass program provides a landscape conversion rebate for water-efficient landscape retrofits that remove turf grass, cap sprinklers, and install low-water plants, compost, mulch, and drip irrigation. The rebate is $3.50/sqft up to $6,000 for SF. The rebate is $3.50/sqft up to $10,000 for MF, $20,000 for CII. The City uses Eagle Aerial's WaterView to identify

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 25
Measure Name Description
large turf areas to target outreach for landscape conversion. This measure will be further encouraged by the passing of Assembly Bill 1572 (Friedman): Potable Water Nonfunctional Turf, banning nonfunctional turf in commercial landscapes.

11.Water Neutrality Direct Install: Indoor Devices The Water Neutrality Direct Install Program installs high efficiency indoor fixtures in SF, MF, and CII buildings. This includes Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, Santa Monica College, and private schools. Replacements include high efficiency toilets, showerheads, faucet aerators, and high efficiency urinals. Installations are performed by a contracted third-party installer. The “Water Neutrality Direct Install Program” is funded by Water Neutrality offset fees for new development which are determined during plan check.

12.Direct Install: Irrigation Devices For SF, MF, CII, and IRR customers with landscape, this measure would provide for the installation of water efficient irrigation upgrades. This could be in conjunction with the WaterWise landscape surveys or via one of CalWEP's turnkey programs for administration assistance. Included in the menu of installations are rotary nozzles, WBICs, soil moisture sensors, rain sensors, and rain barrels. The City uses Eagle Aerial's WaterView to identify large turf areas to target outreach. This program could be funded by Water Neutrality fees.

13.Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor Residential The City may provide a free water survey for Residential customers. The City is working on a contract with WaterWise Consulting to provide water surveys for residential customers.

Those with high water use or that have received a Notice of Violation (NOV) for outdoor water waste are targeted. This measure assumes these customers are different than those targeted with AMI leak alerts. This measure includes an onsite visit and customized report on how to save water. Outdoor surveys would include simple irrigation repairs, spray head alignment, retrofits with rotary nozzles, and installation and programming of WBICs. These surveys can link with the Irrigation Devices Direct Install program. An outdoor survey is the primary offering, with indoor water surveys also available upon request.

Indoor surveys include free installation of efficient showerheads and aerators.

14.Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor CII The City would provide a free water survey for CII customers, targeting top users including hotels, hospitals, and restaurants.

This measure assumes these audits are contracted but could be administered in-house with additional staff. After the free water use survey, the City would provide recommendations in a report and describe if the site qualifies for rebates, direct installs, and/or MWD's WSIP (Water Savings Incentive Program).

Recommendations would be tailored to each site based on water savings potential. This measure could link to the Equipment Rebates measure and the Irrigation Devices Direct Install program. This is modeled after the West Basin pilot program.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 26
Measure Name Description

15.Enforcement: Outdoor Water Waste The City's Water Conservation requirements SMMC 7.16.020 prohibits the waste of water outdoors, including failure to repair leaks in a timely manner. Water waste enforcement is handled for reported violations with Notices of Violation sent to the property's account holder. A contract is pending for nighttime water waste patrols. A component of this program could be to provide coupons for saving water and money at a certified water smart car wash. Water smart car washes recycle water on-site or send it to a water treatment facility where the water is treated, recycled, and reused. Some establishments may go waterless, providing car cleaning services with environmentally friendly products using little or no water. Coupons may only be
redeemed at a participating retailer. Coupons could be
presented at the time of purchase. Water Resources Protection could provide coupons when addressing water runoff issues.

16.Compliance: CA Water Budgeting (Dedicated Irrigation Meters)
This measure would include conducting detailed landscape area measurements for CII dedicated irrigation accounts. The City can use aerial imagery including freely available National Agricultural Aerial Program (NAIP) Imagery. The recommended state
standard would require urban retail water suppliers to identify dedicated irrigation meters (DIMs) and measure the associated irrigated CII landscapes within five years after the State Water Board adopts the regulation. The total landscape area will be incorporated into a landscape water use equation/standard (provided by DWR) to produce a supplier level CII landscape budget in gallons. The state will not enforce CII landscape budgets for individual parcels/customers. This also includes requirements for new MF and CII developments and SF accounts with greater than 5,000' of irrigation to install a dedicated landscape meter. This is already specified in the City's WELIS and enforced in plan check.

4.3 Conservation Measure Analysis
MWM conducted an economic evaluation of each selected water conservation measure using the DSS Model. Appendix B presents detailed results including how much water each measure will save annually through 2045, how much each will cost, and the cost of saved water per unit volume if the measure were to be implemented on a stand-alone basis (i.e., without interaction or overlap from other measures that might address the same end use/uses). Dollar savings from reduced water demand was quantified annually and based on avoided costs provided by the City. 5 Actual measured design
parameter inputs can be found in Appendix B. While each measure was analyzed independently, it is important to note very few measures operate independently. For example, higher efficiency indoor fixtures go together with indoor water checkups and public education.

It should be noted that the water savings from the education measure is not double counted with other conservation measures. As a result, costs appear significantly higher for education than for other measures due to the very minimal water savings estimated for the singular cost investment. However, other measures certainly would be less effective or possibly infeasible without an active outreach program. Without community and school education initiatives, customers would be unaware of other conservation measures and participation would likely be reduced. 5 Santa Monica’s weighted unit cost of imported water in fiscal year 2022 was $3,508/MG ($1,143/AF).

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 27
Figures 4-2,4-3, and 4-4 below summarize the comparison of cost of savings per unit volume and projected water savings of all modeled measures. Measures that have low cost of savings would be most cost effective for the utility to implement since they have the lowest costs it would take per AF of water saved. However, the cost of savings should not be the only factor considered for measure selection, as there are many additional benefits or considerations. This analysis demonstrates that the most cost-effective measures include commercial equipment rebates, water neutrality direct installations, and dedicated irrigation meter compliance. On the other hand, some of the least cost-effective measures for the utility to implement include Spray to Drip rebates, outdoor water waste enforcement, and toilet flow sensors. Comparing costeffective measures to measures with high savings, we can see that most of the high savings’ measures are the most costeffective as well, but there are a few distinctions; for example, the commercial equipment rebate is the most cost-effective measure but does not rank very high in terms of savings. So, while this measure may be a good choice to implement during times of budget constraints, the City may elect to implement other measures with greater savings potential when they have the capital to go after the most water savings possible.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 28
Figure 4-2. Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/AF) based on cumulative water savings in 2035 Figure 4-3. Cumulative Projected Water Savings in 2035 (AF) $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000
Rebate: Irrigation Conversion (Spray to Drip)
Enforcement: Outdoor Water Waste
Leak Detection and Alerts: Toilet Flow Sensors
Rebate: Landscape Conversion (Cash for Grass)
Public Messaging and Education
Leak Detection and Alerts: Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor Residential
Free Water Saving Devices
Rebate: Toilets (Residential)
Rebate: Clothes Washers (Residential)
Direct Install: Irrigation Devices
Rebate: Toilet/Urinals (CII)
Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor CII
Compliance: CA Water Budgeting (Dedicated Irrigation Meters) Water Neutrality Direct Install: Indoor Devices
Rebate: Commercial Equipment (CII)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Enforcement: Outdoor Water Waste
Rebate: Irrigation Conversion (Spray to Drip)
Leak Detection and Alerts: Toilet Flow Sensors
Free Water Saving Devices
Rebate: Clothes Washers (Residential)
Public Messaging and Education
Leak Detection and Alerts: Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Rebate: Landscape Conversion (Cash for Grass)
Rebate: Toilets (Residential)
Rebate: Commercial Equipment (CII)
Direct Install: Irrigation Devices
Rebate: Toilet/Urinals (CII)
Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor Residential
Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor CII
Compliance: CA Water Budgeting (Dedicated Irrigation Meters) Water Neutrality Direct Install: Indoor Devices

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 29
Figure 4-4. Cumulative Projected Water Savings vs. Cost of Savings per Unit Volume (2035) 5 CONSERVATION PROGRAM EVALUATION
This section provides a summary of which measures were included in each of the three conservation programs (Programs A, B, and C) as well as the program implementation strategy selected by the City. The three programs were designed to illustrate a range of various measure combinations and resulting water savings.

The following key items were taken into consideration during measure selection for Programs A, B, and C:
• Existing conservation measures eases implementation and enhancement • Measures run by MWD – funding and administration provided • Conservation measures recommended by AWWA, CalWEP (California Water Efficiency Partnership – formerly CUWCC), DWR, and others – success seen from previous implementation and/or pilot studies • New and innovative measures – creates new water savings opportunities • Equitability among customer categories – promotes accessibility for all customers to participate • Customer demographics – to align measure offerings with customer needs In addition, this section identifies and prioritizes the conservation programs and projects by cost effectiveness, quantifiable water savings, and compliance with American Water Works Association G480 Water Conservation Program Operation and Management Standard (G480 Standard). The G480 Standard is defined on the AWWA web page as follows:

5.1 Measure Selection for Conservation Program Alternatives Using the data gathered, MWM created a list of all potential program concepts that were appropriate for the City service area to meet future regulatory and conservation compliance mandates. The list included existing program elements and traditional conservation measures as well as concepts that had yet to be implemented or considered by the City. Factors for determining which measure should be in each program included budgeting, feasibility to implement the program, and the time at which each measure would need to be introduced to promote conservation efforts. Programs also needed to address water conservation across all relevant customer categories. These program scenarios were not intended to be rigid but rather to demonstrate the range in savings that could be generated if selected measures were run at the same time.

When programs were analyzed, any overlap in water savings (and benefits) from individual measures was considered to provide a total combined water savings (and benefits).

Programs A, B and C involve the following measures:
• Program A (Current): Current conservation program with no changes; includes 11 measures.

Rebate: Irrigation
Conversion (Spray to Drip)
Enforcement: Outdoor
Water Waste
Leak Detection and Alerts:

Toilet Flow Sensors
Rebate: Landscape Conversion
(Cash for Grass)
Public Messaging and
Education Water Audits: Indoor
and Outdoor Residential
Water Audits: Indoor and …
Compliance: CA Water
Budgeting (Dedicated …
Water Neutrality Direct
Install: Indoor Devices
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume in 2035
($/AF)
Cumulative Projected Water Savings in 2035 (AF)

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 30
• Program B (Strategic): This is the recommended program selected by the City including 13 measures. In addition to nine existing measures from Program A, Program B includes four new measures that the City is already in progress on or plans to start soon:
o Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) for Leak Detection o Direct Install of Irrigation Devices
o Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Water Audits (CII), Indoor and Outdoor o Water Budgeting (Dedicated Irrigation Meters)
These additional measures are a high priority for the City to implement due to several factors such as cost effectiveness, community benefits, and legislative compliance. However, the availability of staff bandwidth may present a challenge to implement all four additional measures.

Program B does not include two current measures from Program A due to high costs and low savings: Spray to Drip Rebate and Outdoor Water Waste Enforcement.
• Program C (All-Inclusive): This program includes all modeled measures, which includes all 11 from Program A and the four new additional measures from Program B. In addition, Program C includes a new Toilet Flow Sensors for Leak Detection measure, for a total of 16 measures.

Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1 summarize the three program alternatives:

Table 5-1. Measures by Program
Measure Name New
Program
A
Current
B
Strategic
C
AllInclusive

1. Leak Detection and Alerts: Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)   

2. Leak Detection and Alerts: Toilet Flow Sensors  

3. Free Water Saving Devices   

4. Public Messaging and Education   

5. Rebate: Toilets (Residential)   

6. Rebate: Toilet/Urinals (CII)   

7. Rebate: Clothes Washers (Residential)   

8. Rebate: Commercial Equipment (CII)   

9. Rebate: Irrigation Conversion (Spray to Drip)  

10. Rebate: Landscape Conversion (Cash for Grass)   

11. Water Neutrality Direct Install: Indoor Devices   

12. Direct Install: Irrigation Devices   

13. Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor Residential   

14. Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor CII   

15. Enforcement: Outdoor Water Waste  

16. Compliance: CA Water Budgeting (Dedicated Irrigation Meters)   

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 31

5.2 Conservation Program Analysis
Table 5-2 shows the estimated annual savings in five-year increments for all three programs, as well as the present value of water savings and utility costs. Program B has the lowest cost per unit of water saved, making it the most cost effective of the three programs. Program C offers a little more water savings, but at a higher cost. Overall, all three programs reduce demand significantly compared to demand without conservation (Figure 5-2).

Table 5-2. Water Savings and Costs of Evaluated Water Conservation Programs Water Savings Program A
(Current)
Program B
(Strategic)
Program C
(All-Inclusive)
Year MGY AFY % of
demand MGY AFY % of demand MGY AFY % of demand
2025 77 236 2.2% 101 310 2.8% 106 327 3.0%
2030 162 496 4.6% 255 782 7.3% 264 810 7.6%
2035 220 675 6.5% 330 1013 9.7% 340 1043 10.0%
2040 241 740 7.1% 300 922 8.9% 310 953 9.2%
2045 243 747 7.4% 301 924 9.1% 311 956 9.4%
Lifetime Present Value of
Water Savings (2023-
2045)
$8,075,000 $11,301,000 $11,704,000
Lifetime Present Value of
Utility Costs (2023-2045) $13,873,000 $13,001,000 $18,699,000 Water Utility Average Cost
of
Water Saved (2023-2045)
$3,290/MG $1,070/AF $2,250/MG $730/AF $3,120/MG $1,020/AF 2024-2028 Average
Annual Utility Cost $980,000 $932,000 $1,331,000
Notes:

2. Program savings do not include savings from plumbing codes.

3. Costs are attributable only to the utility’s conservation team.

4. Present value costs and savings are rounded to the nearest $1,000.

5. Water utility cost of water saved is rounded to the nearest $10.

6. 2024-2028 average annual cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.

7. 2024-2028 average annual utility cost for all three programs includes all direct City costs but does not include any costs related to partners’ programs or grants.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 32
Figure 5-1. Conservation Programs Comparison Summary

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 33
Figure 5-2. Water Demand with Different Program Options It is best practice to use an average of multiple years and not start a demand forecast on a single abnormal year which can reflect a drought year, or a high water use year. The years 2020-2021 were pandemic and drought years for the City. Therefore, the average baseline demand in Figure 5-2 for the first year of the projection (2023) is an average of 2017- 2019 and 2022 water consumption data. This methodology explains the gap observed between historical demand ending in 2022 and the baseline demand in 2023 in Figure 5-2.

Figures 5-3 presents estimated average per capita per day demand including plumbing code and active conservation. Active conservation results from the effort of water providers and their customers, in other words actively implementing and participating in conservation measures. On the other hand, passive conservation, otherwise known as plumbing code savings, results from the natural replacement of fixtures and appliances due to local, state, and national plumbing codes and standards.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 34
Figure 5-3. GPCD Demand

5.3 Selected Program B (Strategic)
Current conditions have encouraged the City to implement Strategic Program B and pursue the additional measures in Program C only as needed to achieve their water use objective or if drought conditions return and call for more drastic conservation measures.

However, water use in a service area is very dynamic and responds to changes in population, economy, weather, efficiency of devices, and types of industry. In the future, as the Santa Monica community evolves and water use patterns and weather change, there remains the possibility that the City will elect to adjust measure implementation targets and schedules. This may include expounding upon, or scaling back, various program components and measures to increase efficiency; meet benefit-cost ratios; adopt better technology or methods; or meet budget and staffing restrictions.

Whether additional measures become necessary would be dependent on several factors, including potential future drought conditions; compliance with the annual aggregate water use objectives as provided by the state; and the City’s ability to support new and more innovative programs. With individual measures clearly defined and water saving objectives and customer target goals measurable, the City has quantifiable performance goals to track on both an individual measure and overall program level basis.

Program B has the highest cost-effectiveness of the three programs, offering the most water savings per unit cost. Program B was also selected because many of the current measures and the additional measures could be reasonably accomplished with existing staffing supplemented with contracted services or consulting assistance. Program B also excludes measures that, through this Plan analysis, have been determined to be a cost burden for little savings. Program C offers little more savings for more cost to both the City’s water utility and City customers. The additional measures in Program C can be pursued if the current drought continues and more drastic conservation measures are required.

The estimated cost to the City to implement the Strategic Program B as described in the Plan is approximately $932,000/year for 2024-2028. The costs include utility expenses (materials, rebates, giveaways, admin etc.). Costs covered by MWD and other partners are not included. The opportunities for cost sharing partnership with other utilities (energy, sewer, or

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 35
neighboring water utilities), or other means for lowering the cost of a conservation measure, will lower the budgetary needs for implementation.

Overall conclusions for the Plan’s selected Program B (Strategic) are depicted in Figure 5-4.

Figure 5-4. Program B (Strategic) Results Summary

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 36
Table 5-3. Program B (Strategic) Water Demand, Savings, GPCD, and Costs Program B
(Strategic) Population Water Demand Water Savings 3,4 Total GPCD Utility
Program
Costs
Utility
Admin
Costs
Total
Utility Cost
(Program +
Admin)
Year MG AF MG AF % of
demand Gallons Program Cost6
Program
Cost6 Program Cost6
Baseline 1,2 92,408 2 3,599 1 11,045 1 N/A N/A N/A 108 1 - - - 2023 92,412 3,572 10,963 26 81 0.7% 106 $727,000 $304,000 $1,032,000 2024 95,377 3,564 10,938 58 179 1.6% 102 $842,000 $363,000 $1,206,000 2025 98,342 3,545 10,880 101 310 2.8% 99 $922,000 $406,000 $1,328,000 2026 101,307 3,526 10,821 145 444 4.1% 95 $961,000 $448,000 $1,409,000 2027 104,272 3,508 10,766 188 578 5.4% 92 $965,000 $448,000 $1,413,000 2028 107,237 3,512 10,778 211 648 6.0% 90 $969,000 $448,000 $1,417,000 2029 110,202 3,517 10,794 233 716 6.6% 87 $973,000 $448,000 $1,421,000 2030 111,143 3,488 10,705 255 782 7.3% 86 $973,000 $448,000 $1,422,000 2035 115,848 3,387 10,393 330 1013 9.7% 80 $977,000 $448,000 $1,425,000 2040 119,704 3,385 10,387 300 922 8.9% 77 $892,000 $405,000 $1,298,000 2045 120,034 3,299 10,125 301 924 9.1% 75 $889,000 $404,000 $1,294,000 Totals (2023-2045)7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $21,124,000 $9,610,000 $30,734,000 Averages
(2023-2045)7 N/A 3,434 MGY 10,538 AFY 252 MGY 772 AFY 7.3% 84 GPCD $918,000/YR $418,000/YR $1,336,000/YR Notes:

1. Baselines for Water Demand and GPCD are the average annual for the years 2017-2019 and 2022.

2. Baseline for Population is for the year 2022.

3. Water savings are relative to the baseline demand of 3,599 MGY (11,045 AFY).

4. Program savings do not include savings from plumbing codes.

5. Costs are attributable only to the utility’s conservation team.

6. Utility program costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.

7. Totals and averages are for the complete modeling period (2023-2045). Not all years are included in this table.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 37
6 PROGRAM B IMPLEMENTATION
This section presents an overview of the conservation planning options proposed for the City, including budgeting, data monitoring strategies, an implementation schedule and staffing needs. Conservation is the least expensive means of meeting future water supply needs for the area. The implementation of these conservation measures should reduce per capita water use and have the potential to defer the need for further infrastructure expansion. While the conservation actions identified can have a significant cost, the cost of not doing conservation and having to address increased demands through engineering solutions are even higher. Furthermore, with climate change, long-term drought, and environmental restrictions on the delivery of imported water, additional water supplies may not be available to meet future increases in demands without conservation.

6.1 Implementation Costs and Schedule
Table 6-1 (following page) depicts the modeled labor (FTEs) and utility expense to implement Program B (Strategic) through 2028. Expenses for each measure are calculated from the fully burdened Water Resources Specialist FTE cost and device and material expenses. In addition, individual measure cost is based on target implementation metrics. For example, some measures are based on a percentage of accounts and therefore may grow or decline as the customer populations change, while others are based on the number of accounts and may therefore remain steady.

Figure 6-1 presents an implementation schedule for each individual measure in Program B (Strategic) illustrated through 2040, with arrows indicating which measures extend through 2045. A description of each measure can be found in Table 4-

1. 7.A.g
Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) Table 6.1 Program B (Strategic): Total Modeled Utility Expenses Through 2028 City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 38
Annual Labor + Expense
Full Time Equivalent (FTEs)
Conservation Measure Activity FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Community and
Education
Leak Detection and Alerts: AMI $0 $0 $79,280 $81,790 $84,310 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.25
Free Water Saving Devices $22,190 $22,190 $22,190 $22,190 $22,190

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Public Messaging and Education $47,110 $47,110 $47,110 $47,110 $47,110

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Community and Education Total $128,130 $128,130 $165,780 $168,320 $170,850

0.35 0.35 0.6 0.6 0.6
Residential
Rebate: Residential Toilets $39,200 $39,200 $39,200 $39,200 $39,200

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Rebate: Residential Clothes
Washers
$16,430 $16,430 $16,430 $16,430 $16,430

0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Water Audits: Indoor and
Outdoor Residential
$96,180 $96,180 $96,180 $96,180 $96,180

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Water Neutrality Direct Install
(residential + commercial)
$126,600 $126,600 $126,600 $126,600 $126,600

0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Residential Total $430,160 $430,160 $430,160 $430,160 $430,160

0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Commercial,
Industrial,
Institutional
Rebate: CII Toilet and Urinals $41,270 $41,230 $41,190 $41,160 $41,120

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Rebate: Commercial Equipment $4,220 $4,220 $4,220 $4,220 $4,220

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Water Audits: Indoor and
Outdoor CII
$72,540 $72,480 $72,410 $72,350 $72,280

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Commercial, Industrial,
Institutional Total
$143,180 $143,060 $142,940 $142,820 $142,690

0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
Irrigation
Direct Install: Irrigation Devices $42,200 $42,200 $42,200 $42,200 $42,200

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Rebate: Landscape Conversion
(Cash for Grass)
$334,390 $334,810 $335,240 $335,660 $336,090

0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
Compliance: CA Water Budgeting
(Dedicated Irrigation Meters)
$0 $79,410 $80,530 $81,650 $82,770
0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Irrigation Total $504,210 $626,350 $628,000 $629,660 $631,310

0.76 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 39
Figure 6-1. Program B (Strategic): Implementation Schedule (2023-2040+) Notes:

1. This schedule only includes the 13 measures in Program B (Strategic).

2. Conservation measures are described in Table 4-1.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 40

6.2 Staffing for Modeled Programs and Future Legislation Compliance As part of the analysis, staffing needs for each of the conservation programs was considered. Annual staff needed and recommended for Program B is displayed in Figure 6-2. The City is currently running their conservation program with 2 FTE staff (a Senior Sustainability Analyst and a Water Resources Specialist). The City will need to increase the FTE water conservation team by at least two staff with water conservation experience (for a total of 4 FTEs) to implement Program B and to address future legislation compliance (see section 6.2.1 below for details).

Figure 6-2. Program B Staffing: Modeled and Additional Recommended (2023-2045)

6.2.1 Recommended Staffing for Program B
To implement Program B along with the state legislative framework measures and reporting required by SB 606 and AB 1668 (see Figure 6-3), the City will require at least two additionalstaff to supplement the modeled FTEs. Thus, the minimum total FTEs recommended for Program B is four (two modeled, plus two recommended additions).

As the regulations have yet to be finalized (see Table 2-1), modelling the draft framework measures was outside of the scope of this Plan. However, the additional draft measures primarily target CII Best Management Practices (BMPs) and performance standards. Dependent on the track selected, by 2025, suppliers must design a conservation program for the top 20% of CII accounts, by consumption, in each of up to 22 categories, depending on what is present in the service area, as well as programs for those in the top 2.5% of water use. Additional measures include initial and ongoing CII classification, identifying disclosable buildings and conducting annual reporting on their water use, implementing a ban on irrigation of non-functional turf, mandatory conversion of mixed-use meters to dedicated irrigation meters, and starting in 2028, calculating and reporting the CII dedicated irrigation meter water use.

MWM has and continues to intensely monitor, track, and provide feedback on the development of the state legislative framework regulations, and fully understands the significant impact that compliance will have on water agencies’ staff and resources. Thus, given the regulations’ heavy burden on additional program design, implementation, and reporting–-even without modelling--MWM recommends two additional FTEs to implement the extra measures needed to comply with the State water conservation framework regulations. This additional staff will provide resources to enhance the effectiveness of Program B’s measures as well.

Table 6-1 below outlines the recommended City staffing necessary to support Program B.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 41
Table 6-2. Recommended Staffing for Program B (Strategic) FTEs Title Core Responsibilities
1 Water Conservation Coordinator
(Existing – Reclassify from
Senior Sustainability Analyst)
• Oversee management of program and measures.
• Annual work plan development.
• State regulation tracking/compliance reporting.
• Implement and lead new, selected, and CA regulation measures. • Supervisory and budgeting.
1 Water Resources Specialist
(Existing)
• Landscape rebate lead.
• Landscape inspections for Green Building Ordinance and rebates. • Landscape rebate administration, application tracking. • Water Use Consultations.
• AMI leak outreach.
1 Sustainability Analyst
(NEW)
• Water Neutrality and Landscape plan checks.
• State regulation tracking/compliance reporting support. • Implement selected measures, including extra CA regulation measures. 1 Sustainability Analyst
(NEW)
• Outreach and marketing lead: social media posts, etc. • Website content migration and updates.
• State regulation tracking/compliance reporting support. • Implement selected measures, including extra CA regulation measures. • AMI leak outreach.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 42
Figure 6-3. State Regulations Implementation Timeline
Figure 6-3 illustrates the reporting timelines and objectives related to “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life” as of March 1, 2024. However, it cannot capture the full scope and depth of the requirements, including the practical design and manual implementation of specific conservation measures tailored to dozens of CII customer classifications with high water use. The legislative requirements also entail initial and ongoing classification of CII customer accounts, a process without end as businesses continue to change.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 43

6.3 2024-2030 Implementation: Strategic Recommendations Strategic recommendations to assist implementing Program B over the next five years are as follows:
• Consider hiring two additional FTEs to implement additional measures needed to comply with the forthcoming State water conservation framework regulations and to enhance current measures. • Prioritize measures that contribute the most to meeting water conservation targets and are relatively easy to operate with limited staff.
• Identify and target measures to the largest 100 water using customers to reduce their demand. • Develop an annual work plan for each plan year as soon as the budget is adopted (or in concert with the budget planning process).
• Form partnerships and apply for grants where appropriate. • Define steps for each measure in the work plan detailing how it will be implemented. • Track water use each month by customer class and overall per capita water use. Use the Data Collection Workbook to enter data or an online tool (e.g., WaterViewTM by Eagle Aerial). • Use aerial imagery tools (e.g., WaterViewTM by Eagle Aerial) to identify areas of turf grass to target outreach for landscape conversion rebates and removal of non-functional turf grass. • Employ a SaaS tool (e.g., ConserveTrack by RightThere, LLC) to track measure progress, including participation, cost, projected water savings, and other data to gauge successes and areas that need improvement/added attention.
• Consider conducting a device potentiality study to determine market saturation of installed indoor high-efficiency fixtures (toilets, showerheads, aerators, clothes washers) to inform rebate and direct install programs. • Continue enforcing existing City ordinances that reduce water use as previously required by the statewide drought emergency declaration (recently lifted) and the Governor’s Executive Orders (e.g., only serving water upon request, no watering for 48 hours after a rain event).
• Annually update the Plan, including individual measure participation and savings, overall projected water savings, and projected per capita water use reductions, to ensure the City is on track to meet conservation goals. • Consider launching pilot studies for new measures.
• Consider soliciting and tracking community input and feedback via online or phone surveys or at outreach and education events.
• Continue to utilize the information and support offered to urban water agencies provided by CalWEP and AWE. • As a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency WaterSense Partner take advantage of their many resources including outreach in the form of infographics, videos, template press releases, social media graphics, advertisements, bill stuffers and more.

6.4 Suggestions for Future DSS Model Updates
There are two types of updates envisioned for the DSS Model: 1) regular monitoring of costs and water savings; and 2) model recalibrations with updated base year data and model inputs and assumptions. The following describes each type of update in more detail:
• Annual model monitoring updates. The conservation measure worksheets can be used to track actual activities and compare them to the planned activities defined as part of the model development for this program. It is recommended that this update be done in conjunction with the development of an annual work plan and budget.

At minimum, it should happen every 3-5 years.
• Recalibration of the baseline. The DSS Model baseline demand is the average annual demand of 2017-2019 and 2022. Depending on actual water demand and account growth rates, it is advisable to update the baseline on a

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 44
five-year basis. This update requires reviewing historical demand trends, future population and demand forecasts, fixture models calibration, new or updated conservation measures, and cost and water savings assumptions.

Specific triggers for updates may include:
• Significant shift in the cost of water (more than 10-20% energy or chemical cost increase or decrease would modify the DSS Model savings worksheet and change the benefit-cost ratios). • Significant change in population accounts for one of the billing categories (more than a 5% shift). • Significant changes to the water system balance (e.g., more than 10% change in water losses or other parameter on the Demands Section of the DSS Model).
• New codes or regulations that affect natural replacement rates of fixtures. • New codes or regulations that affect conservation goals or requirements (historically including but not limited to SB 555, AB 1668, SB 606, SB 1157).
• Alternatives for staffing versus outsourced contracting or other changes to cost of implementation of a conservation measure (change to conservation measure DSS Model worksheet only). • New technologies for the conservation measure being considered (change or addition of new conservation measure DSS Model worksheet).
• Any other change in conservation measures (i.e., updates to the DSS Model measure worksheets can be changed or modified at any time without altering the water system balance worksheets or affecting fixture model calibration).

6.5 Recommended Funding Sources and Partnerships
It is recommended the City seek out additional funding sources and partnership opportunities both nationally and regionally to supplement or expand the conservation measures with high potential for water savings in the City.

Partnership and funding sources may include the following:
• City Water Enterprise Fund
• City Water Neutrality Offset Fees
• MWD Member Agency Administered Program funds
• State and federal grants
• MWD programs to achieve regional water conservation goals for minimum cost and maximize outreach and customer awareness and/or participation amongst its member agencies.

6.6 Track and Update for New Codes and Emerging Technologies Tracking changes in the consumer marketplace for the vast array of water-using appliances and plumbing fixtures in both the residential and commercial sectors is challenging. The following are options for tracking the latest in national standards and building codes as well as technologies and emerging trends in customer preferences:
• The governor signed SB 606 and AB 1668 into state law to create a more permanent conservation standard as part of implementing the “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life” legislation. City staff should track development of the DWR framework into new state mandates for 2024 and beyond and update this Plan as necessary to comply with those new mandates.
• Engage in state processes to establish the requirement associated with implementation of legislation. Review state documents, present key information to City stakeholders and receive feedback, submit written comments as needed, and participate in public workshops and stakeholder groups. • Participate on the AWWA Water Conservation Division’s committees with attendance at the Annual Conference Committee meetings and conference calls, in particular the Water Efficiency Programs and Technology Committee.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 45
• Monitor the Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) for updates on changes in National Standards and Codes as well as opportunities to comment on future national changes to codes and regulations. • Track the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WaterSense new technologies and updated equipment lists of newly labeled products and services.6 Frequently, AWE or CalWEP have performance testing results posted on their websites that provide very useful information to consumers. Performance information may also be available through Consumer Reports or Consortium for Energy Efficiency (http://www.cee1.org). • Attend the WaterSmart Innovations Conference and CalWEP Plenaries for exposure to the vendors participating in the exhibition and information on emerging trends in water conservation programs. • Maintain and use a network of 10-20 key contacts at progressive utilities to inquire about new technologies (e.g., through known contacts or new contacts made at conferences). • Attend events with other partner utilities and applicable stakeholders on related water loss control programs or conservation measures.

Staying on or ahead of the curve with tracking new technologies could lead to water savings through incentive programs.

Emerging products may be worthy of pilot programs and potentially attractive for grant funding through agencies like the U.S. EPA or U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. However, precautions should be taken prior to adopting new technologies that have yet to be adequately researched or tested.

6.7 Tracking and Monitoring Progress
It will be imperative to track the Program’s measures to ensure that the Plan is being implemented effectively and on target to meet its water conservation goals. Key components of tracking and monitoring are depicted in Figure 6-4 below. As new and promising technologies and methodologies emerge, they should be researched and tested and could replace measures that are underachieving.
6 https://www.epa.gov/watersense/watersense-products

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 46
Figure 6-4. Program Tracking and Monitoring
At the time this report was published, the City has elected to utilize two third party Software as a Service (SaaS) tools to track and monitor individual measure implementation:
• ConserveTrack by RightThere, LLC helps administer and track program implementation via “cases” (a customer engagement in a program) and “steps” (the sequence of actions for each program). ConserveTrack also tracks program metrics to calculate water savings for each measure. • WaterView™ (Eagle Aerial) is a water efficiency and data management SaaS custom-designed to help water agencies meet the state water conservation framework requirements under SB606 & AB1668 and comply with the new efficiency standards. It uses aerial photography, sophisticated image analysis to identify landscape types, actual water use data, and other tools to target high impact water conservation actions and to help comply with state regulations.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 47
7 REFERENCES
All links were accessed February 2024 unless otherwise indicated.

Alliance for Water Efficiency. (2016). The Status of Legislation, Regulation, Codes & Standards on Indoor Plumbing Water Efficiency. http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/Codes-Standards-White-Paper.aspx American Water Works Association (AWWA). G480 Standard and AWE Leaderboard web page. https://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/resources/topic/g480-standard-and-awe-leaderboard Ibid. (2017). M52 Water Conservation Programs – A Planning Manual, 2nd Edition. https://www.awwa.org/Store/ProductDetails/productId/61841578 California Department of Water Resources. (2015). Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations?guid=I55B69DB0D45A11DEA95 CA4428EC25FA0&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) California Department of Water Resources et al. (2018). Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life: Primer of 2018 Legislation on Water Conservation and Drought Planning Senate Bill 606 (Hertzberg) and Assembly Bill 1668 (Friedman). https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Make-WaterConservation-A-California-Way-of-Life/Files/PDFs/Final-WCL-Primer.pdf California Department of Water Resources. Water Use Efficiency. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-AndEfficiency California Energy Commission. (2022). Appliance Efficiency Regulations, California Code of Regulations, Title 20, Sections 1601-1609, Toilet, Urinal, Faucet, and Showerhead Regulations. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=206010 Ibid. (2013). Analysis of Standards Proposal for Residential Faucets and Faucet Accessories, Docket #12-AAER-2C, prepared by Energy Solutions and Natural Resources Defense Council. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=71714&DocumentContentId=8058 Ibid. (2014). Staff Analysis of Toilets, Urinals and Faucets, Report # CEC-400-2014-007-SD. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=203718&DocumentContentId=11538 California Executive Order B-37-16. (2016).
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/docs/5_9_16_eo_b37_16.pdf California Green (CALGreen) Building Standards 2022 Code, effective January 1, 2023. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen
California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC, now California Water Efficiency Partnership). (2005). Best Management Practices (BMP) Cost and Savings Study. https://owl.cwp.org/mdocs-posts/an-technical-services-2005/ California Water Efficiency Partnership (formerly CUWCC) Website. https://calwep.org/ California State Legislature. Assembly Bill 715 (Laird), October 11, 2007. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200720080AB715 Ibid. Assembly Bill 1668 (Friedman), May 31, 2018.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1668 Ibid. Senate Bill 1157 (Hertzberg), September 28, 2022. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB1157 Ibid. Senate Bill 407 (Padilla), October 11, 2009.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200920100SB407 Ibid. Senate Bill 555 (Wolk), October 9, 2015.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB555

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 48
Ibid. Senate Bill 606 (Hertzberg), May 31, 2018.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB606 Ibid. Senate Bill 837 (Blakeslee), July 1, 2011.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB837 City of Santa Monica. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://santamonica.gov/media/Users/smgov_5Calfredo_2Egonzalez/WRPP/2020_UWMP.pdf Ibid. 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan.
https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Public_Works/Water/SWMP.pdf Consortium for Efficient Energy website. https://www.cee1.org/ DeOreo, W.B. (2016). Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2 – 4309. Denver, Colorado: AWWA Research Foundation. https://www.waterrf.org/research/projects/residential-end-uses-water-version-2 DeOreo, W.B., P.W. Mayer, Leslie Martien, Matthew Hayden, Andrew Funk, Michael Kramer-Duffield, Renee Davis, James Henderson, Bob Raucher, Peter Gleick, and Matt Heberger. (2011). California Single-Family Water Use Efficiency Study.

Sacramento, California: Department of Water Resources.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/hearings/byron_bethany/docs/exhibits/pt/wr71.p df
Dziegielewski, B., J. C. Kiefer, W. DeOreo, P. Mayer, E. M. Opitz, G. A. Porter, G. L. Lantz, and J. O. Nelson. (2000).

Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water. Denver, Colorado: AWWA, Research Foundation and American Water Works Association with Cooperation of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Catalog No.90806. 264 pp. ISBN 1-58321-035-0. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WC13511002/00001
Energy Star. (2011). Unit Shipment and Market Penetration Report Calendar Year 2011 Summary. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/downloads/unit_shipment_data/2011_USD_Summary_Report.pdf Federal Regulations. (2022). Subpart O – Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves, 87 FR 13910, as amended Mar. 11, 2022. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-10/chapter-II/subchapter-D/part-431/subpart-O GMP Research, Inc. (2019). 2019 U.S. WaterSense Market Penetration Industry Report, commissioned by Plumbing Manufacturers International. https://www.safeplumbing.org/files/safeplumbing.org/documents/misc/7-1-19- WaterSense-2019-Report.pdf
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Energy Division. (1998). “Bern Clothes Washer Study, Final Report,” prepared for U.S.

Department of Energy. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc691712/ State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). California Statutes web page (defining “Making Conservation a California Way of Life”). https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/california_statutes.html U.S. Census Bureau. Explore Census Data web page. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Ibid. 2010 Census Data web page. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/data/datasets.2010.html U.S. Congress. Energy Policy Act of 1992; amended in 2005. https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/housebill/776/text/enr; https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-energy-policy-act; https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-109hr6enr.pdf U.S. Department of Energy. EnergyStar Calculators. Online: https://www.energystar.gov/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. WaterSense Products. Online: https://www.epa.gov/watersense/watersenseproducts Ibid. WaterSense Partners. https://www.epa.gov/watersense/join-watersense#utilities

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 49
APPENDIX A. DSS MODEL DESCRIPTION AND ASSUMPTIONS
DSS Model Overview: The Demand Side Management Least Cost Planning Decision Support System (DSS Model) as shown in the left figure is used to prepare long-range, detailed demand projections. The purpose of the extra detail is to enable a more accurate assessment of the impact of water efficiency programs on demand and to provide a rigorous and defensible modeling approach necessary for projects subject to regulatory or environmental review.

Originally developed in 1999 and continuously updated, the DSS Model is an “end-use” model that breaks down total water production (water demand in the service area) to specific water end uses, such as plumbing fixtures and appliance uses. The model uses a bottom-up approach that allows for multiple criteria to be considered when estimating future demands, such as the effects of natural fixture replacement, plumbing codes, and conservation efforts. The DSS Model may also use a top-down approach with a utility-prepared water demand forecast.

Demand Forecast Development and Model Calibration: To forecast urban water demands using the DSS Model, customer demand data is obtained from the water agency being modeled. Demand data is reconciled with available demographic data to characterize water usage for each customer category in terms of number of users per account and per capita water use. Data is further analyzed to approximate the split of indoor and outdoor water usage in each customer category. The indoor/outdoor water usage is further divided into typical end uses for each customer category. Published data on average per capita indoor water use and average per capita end use is combined with the number of water users to calibrate the volume of water allocated to specific end uses in each customer category. In other words, the DSS Model checks those social norms from end studies on water use behavior (e.g., flushes per person per day) are not exceeded or drop below reasonable use limits.

Passive Water Savings Calculations: The DSS Model is used to forecast service area water fixture use. Specific end-use type, average water use, and lifetime are compiled for each fixture. Additionally, state, and national plumbing codes and appliance standards are modeled by customer category. These fixtures and plumbing codes can be added to, edited, or deleted by the user. This process yields two demand forecasts, one with plumbing codes and one without plumbing codes.

Active Conservation Measure Analysis Using Benefit-Cost Analysis: The DSS Model evaluates active conservation measures using benefit-cost analysis with the present value of the cost of water saved ($/Million Gallons or $/Acre-Feet). Benefits are based on savings in water and wastewater facility operations and maintenance (O&M) and any deferred capital expenditures. The figures on the previous page illustrate the processes for forecasting conservation water savings, including the impacts of fixture replacement due to existing plumbing codes and standards.

Water
Demand
Projection
Development
Water
Demand
Breakdown by
End Use
Impact of
Water
Efficiency
Measures on
Each End Use
Benefit-Cost
Analysis and
Conservation
Program
Selection
Total Demand
Reductions
from
Conservation
Agency Info Edit
Model Setup Edit
Production Edit
Consumption Data Edit
Historical Demographics Edit
Growth Projections Edit
Data Collection Hide
Base Year Profile Edit
NRW Edit
Regression Data Edit
End Uses Edit
Codes and Standards Edit
Water Demand Scenario Edit
Service Area Calibration Edit
Demand Projections Edit
Demand Analysis Hide
Settings and Targets Edit
Avoided Costs Edit
Conservation Measures Edit
Program Scenarios Edit
Final Check Edit
Conservation Analysis Hide
Tables and Figures Edit
Results Hide
Figure A-1. DSS Model Main Page

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 50
Figure A-2. Sample Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary
Model Use and Validation: The DSS Model has been used for over 20 years for practical applications of conservation planning in over 300 service areas representing 60 million people, including extensive efforts nationally and internationally in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The California Water Efficiency Partnership, or CalWEP, has peer reviewed and endorsed the model since 2006. It is offered to all CalWEP members for use to estimate water demand, plumbing code, and conservation program savings.

The DSS Model can use one of the following: 1) a statistical approach to forecast demands (e.g., an econometric model); 2) a forecasted increase in population and employment; 3) predicted future demands; or 4) a demand projection entered into the model from an outside source. For the City, baseline demand was developed based on an increase in residential population and to align with the 2020 UWMP. The following figure presents the flow of information in the DSS Model Analysis.

Measure
Present
Value of
Water
Utility
Benefits
Present
Value of
Community
Benefits
Present
Value of
Water
Utility
Costs
Present
Value of
Community
Costs
Water
Utility
Benefit to
Cost Ratio
Community
Benefit to
Cost Ratio
Five Years
of Water
Utility
Costs 2023-
2028
Water
Savings in
2035 (mgd)
Cost of
Savings
per Unit
Volume
($/mg)
1 Leak Detection and Alerts $263,774 $445,424 $535,684 $3,850,355 0.49 0.12 $77,076 0.021365 $3,814 2 Leak Detection and Alerts $222,198 $407,049 $2,138,428 $3,197,055 0.10 0.13 $580,389 0.015185 $19,077 3 Free Water Saving Device $274,278 $651,707 $314,118 $389,613 0.87 1.67 $110,968 0.017143 $2,374 4 Public Messaging and Ed $328,378 $722,192 $667,244 $667,244 0.49 1.08 $235,559 0.018369 $4,385 5 Rebate: Toilets (Residenti $522,451 $522,451 $555,249 $1,971,700 0.94 0.26 $196,021 0.038057 $1,917 6 Rebate: Toilet/Urinals (Co $762,972 $762,972 $574,596 $1,125,272 1.33 0.68 $206,150 0.055824 $1,372 7 Rebate: Clothes Washers $237,513 $815,092 $232,633 $807,037 1.02 1.01 $82,127 0.018274 $1,916 8 Rebate: Commercial Equi $514,669 $615,675 $59,783 $1,553,491 8.61 0.40 $21,105 0.039467 $226 9 Rebate: Irrigation Convers $96,017 $96,017 $2,010,084 $2,657,174 0.05 0.04 $708,044 0.007416 $40,140 10 Rebate: Landscape Conve $470,019 $470,019 $4,755,195 $6,890,592 0.10 0.07 $1,674,067 0.037671 $18,561 11 Water Neutrality Direct Ins $3,872,884 $7,480,074 $1,793,120 $1,793,120 2.16 4.17 $633,029 0.310533 $869 12 Direct Install: Irrigation De $562,930 $562,930 $555,526 $555,526 1.01 1.01 $168,814 0.046989 $1,844 13 Water Audits: Indoor and $1,052,107 $1,941,722 $1,362,246 $1,502,973 0.77 1.29 $480,917 0.066705 $2,660 14 Water Audits: Indoor and $1,471,959 $2,925,040 $937,454 $1,898,946 1.57 1.54 $289,778 0.122827 $1,206 15 Enforcement: Outdoor Wa $123,747 $123,747 $1,649,415 $2,315,448 0.08 0.05 $583,613 0.007320 $28,048 16 Compliance: CA Water Bu $1,330,465 $1,330,465 $658,516 $1,586,167 2.02 0.84 $241,592 0.145892 $1,181 Conservation Measures
Benefit Cost Analysis
Santa Monica
Benefit Cost Analysis
Previous Step Conservation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 B/C Next Step Review Data
Util Cost Five Year Start Year Water Savings Year Units Benefit Cost
Analysis

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 51
Figure A-3. DSS Model Analysis Flow
Irrigation
Commercial
Single Family
Multifamily
Institutional
Base Year
Water Use Projected
Demand
Passive and
Continuing
Conservation
Programs
Forecasts
by Customer
Category
Forecasts
by Indoor/
Outdoor
New
Planned
Conservation
Short-Term
Drought
Recovery
2019-2023
Long-Term
Population/
Employment
Growth
Projections
Demand
Forecast
Results
Customer Categories

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 52

PLUMBING CODE ASSUMPTIONS
This section presents the methodology used to determine the City’s passive water savings, information regarding national and state plumbing codes, and key inputs and assumptions used in the DSS Model including fixture replacement and estimates.

National Plumbing Codes
The Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992, as amended in 2005, mandates that only fixtures meeting the following standards can be installed in new buildings:
• Toilet – 1.6 gal/flush maximum
• Urinals – 1.0 gal/flush maximum
• Showerhead – 2.5 gal/min at 80 pounds per square inch (psi) • Residential faucets – 2.2 gal/min at 60 psi
• Public restroom faucets – 0.5 gal/min at 60 psi
• Dishwashing pre-rinse spray valves – 1.0 to 1.2.8 gal/min dependent on spray force Replacement of fixtures in existing buildings is also governed by the Federal Energy Policy Act, which mandates that only devices with the specified level of efficiency (as shown above) can be sold as of 2006. The net result of the plumbing code is that new buildings will have more efficient fixtures and old inefficient fixtures will slowly be replaced with new, more efficient models. The national plumbing code is an important piece of legislation and must be carefully taken into consideration when analyzing the overall water efficiency of a service area.

In addition to the plumbing code, the U.S. Department of Energy regulates appliances, such as residential clothes washers, further reducing indoor water demands. Regulations to make these appliances more energy efficient have driven manufactures to dramatically reduce the amount of water these machines use. Generally, front-loading washing machines use 30-50% less water than conventional models (which are still available).

In this analysis, the DSS Model forecasts a gradual transition to high efficiency clothes washers (using 12 gallons or less) so that by the year 2025 that will be the only type of machine available for purchase. In addition to the industry becoming more efficient, rebate programs for washers have been successful in encouraging customers to buy more water efficient models. Given that machines last about 10 years, eventually all machines on the market will be the more water efficient models.

Energy Star washing machines have a water factor of 6.0 or less – the equivalent of using 3.1 cubic feet (or 23.2 gallons) of water per load. The maximum water factor for residential clothes washers under current federal standards is 6.5. The water factor equals the number of gallons used per cycle per cubic foot of capacity.

Prior to the year 2000, the water factor for a typical new residential clothes washer was around 12. In March 2015, the federal standard reduced the maximum water factor for top- and front-loading machines to 8.4 and 4.7, respectively. In 2018, the maximum water factor for top-loading machines was further reduced to 6.5. For commercial washers, the maximum water factors were reduced in 2010 to 8.5 and 5.5 for top- and front-loading machines, respectively. Beginning in 2015, the maximum water factor for Energy Star certified washers was 3.7 for front-loading and 4.3 for top-loading machines. In 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that Energy Star washers comprised more that 60% of the residential market and 30% of the commercial market (Energy Star, 2011). A new Energy Star compliant washer uses about two-thirds less water per cycle than washers manufactured in the 1990s.

State Plumbing Codes
This section describes California state codes applicable to the City’s water use.

California State Law – AB 715

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 53
Plumbing codes for toilets, urinals, showerheads, and faucets were initially adopted by California in 1991, mandating the sale and use of ultra-low flush toilets using 1.6 gpf, urinals using 1 gpf, and low-flow showerheads and faucets. AB 715 led to an update to California Code of Regulations Title 20 (see Section C.2.3) mandating that all toilets and urinals sold and installed in California as of January 1, 2014, must be high efficiency versions having flush ratings that do not exceed 1.28 gpf (toilets) and

0.5 gpf (urinals).

California State Laws – SB 407 and SB 837
SB 407 addresses plumbing fixture retrofits on resale or remodel. The DSS Model carefully considers the overlap with SB 407, the plumbing code (natural replacement), CALGreen, AB 715 and rebate programs (such as toilet rebates). SB 407 (enacted in 2009) requires that properties built prior to 1994 be fully retrofitted with water conserving fixtures by the year 2017 for single family residential houses and 2019 for multi-family and commercial properties. SB 407 program length is variable and continues until all the older high flush toilets have been replaced in the service area. The number of accounts with high flow fixtures is tracked to make sure that the situation of replacing more high flow fixtures than exist does not occur. Additionally, SB 407 conditions issuance of building permits for major improvements and renovations upon retrofit of non-compliant plumbing fixtures. SB 837 (enacted in 2011) requires that sellers of real estate property disclose on their Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement whether their property complies with these requirements. Both laws are intended to accelerate the replacement of older, low efficiency plumbing fixtures, and ensure that only high efficiency fixtures are installed in new residential and commercial buildings. 2019 CALGreen and 2020 CA Code of Regulations Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations Fixture characteristics in the DSS Model are tracked in new accounts, which are subject to the requirements of the 2019 California Green Building Code and 2020 California Code of Regulations Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations adopted by the California Energy Commission (CEC) on December 9th, 2020. The CEC 2020 appliance efficiency standards apply to the following new appliances, if they are sold in California: showerheads, lavatory faucets, kitchen faucets, metering faucets, replacement aerators, wash fountains, tub spout diverters, public lavatory faucets, commercial pre‐rinse spray valves, urinals, and toilets. The DSS Model accounts for plumbing code savings resulting from the standards set for showerheads, faucet aerators, urinals, toilets, and clothes washers. • Showerheads – July 2016: 2.0 gpm; July 2018: 1.8 gpm
• Wall Mounted Urinals – January 2016: 0.125 gpf (pint) • Lavatory Faucets and Aerator – July 2016: 1.2 gpm at 60 psi • Kitchen Faucets and Aerator – July 2016: 1.8 gpm with optional temporary flow of 2.2 gpm at 60 psi • Public Lavatory Faucets – July 2016: 0.5 gpm at 60 psi • Commercial Pre-Rinse Spray Valves – January 2019: 1.28 gpm at more than 8.0 ounces per force (ozf) and shall be equipped with an integrated automatic shutoff.

In summary, the controlling law for toilets is Assembly Bill 715, requiring high efficiency toilets of 1.28 gpf sold in California beginning in 2014. The controlling law for wall-mounted urinals is the 2020 California Code of Regulations Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations requiring that ultra-high efficiency pint urinals (0.125 gpf) be exclusively sold in California beginning January 1, 2016. This is an efficiency progression for urinals from AB 715’s requirement of high efficiency (0.5 gpf) urinals starting in 2014.

Standards for residential clothes washers fall under the regulations of the U.S. Department of Energy. In 2018, the maximum water factor for standard top-loading machines was reduced to 6.5.

Showerhead flow rates are regulated under 2020 CEC Title 20 regulations that are exclusively for appliances sold in California. Showerheads manufactured on or after July 1, 2016, and prior to July 1, 2018, should have a flow rate no higher than 2.0 gpm at 80 psi. Showerheads manufactured on or after July 1, 2018, should have a flow rate no higher than 1.8 gpm at 80 psi. The WaterSense specification applies to showerheads that have a maximum flow rate of 2.0 gpm or less. This represents a 20% reduction in showerhead flow rate over the current federal standard of 2.5 gpm, as specified by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

Faucet flow rates have likewise been regulated by the 2020 CEC Title 20 regulations exclusively for appliances sold in California. Residential faucets and aerators manufactured on or after July 1, 2016, should have a flow rate no greater than

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 54

1.2 gpm at 60 psi. Public lavatory and kitchen faucets/aerators sold or offered for sale on or after July 1, 2016, should have a flow rate no greater than 0.5 gpm at 60 psi, and 1.8 gpm with optional temporary flow of 2.2 gpm at 60 psi, respectively.

Previously, all faucets were regulated by the 2010 California Green Building Code at 2.2 gpm at 60 psi.

Commercial Pre-Rinse Spray Valves flow rates have been regulated in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Pre-rinse spray valves manufactured on or after January 28, 2019, shall have a maximum flow rate of 1.28 gpm at more than 8.0 ounces per force (ozf) and shall be equipped with an integrated automatic shutoff.

KEY BASELINE POTABLE DEMAND INPUTS, PASSIVE SAVINGS ASSUMPTIONS, AND

RESOURCES
The following table presents the key assumptions and references that are used in the DSS Model in determining projected demands. The assumptions having the most dramatic effect on future demands are the natural replacement rate of fixtures, how residential or commercial future use is projected, and the percentage of estimated real water losses.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 55
Table A-1. List of Key Assumptions
Parameter Model Input Value, Assumptions, and Key References Model Start Year for Analysis 2023
Water Demand Basis 2017-2019, 2022 (4-year average)
Population Projection Source
Forecasted population data is based on Housing Element projections and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements as provided from City Planning Department. This includes existing and new SF, MF, ADU and group quarters population.

Avoided Cost of Water $3,508/MG
Potable Water System Base Year Water Use Profile
Customer Categories Start Year
Accounts
Start Year Total
Water Use
Distribution
Start Year
Demand Factors
(gpd/acct)
Start Year
Indoor Use %
Single Family Residential 8,098 24% 294 81%
Multi-Family Residential (2022) 6,957 45% 632 97%
Commercial/Industrial 2,227 26% 1,149 93%
Landscape Irrigation 666 4% 663 N/A
Institutional 247 1% 294 76%
Fire 1,321 0% 6 N/A
New Accessory Dwelling Units (post
2023)
1 0% 55 100%
New Multi-Family Residential (post
2023)
1 0% 85 100%
Total/Avg 19,518 100% 397 88%
Table A-2. Key Assumptions Resources
Parameter Resource
Residential End Uses
Key Reference: CA DWR Report “California Single Family Water Use Efficiency Study,” (DeOreo, 2011 – Page 28, Figure 3: Comparison of household end-uses) and AWWA Research Foundation (AWWARF) Report “Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2 – 4309” (DeOreo, 2016).

Table 2-A. Water Consumption by Water-Using Plumbing Products and Appliances – 1980-2012. PERC Phase 1 Report. Plumbing Efficiency Research Coalition. 2013. http://www.map-testing.com/content/info/menu/perc.html Model Input Values are found in the “End Uses” section of the DSS Model on the “Breakdown” worksheet.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 56
Parameter Resource
Non-Residential End
Uses, percent
Key Reference: AWWARF Report “Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water” (Dziegielewski, 2000 – Appendix D: Details of Commercial and Industrial Assumptions, by End Use).

Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Use Efficiency Unit. “SCVWD CII Water Use and Baseline Study.” February 2008.

Model Input Values are found in the “End Uses” section of the DSS Model on the “Breakdown” worksheet.

Efficiency Residential
Fixture Current
Installation Rates
U.S. Census, Housing age by type of dwelling plus natural replacement plus rebate program (if any).

Key Reference: GMP Research, Inc. (2019). 2019 U.S. WaterSense Market Penetration Industry Report.

Key Reference: Consortium for Efficient Energy (www.cee1.org).

Model Input Values are found in the “Codes and Standards” green section of the DSS Model by customer category fixtures.

Water Savings for
Fixtures, gal/capita/day
Key Reference: AWWARF Report “Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2 – 4309” (DeOreo, 2016).

Key Reference: CA DWR Report “California Single Family Water Use Efficiency Study” (DeOreo, 2011 – Page 28, Figure 3: Comparison of household end-uses).

WCWCD supplied data on costs and savings; professional judgment was made where no published data was available.

Key Reference: California Energy Commission, Staff Analysis of Toilets, Urinals and Faucets, Report # CEC-400-2014-007-SD, 2014.

Model Input Values are found in the “Codes and Standards” green section on the “Fixtures” worksheet of the DSS Model.

Non-Residential Fixture
Efficiency Current
Installation Rates
Key Reference: 2010 U.S. Census, Housing age by type of dwelling plus natural replacement plus rebate program (if any). Assume commercial establishments built at same rate as housing, plus natural replacement.

California Energy Commission, Staff Analysis of Toilets, Urinals and Faucets, Report # CEC-400-2014-007-SD, 2014.

Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Use Efficiency Unit. “SCVWD CII Water Use and Baseline Study.” February 2008.

Model Input Values are found in the “Codes and Standards” green section of the DSS Model by customer category fixtures.

Residential Frequency of
Use Data, Toilets,
Showers, Faucets,
Washers, Uses/user/day
Key Reference: AWWARF Report “Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2 – 4309” (DeOreo, 2016). Summary values can be found in the full report:
http://www.waterrf.org/Pages/Projects.aspx?PID=4309
Key Reference: California Energy Commission, Staff Analysis of Toilets, Urinals and Faucets, Report # CEC-400-2014-007-SD, 2014.

Key Reference: Alliance for Water Efficiency, The Status of Legislation, Regulation, Codes & Standards on Indoor Plumbing Water Efficiency, January 2016.

Model Input Values are found in the “Codes and Standards” green section on the “Fixtures” worksheet of the DSS Model and confirmed in each “Service Area Calibration End Use” worksheet by customer category.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 57
Parameter Resource
Non-Residential
Frequency of Use Data,
Toilets, Urinals, and
Faucets, Uses/user/day
Key References: Estimated based on AWWARF Report “Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water” (Dziegielewski, 2000 – Appendix D: Details of Commercial and Industrial Assumptions, by End Use).

Key Reference: California Energy Commission, Staff Analysis of Toilets, Urinals and Faucets, Report # CEC-400-2014-007-SD, 2014.

Fixture uses over a 5-day work week are prorated to 7 days.

Non-residential 0.5gpm faucet standards per Table 2-A. Water Consumption by Water-Using Plumbing Products and Appliances – 1980-2012. PERC Phase 1 Report. Plumbing Efficiency Research Coalition, 2012. http://www.maptesting.com/content/info/menu/perc.html Model Input Values are found in the “Codes and Standards” green section on the “Fixtures” worksheet of the DSS Model and confirmed in each “Service Area Calibration End Use” worksheet by customer category.

Natural Replacement
Rate of Fixtures (percent
per year)
Residential Toilets 2%-4%
Non-Residential Toilets 2%-3%
Residential Showers 4% (corresponds to 25-year life of a new fixture) Residential Clothes Washers 10% (based on 10-year washer life).

Key References: “Residential End Uses of Water” (DeOreo, 2016) and “Bern Clothes Washer Study, Final Report” (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1998).

Residential Faucets 10% and Non-Residential Faucets 6.7% (every 15 years). CEC uses an average life of 10 years for faucet accessories (aerators). A similar assumption can be made for public lavatories, though no hard data exists and since CII fixtures are typically replaced less frequently than residential, 15 years is assumed. CEC, Analysis of Standards Proposal for Residential Faucets and Faucet Accessories, a report prepared under CEC’s Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative, Docket #12-AAER-2C, August 2013.

Model Input Value is found in the “Codes and Standards” green section on the “Fixtures” worksheet of the DSS Model.

Residential Future Water
Use Increases Based on Population Growth and Demographic Forecast Non-Residential Future
Water Use Increases Based on Employment Growth and Demographic Forecast

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 58

FIXTURE ESTIMATES
Determining the current level of efficient fixtures in a service area while evaluating the passive savings in the DSS Model is part of the standard process and is called “initial fixture proportions.” MWM used the DSS Model to perform a saturation analysis for toilets, urinals, showerheads, faucets, and clothes washers.

The process included a review of the age of buildings from census data, number of rebates per device, and assumed natural replacement rates. MWM presumed the fixtures that were nearing saturation and worth analysis would include residential toilets and residential clothes washers, as both have been included in recommended conservation practices for over two decades.

In 2014, the Water Research Foundation updated its 1999 Residential End Uses of Water Study (REUWS). Water utilities, industry regulators, and government planning agencies consider it the industry benchmark for single family home indoor water use. This Plan incorporatesstudy results that reflect the change to the water use profile in residential homes including adoption of more water efficient fixtures over the 15 years that transpired from 1999 to 2014. REUWS results were combined with the City’s historical rebate and billing data to enhance and verify assumptions made for all customer accounts, including saturation levels on the above-mentioned plumbing fixtures. The DSS Model presents the estimated current and projected proportions of these fixtures by efficiency level within the service area. These proportions were calculated by:
• Using standards in place at the time of building construction. • Taking the initial proportions of homes by age (corresponding to fixture efficiency levels). • Adding the net change due to natural replacement.
• Adding the change due to rebate measure minus the "free rider effect.”7 Further adjustments were made to initial proportions to account for the reduction in fixture use due to lower occupancy and based on field observations. The projected fixture proportions do not include any future active conservation measures implemented by the City. More information about the development of initial and projected fixture proportions can be found in the DSS Model “Codes and Standards” section.

The model is capable of modeling multiple types of fixtures, including ones with different designs. For example, currently toilets can be purchased that flush at a rate of 0.8 gpf, 1.0 gpf or 1.28 gpf. The 1.6 gpf and higher toilets still exist but can no longer be purchased in California. Therefore, they cannot be used for replacement or new installation. So, the DSS Model utilizes fixture replacement rates to determine what type of fixture should be used for a new construction installation or replacement. The replacement of fixtures is listed as a percentage within the DSS Model. A value of 100% would indicate that all toilets installed would be of one flush volume. A value of 75% means that three out of every four toilets installed would be of that flush volume.

The DSS Model provides inputs and analysis of the number, type, and replacement rates of fixtures for each customer category (e.g., single family toilets, commercial toilets, residential clothes washing machines.). For example, the DSS Model incorporates the effects of the 1992 Federal Energy Policy Act and AB 715 on toilet fixtures. A DSS Model feature determines the “saturation” of 1.6 gpf toilets as the 1992 Federal Energy Policy Act was in effect from 1992-2014 for 1.6 gpf toilet replacements. AB 715 now applies for the replacement of toilets at 1.28 gpf. Further consideration and adjustments were made to replacement rates to account for the reduction in fixture use and wear, due to lower occupancy and based on field observations.
7 It is important to note that in water conservation program management the “free rider effect” occurs when a customer applies for and receives a rebate on a targeted high efficiency fixture that they would have purchased even without a rebate. In this case, the rebate was not the incentive for their purchase but a “bonus.” Rebate measures are designed to target those customers needing financial incentive to install the more efficient fixture.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 59

DSS MODEL MEASURE ASSUMPTIONS
The following presents an overview of the water reduction methodology, benefit-cost perspectives, present value analysis, and costs and savings assumptions for the measure analysis.

Water Reduction Methodology
Each conservation measure targets a particular water use, such as indoor single family water use. Targeted water uses are categorized by water user group and by end use. Targeted water user groups include single family residential; multi-family residential; commercial, industrial, and institutional; and so forth. Measures may apply to more than one water user group.

Targeted end uses include indoor and outdoor use. Targeted water use is important to identify because the water savings are generated from reductions in water use for the targeted end use. For example, a residential retrofit conservation measure targets single family and multi-family residential indoor use, and in some cases, specifically shower use. When considering the water savings potential generated by a residential retrofit, one considers the water saved by installing lowflow showerheads in single family and multi-family homes.

The market penetration goal for a measure is the extent to which the product or service related to the conservation measure occupies the potential market. Essentially, the market penetration goal identifies how many fixtures, rebates, surveys, and so forth that the wholesale customer would have to offer or conduct over time to reach its water savings goal for that conservation measure. This is often expressed in terms of the number of fixtures, rebates, or surveys offered or conducted per year.

The potential for error in market penetration goal estimates for each measure can be significant because the estimates are based on previous experience, chosen implementation methods, projected utility effort, and funds allocated to implement the measure. The potential error can be corrected through reevaluation of the measure as the implementation of the measure progresses. For example, if the market penetration required to achieve specific water savings turns out to be different than predicted, adjustments to the implementation efforts can be made. Larger rebates or additional promotions are often used to increase market penetration. The process is iterative to reflect actual conditions and helps to ensure that market penetration and needed savings are achieved regardless of future variances between estimates and actual conditions.

In contrast, market penetration for mandatory ordinances can be more predictable with the greatest potential for error occurring in implementing the ordinance change. For example, requiring dedicated irrigation meters for new accounts through an ordinance can assure an almost 100% market penetration for affected properties.

Present Value Analysis and Perspectives on Benefits and Costs The determination of the economic feasibility of water conservation programs involves comparing the costs of the programs to the benefits provided using the DSS Model, which calculates the cost-effectiveness of conservation measure savings at the end-use level. For example, the model determines the amount of water a toilet rebate program saves in daily toilet use for each single family account.

Present value analysis using present-day dollars and a real discount rate of 3% is used to discount costs and benefits to the base year. From this analysis, benefit-cost ratios of each measure are computed. When measures are put together in programs, the model is set up to avoid double counting savings from multiple measures that act on the same end use of water. For example, multiple measures in a program may target toilet replacements. The model includes assumptions to apportion water savings between the multiple measures.

Economic analysis can be performed from several different perspectives, based on which party is affected. For planning water use efficiency programs for utilities, perspectives most used for benefit-cost analyses are the “utility” perspective and the “community” perspective. The “utility” benefit-cost analysis is based on the benefits and costs to the water provider. The “community” benefit-cost analysis includes the utility benefit and costs together with account owner/customer benefits and costs. These include customer energy and other capital or operating cost benefits plus the costs of implementing the measure beyond what the utility pays.

The utility perspective offers two advantages. First, it considers only the program costs that will be directly borne by the utility. This enables the utility to fairly compare potential investments for saving versus supplying increased quantities of water. Second, revenue shifts are treated as transfer payments, which means program participants will have lower water bills and non-participants will have slightly higher water bills so that the utility’s revenue needs continue to be met.

Therefore, the analysis is not complicated with uncertainties associated with long-term rate projections and retail rate design assumptions. It should be noted that there is a significant difference between the utility’s savings from the avoided

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 60 cost of procurement and delivery of water and the reduction in retail revenue that results from reduced water sales due to water use efficiency. This budget impact occurs slowly and can be accounted for in water rate planning. Because it is the water provider’s role in developing a water use efficiency plan that is vital in this study, the utility perspective was primarily used to evaluate elements of this report.

The community perspective is defined to include the utility and the customer costs and benefits. Costs incurred by customers striving to save water while participating in water use efficiency programs are considered, as well as benefits received in terms of reduced energy bills (from water heating costs) and wastewater savings, among others. Water bill savings are not a customer benefit in aggregate for reasons described previously. Other factors external to the utility, such as environmental effects, are often difficult to quantify or are not necessarily under the control of the utility. They are therefore frequently excluded from economic analyses, including this one.

The time value of money is explicitly considered. Typically, the costs to save water occur early in the planning period whereas the benefits usually extend to the end of the planning period. For this reason, a planning period of 10 years or longer is used because costs and benefits that occur beyond 10 years have very little influence on the total present value of costs and benefits. The value of all future costs and benefits is discounted to the first year in the DSS Model (the base year) at the real interest rate of 5.0%. The DSS Model calculates this real interest rate, adjusting the current nominal interest rate (assumed to be approximately 7.1%) by the assumed rate of inflation (2.0%).

The formula to calculate the real interest rate is:
(nominal interest rate – assumed rate of inflation) / (1 + assumed rate of inflation) Cash flows discounted in this manner are herein referred to as “Present Value” sums.

Measure Cost and Water Savings Assumptions
Assumptions regarding the following variables were made for each measure:
• Targeted Water User Group End Use – Water user group (e.g., single family residential) and end use (e.g., indoor, or outdoor water use).
• Utility Unit Cost – Cost of rebates, incentives, and contractors hired to implement measures. The assumed dollar values for the measure unit costs were closely reviewed by staff and are found to be adequate for each individual measure. The values in most cases are in the range of what is currently offered by other water utilities in the region, excluding the landscape conversion/turf removal program. • Retail Customer Unit Cost – Cost for implementing measures that is paid by retail customers (i.e., the remainder of a measure’s cost that is not covered by a utility rebate or incentive). • Utility Administration and Marketing Cost – The cost to the utility for administering the measure, including consultant contract administration, marketing, and participant tracking. The mark-up is sufficient (in total) to cover conservation staff time, general expenses, and overhead.

Costs are determined for each of the measures based on industry knowledge, past experience, and data provided by the City. Costs may include incentive costs, usually determined on a per-participant basis; fixed costs, such as marketing; variable costs, such as the cost to staff the measures and to obtain and maintain equipment; and a one-time set-up cost.

The set-up cost is for measure design by staff or consultants, any required pilot testing, and preparation of materials that are used in marketing the measure. Measure costs are estimated each year through 2045. Costs are spread over the time period depending on the length of the implementation period for the measure and estimated voluntary customer participation levels.

Lost revenue due to reduced water sales is not included as a cost because the water conservation measures evaluated herein generally take effect over a long span of time. This span is sufficient to enable timely rate adjustments, if necessary, to meet fixed cost obligations and savings on variable costs such as energy and chemicals.

The unit costs vary according to the type of customer account and implementation method being addressed. For example, a measure might cost a different amount for a single family residential account than for a multi-family residential account, and for a rebate versus an ordinance requirement or a direct installation implementation method. Typically, water utilities have found there are increased costs associated with achieving higher market saturation, such as more surveys per year.

The DSS Model calculates the annual costs based on the number of participants each year. The general formula for calculating annual utility costs is:
• Annual Utility Cost = annual market penetration rate x total accounts in category x unit cost per account x (1+administration and marketing markup percentage)

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 61 • Annual Customer Cost = annual number of participants x unit customer cost • Annual Community Cost = annual utility cost + annual customer cost Data necessary to forecast water savings of measures include specifics on water use, demographics, market penetration, and unit water savings. Savings normally develop at a measured and predetermined pace, reaching full maturity after full market penetration is achieved. This may occur 3 to 10 years after the start of implementation, depending upon the implementation schedule.

For every water use efficient activity or replacement with more efficient devices, there is a useful life. The useful life is called the “Measure Life” and is defined to be how long water conservation measures stay in place and continue to save water. It is assumed that measures implemented because of codes, standards, or ordinances (e.g., toilets) would be “permanent” and not revert to an old inefficient level of water use if the device needed to be replaced. However, some measures that are primarily behavior-based, such as residential surveys, are assumed to need to be repeated on an ongoing basis to retain the water savings (e.g., homeowners move away, and the new homeowners may have less efficient water using practices).

Surveys typically have a measure life of about five years.

APPENDIX B. INDIVIDUAL CONSERVATION MEASURE DESIGN

INPUTS AND RESULTS
The following figures present the DSS Model starting values for the conservation measures that were analyzed for possible inclusion into the City’s conservation program. While the model forecasts through 2045, in most cases results through 2035 are shown for easier visibility of values.

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 62 Measure 1: Leak Detection and Alerts: Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
##
## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
2045 $52,405 $524 $52,929 2045 81 70 20 3 4 134 312 2045 0.021527 2044 $52,366 $524 $52,890 2044 0.021533
87 264
2044 81 70 20 3 4 134 312
0 0 0
70 22 3 2 58 235
3 105 283
96 273
100 278
81 2029 81 70 22 3 2
1 Clothes Washers
Dishw ashers
Comments
0 0 0
SF MF_2022 NEW MF Total
>Utility & Admin Costs: The water conservation dept does not fund the fixture (AMI device) costs of this measure, but water conservation dept staff time is dedicated to this leak detection and customer outreach component. It is estimated that approx. 1/4 of an FTE is spent on this measure per year collaborating with approx. 250 accounts per year, yielding ~$168/acct.
(Assume Specialist is administering this measure- total burdened salary of $168,827; .25= about $42,000 annually.) This is tracked in the fixture costs to better understand the per acct cost. Staffing roll-ups will account for this cost appropriately. >A negligible admin percentage input value of 1% is included for modeling tracking purposes.
>Customer Cost: Assume $600-$1500 per account for leak repairs. Based on SFPUC survey to customers.
>End Use Savings: Savings based on significant reductions to leakage since targeting accounts with leaks. Water use savings also assumed for irrigation end use due to behavioral changes. Assumes MF and CII buildings will have 1/7 the savings due to higher number of fixtures onsite.
>Targets: Per Tom;
> 250 outreach contacts/year by staff (contact 5 customers/week with leaks), or ~1% of total accounts.
> 9,000 accounts (50% customer signup rate for mobile customer AMI app) Costs
MF_2022 $168.00 $1,200.00 1
CI
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Targets
Internal Leakage
NEW MF $168.00 $1,200.00 1
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Dow n
The City plans to have AMI fully deployed and operational by 2026. The rollout includes web portals to access AMI data: one for the utility, and one for customers (which includes a mobile app). This measure consists of two aspects:
1) Water resources staff will reach out to customers on a daily basis where usage is flagged as a leak by the web portal, and 2) Education for customers on accessing the web portal/mobile app and setting up their own leak detection alerts (which has been shown to improve accountability and reduce water use).

Could roll out program by targeting certain customer classes, high volume users, or ongoing leaks. Note: this measure does not include watering restrictions, monitoring, and enforcement.

Cooling
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 20
Category
Measure Type
Years 5
Repeat ####
2 1
Measure Life
Permanent ####
End Uses
SFMF_202CILSINSTFINEW ANEW M
Time Period
First Year 2026
Name
Overview
Leak Detection and Alerts: Advanced Metering Infrastructu Customer Classes
Abbr 1
SFMF_202CILSINSTFINEW ANEW M
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)
Fixture Cost per Device
SF $168.00
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 1%
Description
$168.00 $1,500.00 1
INST $168.00 $1,500.00 1
NEW ADU $168.00 $1,000.00 1
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
$600.00

0.016720
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $263,774
Community $445,424
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $535,684
Community $3,850,355
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.49
Toilets
2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

CI INST NEW ADU
0 2028 81 70 22 3 2 72 249
105.0
INST Internal Leakage 12.5% 21.9
NEW ADU Internal Leakage 90.0% 7.4
NEW MF Internal Leakage 12.5% 11.3
SF Irrigation 10.0% 45.5
MF_2022 Irrigation 1.5% 13.6
Community 0.12
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $3,814
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF Internal Leakage 90.0% 32.8
MF_2022 Internal Leakage 12.5% 81.8
CI Internal Leakage 12.5%
CI Irrigation 1.5% 63.2
INST Irrigation 1.5% 51.7
SF External Leakage 90.0% 3.8
Targets
91 269 2030
2028 0.012616
2029

0.000000
2024 0.000000
2026 0.004183

0.008389
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 1.000%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
Water Savings
Total Savings (mgd)
2023 0.000000
0 MF_2022 External Leakage 12.5% 1.1
CI External Leakage 12.5% 5.7
INST External Leakage 12.5% 5.0
2032 $46,707 $467 $47,174
3 2030 $45,151 $452 $45,603 2030 81 70 22 3 3
3 2028 $41,887 $419 $42,305
2029 $44,374 $444 $44,817
2031 $45,929 $459 $46,388

0.016865
2025
2027 $39,400 $394 $39,794
2025 $0 $0 $0
2026 $36,913 $369 $37,282
2027
2026 81 70 22 3 1 43 220
2027
2036 $49,817 $498 $50,315
2031 81 70 21 3
2032 81 70 21 3
2033 81 70 21 3
3 2033 $47,484 $475 $47,959
119 297
2035
2034 81 70 21 3 3 109 287
3 114 292
2036 0.021395
2037 $50,595 $506 $51,101

0.021120
2031 0.021198
2032 0.021260
2033 0.021305
2034 0.021335
2035 81 70 21
2036 81 70 21 3 3
2038 $51,372 $514 $51,886
2039 $52,150 $522 $52,672
2040 $52,211 $522 $52,733
2041 $52,250 $522 $52,772
2042 $52,289 $523 $52,811
2043 $52,327 $523 $52,851
2037 81 70 21 3 4 123 301
2038 81 70 21 3 4 128 306
4 132 310
2040 81 70 21 3 4 133 311
2043 81 70 20 3 4 134 311

0.021534
2043 0.021537
2042 81 70 20 3 4 133 311
2037
2042
2041 81 70

0.021424
2038 0.021454
2039 0.021484
2040 0.021508
20 3 4 133 311 2041 0.021524
2039 81 70 21 3

0.021365
2024 $0 $0 $0 2024
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
2023 $0 $0 $0 2023
2034 $48,262 $483 $48,744
2035 $49,039 $490 $49,530
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 63 Measure 2: Leak Detection and Alerts: Toilet Flow Sensors ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
##
##
##
##
##
## ##
354 1,456
Water Savings
2042 0.015824
2043 0.015832
2044 0.015841
2045 0.015849
2039 0.015641
2040 0.015728
2041 0.015790
2036 0.015299
2037 0.015413
2038 0.015527
2044 $174,658 $1,747 $176,405
2045 $174,763 $1,748 $176,510
Targets
2042 1,102 352 1,454
2043 1,102 353 1,455
2044 1,102 353 1,455
2045 1,102
>Utility & Admin Costs: The utility unit cost is
estimated to be approximately $35 per toilet for the
sensor and network hardware. It is estimated that
approx. 1/10 of an FTE is spent on this measure per
year collaborating with approx. 200 accounts per year,
yielding ~$85/acct. (Assume Specialist is
administering this measure- total burdened salary of
$168,827x.1= about $16,830 annually.) Included admin
costs in the fixture costs to better understand the per acct cost. Staffing roll-ups will account for this cost appropriately.
>A negligible admin percentage input value of 1% is
included for modeling tracking purposes.
>Customer Cost: Per Tom, customer cost will be
$35/toilet for the sensor and network hardware and
an additional $25/toilet for the software subscription. >End Use Savings: Savings similar to AMI - slightly less since smaller investment and likely investment
would be by bldg owner and not renter. Sensor
Industries (device manufacturer) estimates 15-25%
savings.
> Devices typically have 3 year warranty, assumed 4
year savings life.
>Targets: Per Tom, annual target should be at least 40
accounts (out of 6,957 MF 2023 accounts); but should
target 1,100 toilets. Targeting 1,100 toilets yields
about 200 accounts at start year.

Costs
2042 $174,449 $1,744 $176,194
2043 $174,554 $1,746 $176,299
2041 $174,345 $1,743 $176,088
2039 1,102 349 1,451
2040 1,102 350 1,452
2041 1,102 351 1,453
2039 $174,135 $1,741 $175,877
2040 $174,240 $1,742 $175,982
2030 $161,096 $1,611 $162,707
2031 $162,545 $1,625 $164,170
2029
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Measure Life
Permanent ####
Years 4
Repeat ####
Time Period
First Year 2024
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 22
Overview
Name Leak Detection and Alerts: Toil

LSINSTFINEW A
Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI
Results
Abbr 2
NEW M
Average Water Savings (mgd)
Provide rebates or other financial incentive
to MF property owners for a toilet leak
detection technology system (e.g. Sensor
Industries SI-Flush Sensor). These sensors
send data to a server that then alerts
property owners of potential leaks. This
measure can be a starting component of a
follow-on comprehensive MF program
(modeled after Santa Clarita's MF program).

MF_2022 $120.00 $60.00 7
NEW MF $120.00 $60.00 1
Toilets
LSINST
Show ers
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 1%
Description
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Dishw ashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
End Uses SFMF_20 CI
FI

0.013343
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)

NEW ANEW M
Avg GPD/Acct
Community
Community 0.13
$3,197,055
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.10
Utility $222,198
Community $407,049
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $2,138,428
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $19,077
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct
Comments
Cooling
Car Washing
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 2.200%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
MF_2022 Internal Leakage 25.0% 81.8
NEW MF Internal Leakage 25.0% 11.3
Targets
External Leakage
Outdoor
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Wash Dow n
2035 $168,340 $1,683 $170,023
2032 $163,993 $1,640 $165,633
2033 $165,442 $1,654 $167,097
2034 $166,891 $1,669 $168,560
2038 $172,687 $1,727 $174,413
2036 $169,789 $1,698 $171,487
2037 $171,238 $1,712 $172,950
2032 1,102 265 1,367
2033 1,102 277 1,379
2030 1,102 240 1,342
2031 1,102 253 1,355
2038 1,102 337 1,439
2036 1,102 313 1,415
2034 1,102 289 1,391
2035 1,102 301 1,403
2037 1,102 325 1,427
2031 0.014668
2032 0.014843
2033 0.014957
2034 0.015071
2035 0.015185
2030 0.014432
2023 $0 $0 $0
2024 $136,809 $1,368 $138,177
2028 $155,079 $1,551 $156,630
$159,647 $1,596 $161,243
2028
2025 1,102 76 1,178
2028
0 Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
2027 $150,512 $1,505 $152,017
2025 $141,377 $1,414 $142,791
2026 $145,944 $1,459 $147,404
0 0
2024 1,102 38 1,140
MF_2022 NEW MF Total
2023

0.014134
2025 0.006528
2026 0.009927
2027 0.013415
Total Savings (mgd)
2023 0.000000
2024 0.003219

0.013775
2029
1,102 190 1,292
2029 1,102 228 1,330
2026 1,102 114 1,216
2027 1,102 152 1,254
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 64 Measure 3: Free Water Saving Devices
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##

0.016565
2042 0.016482
2043 $5,317 $16,830 $22,147 2043 49 42 12 2 104 2043 0.016402 2042 $5,320 $16,830 $22,150 2 104
2041 49
2042
42 42 12 2 105 2041
2037
13 2 105
42 13 2 105
42 13 2
12 2 105
49 42 12
13 2 105
42 2026 49
2027 49
2028 49
49 2032 49
2033 49
42 42 13 2 105
42 2041 $5,324 $16,830 $22,154
13 1 105
CI INST Total
$22,191
2026 $5,363 $16,830
13 2 105
42 13 2 105
2028 $5,361 $16,830
105 2025
$22,193 2026
2027 $5,362 $16,830 $22,192
2025 $5,364 $16,830 $22,194
$5,365 $16,830 $22,195
2024 $5,365 $16,830 $22,195
13 2
49 42
2024 49
2025 49
Overview
Free Water Saving Devices
Utility
INST $63.00 $15.00 1
CI

NEW ANEW M
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 23
MF_2022 $13.00

NEW ADNEW M
Name
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
Measure Life
Permanent ####
Time Period
First Year 2023
3 2
1 2029 $5,360 $16,830 $22,190
2030 $5,357 $16,830 $22,187
Customer Fix/Acct
SF $13.00 $15.00 1
$63.00 $15.00 1
$15.00 7
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
2023
Fixture Cost per Device
Administration Costs
Annual Admin Costs $16,830
Description
The City's water resources division bulk purchases high efficiency showerheads, faucet aerators, toilet dye
strips, and hose nozzles and gives them away for free at the City office or community events. Planning to add
spray valves for restaurants. Free devices are also
included in the Office of Sustainability's residential
sustainability kit. The City partners with Sustainable
Works to distribute devices through their Certified
Green Business program.

Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI LSINST FI
End Uses SFMF_202 CI LS
INSTFI
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Dow n
Cooling
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
Dishw ashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Comments
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.015752
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $274,278
Community $651,707
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $314,118
Community $389,613
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.87
Community 1.67
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility
Baths
$2,374
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF Lavatory Faucets 13.8% 9.2
MF_2022 Lavatory Faucets 13.8% 29.1
CI Lavatory Faucets 13.8% 44.1
INST Lavatory Faucets 13.8% 18.9
SF Show ers 13.8% 49.5
MF_2022 Show ers 13.8% 115.1
CI Show ers 13.8% 94.5
INST Show ers 13.8% 21.9
CI Kitchen Spray Rinse 13.8% 52.5
INST Kitchen Spray Rinse 13.8% 10.9
INST Internal Leakage 13.8% 21.9
SF Irrigation 13.8% 45.5
MF_2022 Irrigation 13.8% 13.6
SF Internal Leakage 13.8% 32.8
MF_2022 Internal Leakage 13.8% 81.8
CI Internal Leakage 13.8% 105.0

13.8% 63.2
INST Irrigation 13.8% 51.7
SF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 13.8%

13.8% 92.4
MF_2022 Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 13.8% 74.5
CI Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets

30.5 CI Irrigation
INST Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 13.8% 16.1
2037 $5,337 $16,830 $22,167
2032 $5,352 $16,830 $22,182
2033 $5,349 $16,830 $22,179
2031 $5,355 $16,830 $22,185
Targets
SF
2023
2038 $5,334 $16,830 $22,164
2034 $5,346 $16,830 $22,176
2035 $5,343 $16,830 $22,173
2036 $5,340 $16,830 $22,170
MF_2022
42 2029 49
2030 49
Total Savings (mgd)
2036 49 42 13 2 105
2031 2031 0.017633
2032 0.017501
2033 0.017376
2034 0.017256
2035

0.014722

0.017143
2028
2036 0.017035
13 2 105
2035 49 42 13 2 105
2034 49 42
13 2 105
42 13 2 105
2037 49 42 13 2 105
2038 49 42
2039 $5,332 $16,830 $22,162
2040 $5,328 $16,830 $22,158
2039 49 42 12 2 105
2040 49 42 12 2 105
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 0.600%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
105
2039 0.016741
2040 0.016651

0.016933
2038 0.016835
2029 0.017918
2030 0.017772
2023

0.018073
2027 0.018236

0.003795
2024 0.007508

0.011149
2044 49 42 12 2 104
2045 49 42 12 2
Years 5
Repeat ####
104
Water Savings
2044 0.016326
2045 0.016252
>Utility & Admin Costs: Devices are ordered in bulk. Some devices are given away individually, and some are given away as a "kit".

Aerators, Hand sink (1.0 gpm): $0.85 each; Aerators, Kitchen (1.5 gpm): $1.89 each; Showerheads (1.5 gpm): $4.19 each; Hose Nozzles: $5.65 each; Toilet Dye Strips: $280 / 1,000 packets; Prerinse Spray Valve (1.15 gpm): $50 each . Assume one kit per unit/account with one fixture each but PRSV only for commercial and institutional. It is estimated that approx. 1/10 of an FTE is spent on this measure per year collaborating. (Assume Specialist is administering this measure- total burdened salary of $168,827x0.1= about $16,830 annually.)
> Customer Costs - Assumes minimal cost for installation since some customers will self-install, and others will not.
> End Use Savings - Assume kits save 27.6% overall (reduced to be conservative by assuming only 50% of kits are actually installed in the homes and yield water savings). Assumed Kit savings of 27.6% * 0.5 installed = 13.8% actual savings. Some accounts will only get hoses so higher outdoor savings. Some will only get indoor fixtures; maybe even just one, and so this is an overall average savings estimate.
> Targets: Approx. 100 accounts per year.

In recent years (2020-2022) the following devices were distributed annually:
> 300 SF+MF Showerheads (1.5 gpm)
> 300 SF+MF Aerators (1.0 gpm)
> 200 SF+MF Aerators (1.5 gpm)
> 250 CII Aerators (0.5 gpm)
> 1,000 Toilet Dye Strip packets
> 500 Hose Nozzles
Costs
2044 $5,313 $16,830 $22,143
2045 $5,309 $16,830 $22,139
Targets
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 65 Measure 4: Public Messaging and Education
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
Name
Overview
Public Messaging and Education
MF_2022 $0.18 $0.00 7
SF $0.18 $0.00 1
Measure Life
Permanent FALSE
Years 2
Repeat FALSE
Time Period

INSTFINEW ANEW M
Toilets
Urinals
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
First Year 2023
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 23
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
4 2
1 Fixture Cost per Device
Administration Costs
Annual Admin Costs $42,000
Description
The City conducts and plans to conduct several
public education and training efforts including:
> Printed and electronic materials to raise
awareness of conservation measures available to
customers, including incentive programs offered by
Utility. This includes newsletters, bill stuffers,
brochures, working with local newspapers, signage
at retailers, signs on public buses, social media
campaigns, and website updates.
> Community outreach: Conducting presentations
at various neighborhood groups, BIDs, and booths
at relevant community events with free device
giveaways.
> Workshops or other means for educating
customers, landscapers, and contractors in efficient
landscaping and irrigation principals (e.g.

Sustainable Landscape Workshops at the Airport
Demonstration Gardens).
> School education program
> Recognition program for water saving businessesthrough Green Business program efforts by Sustainable Works
> Non-Functional Turf Education
> Fixture replacement compliance (SB 407)
> Signage in public landscape areas (e.g. using
recycled water, reduced watering, etc.)
Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI LS

INSTFINEW ANEW M
End Uses SFMF_202 CI
LS
External Leakage
Outdoor
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Comments
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $4,385
End Use Savings Per Replacement
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Down
Cooling
Car Washing
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF Toilets 0.3% 49.3
MF_2022 Toilets 0.3% 146.6
SF Lavatory Faucets 0.3% 9.2
MF_2022 Lavatory Faucets 0.3%
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $667,244
Community $667,244
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.49
Community 1.08
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.018113
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $328,378
Community $722,192

29.1 SF Showers 0.3% 49.5
MF_2022 Showers 0.3% 115.1
SF Dishwashers 0.3% 2.8
MF_2022 Dishwashers 0.3% 7.3
SF Clothes Washers 0.3% 35.4
MF_2022 Clothes Washers 0.3% 103.0
SF Internal Leakage 0.3% 32.8
MF_2022 Internal Leakage 0.3% 81.8
SF Baths 0.3% 6.3
MF_2022 Baths 0.3% 16.4
SF Other 0.3% 18.8
MF_2022 Other 0.3% 32.1
SF Irrigation 0.3% 45.5
MF_2022 Irrigation 0.3% 13.6
SF Pools 0.3% 1.1
MF_2022 Pools 0.3% 0.3
SF Wash Down 0.3% 2.2
MF_2022 Wash Down 0.3% 0.7
SF Car Washing 0.3% 2.2
MF_2022 Car Washing 0.3% 0.7
SF External Leakage 0.3% 3.8
MF_2022 External Leakage 0.3% 1.1
SF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 0.3% 30.5
MF_2022 Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 0.3% 74.5
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 50.000%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
2023 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112 2023 4,049 3,479 7,528
2024 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2025 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2026 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2027 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2028 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2029 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2030 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2031 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2032 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2033 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2034 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2035 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2036 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2037 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2038 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2039 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2040 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2041 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2042 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2043 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2044 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2045 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2025 4,049 3,479 7,528
2026 4,049 3,479 7,528
2027 4,049
2029 4,049 3,479 7,528
2030 4,049 3,479 7,528
2031 4,049
2024 4,049 3,479 7,528
3,479 7,528
2028 4,049 3,479 7,528
3,479 7,528
2032 4,049 3,479 7,528
2033 4,049 3,479 7,528
2034 4,049 3,479 7,528
2035 4,049 3,479 7,528
2036 4,049 3,479 7,528
2037 4,049 3,479 7,528
2038 4,049 3,479 7,528
4,049 3,479 7,528
2044 4,049 3,479 7,528
2039 4,049 3,479 7,528
2040 4,049 3,479 7,528
2041 4,049 3,479 7,528
2045 4,049 3,479 7,528
2023 0.010009
2024 0.019847
2025 0.019684
2026 0.019528
2027 0.019380
2028 0.019238
2029 0.019101
2042 4,049 3,479 7,528
2043
2030 0.018971
2031 0.018845
2032 0.018724
2033 0.018603
2034 0.018484

0.017524
2044 0.017428
2035 0.018369
2036 0.018256
2037 0.018145
2038 0.018036
2039 0.017930
2045 0.017333
>Utility & Admin Costs: Per Tom, this measure costs the utility $5,000 annually primarily for printing and mailing. It is estimated that approx. .25 of an FTE is spent on this
measure per year collaborating. (Assume Specialist is
administering this measure- total burdened salary of
$168,827x.25= about $42,000 annually.)
>Customer Cost: Assume no cost for the customer.
>End Use Savings: Assumes savings lasts 2 year, assume
minimal savings on all end uses due to behavioral changes. >Targets: 50% of accounts per year.
>Per Tom:
> 50 Social Media postings on various topics (~1/week)
> Two Landscape Workshops
> Two newspaper ads
> Public landscape signage (parks, medians).

Costs
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
Targets
SF MF_2022 Total
Water Savings
Total Savings (mgd)
2040 0.017826
2041 0.017723
2042 0.017623
2043
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 66 Measure 5: Rebate: Toilets (Residential)
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
2045 0.062455
>Utility & Admin Costs: Rebate of $70/toilet from City, up to 9 toilets per SFR account, unlimited for MFR
accounts. Assumes MFR accounts will have 7 units per
account and 1.2 toilets/unit. Per Tom, this is an MWD
administered rebate. City allocates a single amount of
supplemental funding for all rebates administered by
MWD. It is estimated that approx. 10% of an FTE is spent on all MWD rebate measures annually- distributing .025
to each measure. (Assume Specialist is administering
this measure- total burdened salary of $168,827x.025=
about $4,220 annually. Equates to a 12% markup on
fixture cost.)
> Customer Cost: Estimated remaining cost of fixture
and installation.
>End Use Savings: Assumes 1.6 gpf toilets are replaced
with 1.06 gpf or less toilets.
>Targets: Per Tom, 500 toilets per year.
2045 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204 2045 109 392 500
2044 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204 2044 0.060177
Targets
2044 109 392 500
2024
2029 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
109
109
$39,204
2025 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
$35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2026 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2027 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2023
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
Name
SF $70.00 $200.00 2
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
MF_2022 $70.00 $200.00 8
Costs
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs
LS
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
Dishw ashers
End Uses SFMF_20 CI
NEW M

LSINSTFI

NEW AD NEW A
NEW M
$35,004 $4,200
$35,004 $4,200 $39,204
109
109
109
109
2028
2032 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
109
2033 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2030 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2031 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2036 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2037 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2034 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2035 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2040 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2041 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2038 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2039 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2036 0.040668
2037 0.043238
109 392 500
109 392 500 2034
2035
109 392 500
109 392 500

0.035405

0.038057
109 392 500
109 392 500 2038 0.045769
2039 0.048262
2040 0.050717
109 392 500
109
109 392 500
2042 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204 109 392 500
2043 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
Overview
Rebate: Toilets (Residential)
5 2
1 Fixture Cost per Device
Time Period
First Year 2023
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 23
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI
INSTFI
Clothes Washers
Process
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 12%
Description
Provide a rebate for installing a Premium
High Efficiency Toilet (PHET: i.e. a toilet that
uses 1.06 gpf (4 liters/flush) or less) that
replaces a toilet using >= 1.6 gpf in
residential properties. Current rebate covers
up to nine toilets (SF only, unlimited for MF)
and covers the material cost up to $200/toilet
($40 from MWD and supplemental $160 from
Santa Monica). New incentive amount going
forward would provide $70 supplemental
funds from Santa Monica per toilet. CA code
requires toilets flush at 1.28 gpf or less.

Community
External Leakage
Outdoor
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Comments
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Dow n
Cooling
Car Washing

0.26 Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.034477
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $522,451
Community $522,451
Utility $555,249
Community $1,971,700
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.94
Water Savings
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $1,917
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF Toilets 34.0% 49.3
MF_2022 Toilets 34.0% 146.6
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 0.670%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
Util Total SF MF_2022 Total
2034
2035
2036
2037
392 500
109 392 500
109 392 500
109 392 500
109 392 500
2038
2039
2040
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2023 0.003232
2024 0.006408
392 500 2025 0.009528
392 500
392 500
392 500

0.012596
2028 0.018578
392 500 2029
392 500
392 500
2042 0.055518
2043 0.057865

0.021496
2030 0.024367
2031 0.027193
2032 0.029974
2033 0.032711
2041
2042
2043
Total Savings (mgd)
2041 0.053136
2026
2027 0.015612
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 67 Measure 6: Rebate: Toilet/Urinals (CII)
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
##
## ##
## ##
## ##
2045 $34,877 $3,941 $38,818 2045 80 13 93 2045 0.086097 2042 81 13 94
2043 81 13 94
2042 $35,325 $3,992 $39,316
2043 $35,175 $3,975 $39,150
2039 $35,771 $4,042 $39,813
$4,119 $40,575
2034 $36,342 $4,107 $40,448
2037 $35,999 $4,068 $40,067
2038 $35,885 $4,055 $39,940
2035 $36,228 $4,094
2033 0.048588
2034 0.052261
2035 0.055824
2030 0.036877
2031 0.040899
2032 0.044802
2042 0.077960
2043 0.080755
2039 0.069044
2036 0.059280
2037 0.062633
2038 0.065887
2027 87 11 99 2027
2029 $36,912 $4,171 $41,083
2027 $36,978 $4,179 $41,157
2028 $36,945 $4,175 $41,120

0.024060
2028 0.028460
2029 0.032732
2038 83 13 96
2034 85 12 97
2035 84 12 97
2032 85 12 98
2033 85 12
2039 83 13 95
2036 84 12 96
2037 83 13 96
97 12 98
2031 86 12 98
2028 87 11 99
2029 87 12 98
$40,321
2036 $36,113
2030 86
$4,081 $40,194
2033 $36,456
2030 $36,798 $4,158 $40,956
2031 $36,684 $4,145 $40,829
2032 $36,570 $4,132 $40,702
2026 0.019529
INST Urinals 92.0%
Total Savings (mgd)
2023 0.005102
2024 0.010054
2025 0.014862
99 2023 89 10 99
2024 89 10 99
99 2026 88 11
2025 88 11

13.1 Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 2.000%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
Water Savings
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total CI INST Total
2026 $37,011 $4,182 $41,193
2023 $37,110 $4,193 $41,303
2024 $37,077 $4,190 $41,267
2025 $37,044 $4,186 $41,230
Provide a rebate for the installation of a
Premium High Efficiency Toilet (PHET: i.e. a
toilet that uses 1.06 gpf (4 liters/flush) or
less) that replaces a toilet using >= 1.6 gpf in
CII properties. Current rebate covers the
material cost up to $200/toilet ($40 from
MWD and supplemental $160 from Santa
Monica). New incentive going forward would
provide a $70 rebate from the City per toilet
for a total rebated cost of $110. CA code
requires toilets flush at 1.28 gpf or less.

Provide a rebate for the installation of a UltraLow Water Urinal (ULWU: 0.125 gpf) or Zero Water Urinal (ZWU) that replaces a urinal
using >= 1.5 gpf. Current rebate covers the
material cost up to $400/urinal ($200 from
MWD and supplemental $200 from Santa
Monica). Proposing to keep the same
incentive amount moving forward. CA code
requires urinals flush at 0.125 gpf or less.

Utility $762,972
Community $762,972
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Community $1,125,272
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 1.33
Community 0.68
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
$375.00 $400.00 2
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility
>Utility & Admin Costs: Rebate of $70/toilet and
$200/urinal from City. Particpants would receive
$200/urinal and $40/toilet from MWD additionally. Per
Tom, this is an MWD administered rebate. City allocates a single amount of supplemental funding for all rebates administered by MWD. It is estimated that approx. 10%
of an FTE is spent on all MWD rebate measures annuallydistributing .025 to each measure. (Assume Specialist is administering this measure- total burdened salary of
$168,827x.025= about $4,220 annually. Equates to about
an 11.3% markup on fixture cost.) Measure includes City fixture costs only and NOT MWD rebate amounts.
> Customer Cost: Estimated remaining cost for fixture
and installation.
>End Use Savings: Assumes 1.6 gpf toilets are replaced
with 1.06 gpf or less toilets (34% savings), and 1.5 gpf urinals are replaced with 0.125 gpf urinals (92%
savings).
>Targets: Per Tom, target about 250 toilets and 100
urinals per year.
> Costs and savings assume 5 toilets and 2 urinals per
account. This is to capture all potential savings as many sites have multiple unique commercial units. LSINST
End Uses
$1,372

43.7 CI Urinals 92.0% 63.0
157.6
INST Toilets
Utility $574,596

34.0%
CI Toilets 34.0%

NEW ANEW M
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
SFMF_202CI
Category 2
External Leakage
Outdoor
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Comments
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.049842
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Dow n
Cooling
Car Washing
Dishw ashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage End Use Savings Per Replacement
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
Time Period
First Year 2023
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 23
Overview
Name Rebate: Toilet/Urinals (CII)

LSINSTFINEW A
Customer Classes
Abbr 6
SFMF_202CINEW M
2040 82 13 95
2041 82 13 95
Measure Type 1
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 11%
Description
Baths
CI $375.00 $400.00 2
INST
FI
Fixture Cost per Device
2044 0.083467
Costs
2044 $35,026 $3,958 $38,984
Targets
2044 81 13 93
2040 0.072107
2041 0.075078
2040 $35,623 $4,025 $39,648
2041 $35,474 $4,009 $39,482
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 68 Measure 7: Rebate: Clothes Washers (Residential)
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
101
101
101
101
2034
2035
73 73
28 2042 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2043 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2042
2043
2035
2036
2031
2032
2033

0.017029
2043 0.016829

0.017779
2039 0.017600
2034

0.016898

0.018683

0.018558
2030 28
73 28 73
2031 28
2029
2030
101
101
$4,258 $16,425
2035 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2036 $12,167 2036
2037 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2038 $12,167
$4,258 $16,425
2037
2031 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2032 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2034 $12,167
2033 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
$4,258 $16,425
2041 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2039 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2040 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
Category 2
$4,258 $16,425
% of Accts Targeted/Yr
2023 0.001931
2024 0.003854
2025 28
2026 28
2027 28
SF
2023 28
2024
2030 $12,167 73

0.005764
Fixture Cost per Device
Fix/Acct
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Dow n
Dishw ashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
1 Administration Costs
MF_2022 $120.00 $400.00 3
Markup Percentage 35%
Description
Provides a rebate for High Efficiency Clothes
Washers (meet or exceeds the CEE Tier 1
standard) to single family homes. Current
rebate covers the material cost up to
$400/HECW ($85 from MWD and supplemental
$315 from Santa Monica). New incentive
amount going forward would provide $120
supplemental funds from Santa Monica.

External Leakage
2029 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029 28 73
$4,258 $16,425
$12,167 $4,258 $16,425 2028
2026 $12,167 $4,258 73
73 2028 28
Community 1.01
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
SF Clothes Washers 55.0% 35.4
Targets
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF $120.00 $400.00
Utility $1,916
Total Savings (mgd)
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility Customer
End Use Savings Per Replacement

1.02 SFMF_202CILSINSTFINEW ANEW M
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
Community $807,037
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility
Community $815,092
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Years 10 Utility $232,633
Repeat ####
First Year 2023
Measure Type 1
Measure Life
Permanent ####
Time Period
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 23

0.014449
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI
End Uses Utility $237,513
Overview
Name Rebate: Clothes Washers (Resi

LSINSTFINEW A
Results
Abbr 7
NEW M
Average Water Savings (mgd)
2044 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2045 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
Targets
Total
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
$16,425
2027 $12,167
101
101
2038
101
101
2044 28 73 101
2038 28
2040
2039 28
2042
2045 28 73 101
28 73
28 73
28 73
2041 28 73 101
Car Washing
>Utility & Admin Costs: Rebate of $120/HECW from
City (on top of $85 from MWD). Per Tom, this is an
MWD administered rebate. City allocates a single
amount of supplemental funding for all rebates
administered by MWD. It is estimated that approx.
10% of an FTE is spent on all MWD rebate measures
annually- distributing .025 to each measure. (Assume
Specialist is administering this measure- total
burdened salary of $168,827x.025= about $4,220
annually. Equates to ~35% markup on fixture cost.)
Measure includes City fixture costs only and NOT MWD
rebate amounts.
> Customer Cost: Estimated remaining cost of fixture
and installation. Per Tom, this averages $400.
>End Use Savings: Assumes 55% savings based on
SoCal Water Smart HECW rebate page, "Qualifying
washers use 55% less water than standard clothes
washers".
>Targets: Per Tom, approx. 100 washers per year.

Costs
2025 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2023 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2024 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425

0.017952
Outdoor
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Comments
28 MF_2022
73 73
73 73

0.007662

0.009544

0.011410
73 28 73
28 73
2032 28 73
2033 28 73

0.350%
Cooling
Water Savings
2044 0.016626
2045 0.016418
MF_2022 Clothes Washers 55.0% 103.0
Only Affects New Accts FALSE

0.018421

0.013258

0.015088

0.018274

0.018117
2040 0.017415
2041 0.017225
2037
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 69 Measure 8: Rebate: Commercial Equipment (CII)
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
##
## ##
## ##
## ##
2044 0.037974
INST Cooling 10.0% 10.6
CI External Leakage 10.0% 5.7
INST External Leakage 10.0% 5.0
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 4.340%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
2038 0.038986
2039 0.038820
2040 0.038653
2041
Costs
2044 $0 $4,220 $4,220
Targets
2044 87 14 101
2043 $0 $4,220 $4,220 2043 88 14 102
2041 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2042 $0
CI Cooling 10.0% 12.1
2037 0.039149

0.039467
2036 0.039309
2033 0.039774
2034 0.039622
2029 0.028103
2030 0.032059
2031 0.035999
2032 0.039923
2028 0.024129
2023 0.004056

0.038485
2042 0.038316
2043 0.038145
2040 89 14 103
2041 89
2024 0.008098
2025 0.012127
2027 0.020142
2031 93 13 106
11 107
2025 96 11 107
2034 92
$4,220 $4,220
2037 91 14 104
14 103
2042 88 14 102
2038 90 14 104
2039 90 14 103
13 105
2040 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2037 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2038 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2039 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2035 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2036 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2035 91 13 105 2035
2036 91 14 104
Total Savings (mgd)
2030 94 13 106
2026 95 12 107 2026 0.016142
2027 95 12 107
2024 96
2028 94 12 107
2029 94
2032 93 13 106
2033 92 13 105
13 107
CI INST Total
2023 97 11 107
2030 $0 $4,220 $4,220
$0 $4,220 $4,220
2024 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2025 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2026
2031 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2028 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2029 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2034 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2032 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2033 $0 $4,220 $4,220
$0 $4,220 $4,220

10.0% 147.1
CI Internal Leakage 10.0% 105.0
INST Internal Leakage 10.0%
External Leakage
Outdoor INST Irrigation

21.9 28.4
CI Irrigation 10.0% 63.2
CI Other 10.0% 73.5

10.0% 51.7
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Comments
Cooling
CI $0.00 $1,000.00 1
INST $0.00 $1,000.00 1
Wash Dow n
Car Washing
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Administration Costs
Annual Admin Costs $4,220
Description
Provide rebates for water efficient indoor
commercial equipment. Includes air-cooled
ice machines, steamers, dry vacuum pumps,
and controllers on cooling towers. Can add
cooling tower submeters as an additional
item but would be a City rebate not through
MWD.

Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.031534
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Other
Irrigation
Pools
NEW M
End Uses
Community $1,553,476
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 8.61
Community 0.40
Utility $514,669
Community $615,675
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $59,768
Dishw ashers
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $226
INST Other 10.0%

NEW ANEW M
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
SFMF_20CILSINSTFI
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
CI Process
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Measure Life
Permanent ####
Time Period
First Year 2023
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 23
Years 10
Repeat ####
Abbr 8
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Rebate: Commercial Equipmen

LSINSTFINEW A
Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI
Results
2045 0.037801
>Utility & Admin Costs: Per Tom, City currently uses
the MWD base amount for these CII rebates and does
not add supplemental funding, so City's utility cost is $0. It is estimated that approx. 10% of an FTE is spent on all MWD rebate measures annually- distributing
.025 to each measure. (Assume Specialist is
administering this measure- total burdened salary of
$168,827x.025= about $4,220 annually.
>Customer Cost: Per Tom, the average customer cost
is $1,000.
>End Use Savings: Based on recent average fixture
type participation shown below.
>Targets: Assume hit 100% of accounts over the next
23 measure length. This is consistent with recent
participation rates. Per Tom, recent 2022 participation is as follows:
- Plumbing Flow Control Valve: 0
- Laminar Flow Restrictors: 100 (health care?)
- WBIC: 20 (also in Irrigation DI program)
- CCIC: 0 (also in Irrigation DI program)
- Soil Moisture Sensor: 20 (also in Irrigation DI
program)
- Hose Bib Irrigation Controller: 0 (also in Irrigation DI program)
- pH‐Cooling Tower Controller: 3
- Cooling Tower Conductivity Controller: 3
- Dry Vacuum Pump ($125 per 0.5 HP): 5
- Connectionless Food Steamers ($485 per
compartment): 5
- Ice‐Making Machines: 5
2045 $0 $4,220 $4,220 2045 87 14 101
Water Savings
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
2023 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2027
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 70 Measure 9: Rebate: Irrigation Conversion (Spray to Drip) ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
2 1 46
Water Savings
2043 0.007620
2044 0.007631
2045 0.007640
2042 0.007607
2035 0.007416
2036 0.007459

0.005756
1 46
1 46
2038
2031
2045 $107,898 $33,800 $141,698
Targets
2043 20 17 5 2 1 46
2044 20 17 5 2 1 46
2045 20 17 5
2043 $108,040 $33,800 $141,840
2044 $107,969 $33,800 $141,769
2041 $108,182 $33,800 $141,982
2042 $108,111 $33,800 $141,911
2041 0.007590
2037 0.007495

0.007526
2039 0.007550
2026 0.002813
2027 0.003537
2028 0.004270
2029 0.005012
2030

0.006503

0.007251

0.007312

0.007367
Administration Costs
Kitchen Spray Rinse
LS Irrigation 25.0% 606.8
Dishw ashers
Clothes Washers
Process
2040 0.007571
Costs
2040 $108,253 $33,800 $142,053
2034 $108,353
MF_2022 External Leakage 25.0% 1.1
CI External Leakage 25.0% 5.7
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.005961
SFMF_202
INST Irrigation 25.0% 51.7
INST External Leakage 25.0% 5.0
SFMF_20
NEW M

CILSINST
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $96,017
Community $96,017

NEW ANEW M
Targets
LS External Leakage 25.0% 45.7
2034 20
2035 20
17 17 1
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 0.250%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
MF_2022 CI LS INST Total Total Savings (mgd)

0.000690
2036
2031 20
2032 20
2033 20
SF
2023 20
17 5 2 1 46
2037 20
2038 20
2039 20 17 5 2 1 46
5 2 1 46
46 17
Overview
Rebate: Irrigation Conversion (Spray to Drip)
9 2
1 Fixture Cost per Device
Customer Classes FI
End UsesFI
Toilets
Urinals
Results

CILSINST
17 5 2 1 46
17 5 2 1
2042 20 17 5 2
2040 20 17 5 2
2041 20
Internal Leakage
20 20
2024 20
2025 20
2026 20
2027 20
2028 20
2029 20
Irrigation
Pools
>Utility & Admin Costs: The City provides a rebate of $2.00 per sqft up to $4,000 for SF accounts and up to $6,000 for MF and CII accounts. Per Tom, the average utility cost is $2,200 per rebate. It is estimated that approx.

0.20 of an FTE is spent on this measure per year collaborating with approx. 45 accounts per year. (Assume Specialist is administering this measure- total burdened salary of $168,827 x .2= about $33,800 annually.)
>Customer Cost: Per Tom, the average customer cost for installation and any remaining materials is $1,000.
>End Use Savings: Drip/micro-irrigation have an efficiency of 80-95%, compared to landscape spray systems which ranges from 40-65% efficiency (Irrigation Association). Thus, switching from the latter to the former, water savings could be between 15-55%. It really depends on initial irrigation efficiency, but on average, drip saves 30-50% more water when compared to conventional sprinkler irrigation. -Per Tom, average savings of 4.18 gallons/sqft. For 60,000 sqft targeted per year, assumes 250,800 gal/year saved, or 687 gal/day (.000687 mgd).

This equates to about 25% savings/account.
>Targets: Per Tom, recent participation is as follows:
> 45 rebate projects (assumed 1 rebate project per account) which is

0.2% of all SF, MF, CII, LS start year accounts (18,159). > 60,000 sq.ft. (includes areas over max rebate amount but were converted as part of rebated project)
2030
17 5 2 1 46
$33,800 $142,153
MF_2022 Irrigation 25.0%
CI Irrigation 25.0%
SF External Leakage 25.0%
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $40,140
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF Irrigation 25.0% 45.5

13.6 63.2

3.8 Baths
Other
Annual Admin Costs $33,800
Description
The City's Spray to Drip program provides a rebate for waterefficient landscape irrigation retrofits that replace overhead spray irrigation (sprinklers) in non-turf areas with highly efficient drip irrigation. Rebate is $2.00/sqft up to $4,000 for SF, $6,000 for MF and CII.

Wash Dow n
Cooling
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Comments
Fix/Acct
Utility $2,010,084
Community $2,657,174
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.05
Community 0.04
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
Years 10
2039 $108,322 $33,800 $142,122
2035 $108,347 $33,800 $142,147
2036 $108,341 $33,800 $142,141
2037 $108,334 $33,800 $142,134
2038 $108,328 $33,800 $142,128
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
2026 $107,953 $33,800 $141,753
NEW A
INST $3,000.00 $1,000.00 1
$1,000.00 1
Measure Length 23 Repeat ####
CI
LS $3,000.00 $1,000.00 1
$3,000.00 $1,000.00 1
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
Name
Measure Life
Permanent ####
Time Period
First Year 2023
Last Year 2045
SF
MF_2022 $2,500.00 $1,000.00 1
$2,000.00
Utility Customer
2023 $107,521 $33,800 $141,321 6 2 1 45 2023
6 2 1 46
2024 $107,665 $33,800 $141,465 2024
2025 $107,809 $33,800 $141,609

0.001389
17 2030 $108,378 $33,800 $142,178
2031 $108,372 $33,800 $142,172
2032 $108,365 $33,800 $142,165
2033 $108,359 $33,800 $142,159
$141,896
2028 $108,240 $33,800 $142,040
2029 $108,384 $33,800 $142,184
2027 $108,096 $33,800
2025 0.002097
17 5 2 1 46
5 2 1 46
17 5 2 1 46
5 2 1 46
17 17
6 2
17 5 2 1 46
5 2 1 46
17 5 2 1 46
17 17
46 17
5 2 1 46
5 2 1 46
2033
2034
2032
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 71 Measure 10: Rebate: Landscape Conversion (Cash for Grass) ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
3 1 60
Water Savings
2043 0.044957
2044 0.045049
2045 0.045130

0.028716
2033 0.031691
2034 0.034676
2035 0.037671
60 60
60 Total
60 2045 $249,482 $85,595 $335,076
Targets
2043 27 23 7 3 1 60
2044 27 23 7 3 1 60
2045 27 23 7
2043 $249,794 $85,702 $335,496
2044 $249,638 $85,648 $335,286
2042 $249,950 $85,755 $335,706
2041 $250,107 $85,809 $335,916
2038 $250,429 $85,919 $336,348
2039 $250,415 $85,915
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
2041 0.044670
2042 0.044831
LS Irrigation 75.0%
2036 0.040675
2037 0.043688
2038 0.043978
2039 0.044243
2040 0.044474
2030 0.022794
2031 0.025750
2032
2039
2040
2041
2042 27 23 7 3 1
3 1
27 23 7 3 1
27 23 7
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
CI External Leakage 75.0% 5.7
INST External Leakage 75.0% 5.0
606.8
LS External Leakage 75.0% 45.7
Targets
27 23 7 3 1 60
2030
2031
2032
27 23 7 3 1 60
60 27 23 7 3 1
% of Accts Targeted/Yr
INST Irrigation 75.0% 51.7
SF External Leakage 75.0% 3.8
MF_2022 External Leakage 75.0% 1.1
SF Irrigation 75.0% 45.5
MF_2022 Irrigation 75.0% 13.6
CI Irrigation 75.0% 63.2
Community 0.07
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $18,561
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $4,755,195
Community $6,890,592
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility
Toilets

0.10 Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.030497
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $470,019
Community $470,019
Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI
End Uses
SFMF_20CI

FINEW ANEW M

LSINSTFINEW ANEW M
2 1
Fixture Cost per Device
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 34%
Description
The City's Cash for Grass program provides a landscape
conversion rebate for water-efficient landscape retrofits that remove turf grass, cap sprinklers, and install low-water plants, compost, mulch and drip irrigation. Rebate is $3.50/sqft up to $6,000 for SF. Rebate is $3.50/sqft. up $10,000 for MF, $20,000 for CII. Use Eagle Aerial's WaterView to identify large turf areas to target outreach for landscape conversion.
1 INST $5,000.00 $2,500.00 1
Dishw ashers
27 23 7 3 1 60
27 23 7 3 1 60
27 23 7 3 1 60
27 23 7 3 1
$336,330
2040 $250,263 $85,863 $336,126
2035 $250,469 $85,933
60 27 23 7 3 1 60
27 23 7 3 1 60
$336,403
2036 $250,456 $85,929 $336,385
2037 $250,442 $85,924 $336,366
2032 $250,510 $85,947 $336,458
2033 $250,497 $85,943 $336,439
2034 $250,483 $85,938 $336,421
2031 $250,524 $85,952 $336,476
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
2023 $248,653 $85,310 $333,964
2024 $248,970 $85,419 $334,389
2025 $249,286 $85,527 $334,813
2026 $249,602 $85,636 $335,238

0.330%
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
Name
LSINST
SF $3,500.00 $2,500.00 1
MF_2022 $4,500.00 $2,500.00 1
CI $5,000.00 $2,500.00 1
LS $5,000.00 $2,500.00
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Baths
Overview
Rebate: Landscape Conversion (Cash for Grass)
10 Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Measure Life
Permanent ####
Years 15
Repeat ####
Time Period
First Year 2023
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 23
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Comments
>Utility & Admin Costs: The City provides a rebate of $3.50 per sqft up to $6,000 for SF accounts, up to $10,000 for MF, and up to $20,000 for CII accounts. Per Tom, the average utility cost is $4,100 per rebate. It is estimated that approx. .50 of an FTE is spent on this measure per year collaborating with approx. 60 accounts per year, yielding ~$1,406/acct. (Assume Specialist is administering this measure- total burdened salary of $168,827 x .5= about $84,400 annually.)
>Customer Cost: Per Tom, the average customer cost for installation and any remaining materials is $2,500.
>End Use Savings:
- Research by Southern Nevada Water Authority (source: Public Policy Institute of California, Lawns and Water Demand in California) estimates that conversion from turf to low-water landscaping resulted in up to a 76 percent savings.
- Other savings estimates range from 15%- over 50%. Santa Clarita Water Agency estimates 25%, Liberty Utilities (Park Water Company) estimates 18%.
- Initially assumed a conservative estimate of 50% average account irrigation and leakage savings based on California estimates and SNWA research.
-Per Tom, average of 21.66 gal saved per sqft. Applied to target of 85,000 sqft/year, equates to 1,841,100 gal saved= 5,044 gal/day or 0.00504 mgd.

Updated savings to 75% estimate to align more closely to Santa Monica specific savings.
> Targets: Per Tom, design per recent (2022) participation which is as follows:
- 60 rebate projects (assumed 1 rebate project per account) which is ~0.4% of all SF, MF, CI, and Inst start year accounts (17,529). - 85,000 sq.ft. (includes areas over max rebate amount but were converted as part of rebated project)
Costs
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Wash Dow n
Cooling
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
2027 $249,919 $85,744 $335,663
2028 $250,235 $85,853 $336,088
2029 $250,551 $85,961 $336,513
2030 $250,538 $85,957 $336,494
SF MF_2022 CI LS INST
27 23 7 2 1
27 23 7 2 1
27 23 7 2 1
Total Savings (mgd)
2023 0.002734
60 27 23 7 2 1 60
2024 0.005501
2025 0.008303
60 27 23 7 2 1 60
2026 0.011138
2027 0.014007
2028 0.016910
2029 0.019847
27 23 7 3 1 60
27 23 7 3 1 60
27 23 7 3 1 60
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 72 Measure 11: Water Neutrality Direct Install: Indoor Devices ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
2045 $126,600 $0 $126,600 2045 105 90 26 4 226 2045 0.326867 2042 0.335382
2043 0.332458
2044 0.329620
2039 0.344719
2040 0.341512
2041
>Utility & Admin Costs: There is no cost to the utility for this measure, it is funded by Water Neutrality fees. It is estimated that approx. .75 of an FTE is spent on this measure per year collaborating. (Assume Specialist is administering this measuretotal burdened salary of $168,827 x .75= about $126,600 annually.) >Customer Cost: There is no customer cost for this measure.

Fixture and installation are covered by the Neutrality Fees. > End Use Savings: Assumes participating accounts upgrade all eligible fixtures. Per customer category initial proportions (see code section), conservatively assumes the following fixtures (1.6 gpf toilets, 2.5 gpm showerheads, 2.2 gpm aerators, 1.0 gpf urinals) are being replaced with ultra-low-flow devices (listed below).
> Targets: Per Tom CY 2019 direct install stats are as follows:
- 1,000 SF+ MF Toilets (0.8 gpf)
- 500 SF+MF Showerheads (1.5 gpm)
- 300 SF+MF Aerators (1.0 gpm)
- 250 SF+MF Aerators (1.5 gpm)
- 50 CII Tank Toilets (0.8 gpf)
- 150 CII Flushvalve Toilets (>=1.28 gpf)
- 150 CII Urinals (0.125 gpf)
- 750 CII Aerators (0.5 gpm)
- participation in this measure significantly declined in 2020-2022 as compared to 2019. Range of 2019-2022 annual account
participation is residential (7-191) and CII (1-30). Targeted accounts selected based on targeted ~30 MGY savings.
> On July 1, 2017, the City’s Water Neutrality Ordinance went into effect for all new developments. Water Neutrality is a code that caps water use for new developments by limiting the project to the historical use for that individual parcel. If a new project is projected to use more water than the historical usage for the site, the new development applicant is responsible to offset that water somewhere else in the city. One of the offset options the applicant can choose to meet compliance is a fee-based City sponsored offset program. The City’s Water Neutrality Direct Install Program is fully funded by new development applicants who choose this compliance option. Because toilets are the highest indoor water using fixture, replacing older, water-wasting toilets with the newest water efficient models can save significant amounts of water.

Costs
2037 0.351443
2038 0.348027
2027 0.130671
2028 0.154854
2029 0.178490
2030 0.201609
2031 0.224245
Total Savings (mgd)
2023 0.027607
2024

0.338398
2032 0.246429
2033 0.268189
2034 0.289550
2035 0.310533
2036 0.331159

0.054420
2025 0.080500
2026 0.105901
2043 105 90 26 4 226
2039 105 90 27 4 227
2040 105 90 27 4 227
2037
2038 105 90 27 4 227
2044 105 90 26 4 226
2041 105 90 27 4 226
2042 105 90 26 4 226
2036 105 90 27 4 227
105 90 27 4 227
2034 105 90 28 4 227
2035 105 90 27 4 227
2032 105 90 28 4 227
2033 105 90 28 4 227
2030 105 90 28 4 228
2031 105 90 28 4 228
2028 105 90 28 4 228
2029 105 90 28 4 228
2026 105 90 29 4 228
2027 105 90 28 4 228
2024 105 90 29 3 228
2025 105 90 29 3 228
2042 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2043 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2044 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2039 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2040 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2041 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2036 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2037 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2038 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2033 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2034 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2035 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2030 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2031 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2032 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2027 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2028 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2029 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2024 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2025 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2026 $126,600 $0 $126,600
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
Utility Customer Total
2023 $126,600 $0 $126,600
Targets
SF MF_2022 CI INST Total
2023 105
Water Savings
90 29 3 228
CI Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 31.8% 92.4
INST Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 31.8% 16.1
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 1.300%

40.0% 94.5
INST Show ers 40.0% 21.9
SF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 31.8% 30.5
MF_2022 Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 31.8% 74.5
MF_2022 Lavatory Faucets 54.5% 29.1
CI Lavatory Faucets 77.3% 44.1
INST Lavatory Faucets 77.3% 18.9
CI Urinals 87.5% 63.0
INST Urinals 87.5% 13.1
SF Lavatory Faucets 54.5% 9.2
Community 4.17
MF_2022 Toilets 50.0% 146.6
CI Toilets 50.0% 157.6
INST Toilets 50.0% 43.7
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Dow n
Cooling
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.245764
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $3,872,884
Community $7,480,074
Utility $1,793,036
Community $1,793,036
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 2.16
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
Dishw ashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Overview
Water Neutrality Direct Install: Indoor D
11 2
1 Fixture Cost per Device
Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI LSINST FI
End Uses SFMF_202 CI LS
SF Show ers 40.0% 49.5
MF_2022 Show ers 40.0% 115.1
CI Show ers
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
SF $0.00 $0.00 1
MF_2022 $0.00 $0.00 5
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
CI $0.00
$0.00 1
Administration Costs
Annual Admin Costs $126,600
Name

NEW ANEW M
Measure Life
Permanent ####
Years 15
Repeat ####
Time Period
First Year 2023
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 23
Toilets
Description
The Water Neutrality Direct Install Program installs
high efficiency indoor fixtures in SF, MF, and CII
buildings. This includes SMMUSD, SMC, and private
schools. Replacements include high efficiency toilets,
showerheads, faucet aerators, and high efficiency
urinals. Installations are performed by a contracted
third-party installer. The “Water Neutrality Direct
Install Program” is funded by the Water Neutrality
Ordinance offset and in-lieu fees for new
development.

Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Comments

INSTFINEW ANEW M
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $868
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF Toilets 50.0% 49.3
$0.00 1
INST $0.00
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 73 Measure 12: Direct Install: Irrigation Devices
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
2045 0.048405
>Utility & Admin Costs: Per Tom there are no utility costs for this measure. Measure can be funded by Water Neutrality fees paid by building permit applicants. It is estimated that approx. .25 of an FTE is spent on this measure per year collaborating. (Assume Specialist is administering this measure- total burdened salary of $168,827 x .25= about $42,200 annually.)
>Customer Cost: There is no customer cost for this measure. Fixture and installation are covered by the Neutrality Fees.
>End Use Savings: Participating fixtures typically save between 5%-35% of irrigation water use. Assuming average of 20%.
>Targets: Per Tom, recent participating includes the following:
- 250 Rotary Nozzles
- 35 WBICS
- 35 Soil Moisture Sensors
- 20 Rain Sensors
- 20 Rain Barrels
Assume 1 of these fixtures per participating account, so about 360 accounts/yr.

Costs
2045 $42,200 $0 $42,200 2045 160 138 40 17 6 361
2044 0.048352
2036 0.047259
2044 160 138
2032 0.041571
2033 0.046332
2034 0.046680
2035 0.046989
INST Irrigation 20.0% 51.7
SF External Leakage 20.0% 3.8

1.980%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
MF_2022 External Leakage 20.0% 1.1
CI External Leakage 20.0% 5.7
40 17 6 361
Total Savings (mgd)
2023 0.000000
2024 0.004428
2042 0.048196
2043 0.048282
2025 0.008910
2026 0.013447
2027 0.018038
2028
2041 0.048092
6 362 2040 0.047972
2037 0.047490
6 362 2039 0.047835
138 41 17 6 362 2038 0.047682
6 362
2040 160
2041 160
2042 160 138 40 17
138 40 17 6 362
138 41 17
6 362
160
2043 160 138 40 17
138 41 17
2043 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2044 $42,200 $0 $42,200
Targets
SF
2023 0
2024 160
2025 160
2026 160
2027 160
2042 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2028 160
2029 160
2030 160
2031 160
2032 160
2033 160
2034 160
2035 160
2036 160
2037 160
2038 160
2039
LS External Leakage 20.0% 45.7
INST External Leakage 20.0% 5.0
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr
MF_2022 Irrigation 20.0% 13.6
CI Irrigation 20.0% 63.2
LS Irrigation 20.0% 606.8
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $1,844
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF Irrigation 20.0% 45.5
External Leakage
Outdoor
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Comments
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.035867
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $562,930
Community $562,930
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $555,479
Community $555,479
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 1.01
Community 1.01
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Dow n
Cooling
Car Washing
Administration Costs
Annual Admin Costs $42,200
Description
For SF, MF, CII, and IRR customers with landscape, provide for the installation of water efficient irrigation upgrades. This could be in conjunction with the WaterWise landscape surveys or via one of CalWEP's turnkey programs for administration
assistance. Included in the menu of installations are: rotary nozzles, WBIC, soil moisture sensor, rain sensors, rain barrels.

Use Eagle Aerial's WaterView to identify large turf areas to target outreach. This program could be funded by Water
Neutrality fees and become part of that program.

Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI LSINST FI
End Uses
SFMF_20CILSINSTFI
10 Toilets
Repeat ####
Time Period
First Year
Overview
Direct Install: Irrigation Devices
12 2
1 Fixture Cost per Device
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers

NEW ANEW M
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
Name

NEW ADNEW M
Measure Life
Permanent ####
Years
2041 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2038 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2039 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2040 $42,200 $0 $42,200
138 42 16 6 362
138 42 16 6 362
138 42 17 6 362
138 41 17 6 362
138 41 17 6 362
2035 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2036 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2037 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2033 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2034 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2032 $42,200 $0 $42,200 138 42 16 6 362
138 42 16 6 363
138 43 16 6 363 2030 0.032096
2031 0.036826
138 43 16 6 363 2029 0.027382
138 43 15 6 362 0.022683
138 43 15 6 362
138 43 14 5 361
138 44 14 5 361
138 44 14 5 361
2031 $42,200 $0 $42,200
Utility Customer Total
2025 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2026 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2023 $0 $0
2029 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2030
2024
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 22
Dishw ashers
SF $0.00 $0.00 1
MF_2022 $0.00 $0.00 1
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Clothes Washers
Process
CI $0.00 $0.00 1
LS $0.00 $0.00 1
INST $0.00 $0.00 1
Water Savings
$0
2024 $42,200 $0 $42,200
0 0 0 0 0
MF_2022 CI LS INST Total
$42,200 $0 $42,200
2027 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2028 $42,200 $0 $42,200
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 74 Measure 13: Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor Residential ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
2045 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120 2045 107 92 199 2045 0.065566 2044 0.065670
2041 0.065995
2042 0.065885
2037 0.066459
2038 0.066340
2039 0.066223
2040
Costs
2043 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2044 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2039 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2036 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2037 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2038 $96,183 $9,936
Targets
2043 107 92 199
2044 107 92 199
199
107 92 199
107 92 199
107 92 199
107 92 199
107 92
107 92 199

0.066108
107 92
2043 0.065776
2042 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2040 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2041 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120 2041
2042
$106,120
2034 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2035 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
Comments
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Dow n
Cooling
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Utility
Community
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $2,660
Internal Leakage
Baths

0.77 1.29
End Use Savings Per Replacement
Fix/Acct
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
Name

LSINSTFINEW AD
2023
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 23
Utility Customer
SF $400.00 $50.00
MF_2022 $400.00 $50.00 1
Administration Costs
NEW M

LSINSTFINEW ANEW M
1 Measure Life
Permanent ####
Years 5
Repeat ####
Time Period
First Year
Overview
Water Audits: Indoor and Outd
13 2
1 Fixture Cost per Device
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.060961
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $1,052,107
Community $1,941,722
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $1,362,246
Community $1,502,973
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Markup Percentage 21%
Description
Provide a free water survey for Residential
customers.The City is working on a contract with
WaterWise Consulting to provide water surveys
for residential customers. Those with high water
use or that have received a Notice of Violation
(NOV) for outdoor water waste are targeted.

Assumes these customers are different than
those targeted with AMI leak alerts. Includes an
onsite visit and customized report on how to save
water. Simple irrigation repairs, spray head
alignment, retrofits with rotary nozzles, and
installation and programming of WBICS is
included. Outdoor survey is the primary offering,
with indoor water surveys also available upon
request. Includes the free installation of efficient
showerheads and aerators. These surveys can link
with the Irrigation Devices Direct Install program.

Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI
End Uses SFMF_20 CI
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
Dishw ashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF Toilets 5.0% 49.3
MF_2022 Toilets 5.0% 146.6
SF Lavatory Faucets 5.0% 9.2
MF_2022 Lavatory Faucets 5.0% 29.1
SF Show ers 5.0% 49.5
MF_2022 Show ers 5.0% 115.1
SF Dishw ashers 5.0% 2.8
MF_2022 Dishw ashers 5.0% 7.3
SF Clothes Washers 5.0% 35.4
MF_2022 Clothes Washers 5.0% 103.0
SF Internal Leakage 75.0% 32.8
MF_2022 Internal Leakage 75.0% 81.8
SF Baths 5.0% 6.3
MF_2022 Baths 5.0% 16.4
SF Other 5.0% 18.8
MF_2022 Other 5.0% 32.1
SF Irrigation 25.0% 45.5
MF_2022 Irrigation 25.0% 13.6
SF Pools 5.0% 1.1
MF_2022 Pools 5.0% 0.3
SF External Leakage 75.0% 3.8
SF Wash Dow n 5.0% 2.2
MF_2022 Wash Dow n 5.0% 0.7
SF Car Washing 5.0% 2.2
MF_2022 Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 1.320%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
Water Savings
MF_2022 External Leakage 75.0% 1.1
>Utility Costs: This measure has a utility cost of $400 per audit using a contractor to perform the audit.

Giveaway device costs and device rebates as a result
of this measure are not included since these are
covered in separate measures.
>Admin Costs: Estimated that 0.1 FTE time will be
spent on this measure per year collaborating. (Assume
Specialist is administering this measure- total
burdened salary of $168,827 x .1 = about $17,000
annually- equates to about $85 per targeted account.
>Customer Cost: Customer costs represent average
customer cost to implement any survey suggestions.
>End Use Savings: Savings represents average account
savings. Indoor savings based off of California Urban
Water Agencies water savings study (4/13/15).

Approximate 5.8% savings for indoor. Slightly lower
value of 5% water savings were selected to account for
efficient devices installed during the recent CA
drought, and more efficient homes built to CALGreen
on the market in the past 5 years. Outdoor savings
higher since targeting those with high water
use/outdoor water waste.
>Targets: Per Tom, target ~ 200 surveys annually.

Utility Customer Total
2023 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
SF MF_2022 Total
2023 107 92 199
Total Savings (mgd)
2023 0.013704
SF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
2024 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2032 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2033 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2028 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2029 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2030 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2031 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2025 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2026 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2027 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2032 107 92 199
2024 107 92 199
2033
2025 107 92 199
2026 107 92 199
2027 107 92 199
2028 107 92
2033 107 92 199
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2034
2035
199
107 92 199
107 92 199
2024 0.027333
2025 0.040891
2026 0.054385
2031 107
2027 0.067818
2028
199
2030 107 92 199
92 199
199
2029 107 92

0.066963
2034 0.066833
2035 0.066705
2036 0.066581

5.0% 30.5

5.0% 74.5
MF_2022 Car Washing 5.0% 0.7

0.067661
2029 0.067512
2030 0.067368
2031 0.067230
2032 0.067096
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 75 Measure 14: Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor CII
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
##
## ##
## ##
## ##
Abbr 14
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)
Measure Length 22

CILSINST
Time Period
First Year 2024
Last Year
Repeat ####
Utility $937,454
Permanent ####
Years 10
Customer Fix/Acct
Measure Life
Overview
Name Water Audits: Indoor and Outd

LSINSTFINEW AD
Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI
NEW M
Category 2
Measure Type 1
2045
End Uses
External Leakage
Outdoor
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
SFMF_20FI
Cooling
Car Washing
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Dow n
CI Lavatory Faucets

10.0% 157.6
INST Toilets 10.0% 43.7
CI Urinals 10.0% 63.0
INST Urinals 10.0% 13.1

10.0% 44.1
$1,471,959
Community $2,925,040
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
% Savings/Acct
2023 $0 $0 $0
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
Avg GPD/Acct
Community $1,898,946
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 1.57
Community 1.54
Comments
CI Toilets
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $1,206

NEW ANEW M
Toilets
Urinals
End Use Savings Per Replacement
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
2024 $55,801 $16,740 $72,541 67
Costs Targets

0.092504
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Dishw ashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Utility
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility
CI $750.00 $1,000.00 1
INST $750.00 $1,000.00 1
0 Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
CI
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 30%
Description
Provide a free water survey for CII customers.

Target top users including hotels, hospitals,
and restaurants. Assumes contracted out at
this time, but could add staff to be
administered in-house. After the free water
use survey has been completed at each site,
Santa Monica would analyze the
recommendations on the findings report that
is provided and determine if site qualifies for
rebates, direct installs, and/or MWD's WSIP
(Water Savings Incentive Program).

Recommendations are tailored to each
individual site as each site has varying water
savings potential. Link to CII Equipment
Rebates measure and the Irrigation Devices
Direct Install program. Modeled after the
West Basin pilot program.

INST Lavatory Faucets 10.0% 18.9
CI Show ers 10.0% 94.5
INST Show ers 10.0% 21.9
CI Dishw ashers 10.0% 63.0
INST Dishw ashers 10.0% 13.1
CI Clothes Washers 10.0% 157.6
INST Clothes Washers 10.0% 30.6
CI Process 10.0% 147.1
CI Kitchen Spray Rinse 10.0% 52.5
INST Kitchen Spray Rinse 10.0% 10.9
CI Internal Leakage 75.0% 105.0
INST Internal Leakage 75.0% 21.9
CI Other 10.0% 73.5
INST Other 10.0% 28.4
CI Irrigation 20.0% 63.2
INST Irrigation 20.0% 51.7

3.5 CI Cooling 10.0% 12.1
INST Cooling 10.0% 10.6
CI External Leakage 10.0% 5.7
INST Pools 10.0%

5.0 CI Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 10.0% 92.4

16.1 Targets
INST External Leakage 10.0%

3.010%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
% of Accts Targeted/Yr

0.063312
2027 0.050847
2026 $55,702 $16,711 $72,412
2025
INST Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 10.0%
74 Total Savings (mgd)
2023 0.000000
2024
2023 0
2024 8 0.012867
INST Total
0 0.025628
2026 0.038287
2025 66 8 74
2026 66 8 74
2029 65 9 74
2028 $55,602 $16,681 $72,283
2025
2027 $55,652 $16,696 $72,348 2027 66 8 74
2028 66 9 74
$55,751 $16,725 $72,477
2031 $55,209 $16,563 $71,772
2032 $55,038 $16,511 $71,549
2029 $55,553 $16,666 $72,219
2030 $55,381 $16,614 $71,995
$70,433
2038 $54,007 $16,202 $70,209
2033 $54,866 $16,460 $71,326
2034 $54,694 $16,408 $71,102
2035 $54,522 $16,357 $70,879
2043 $52,939 $15,882 $68,821
2044 $52,714 $15,814 $68,529
2039 $53,835 $16,151 $69,986
$53,612 $16,084 $69,696
2041 $53,388 $16,016 $69,404
2030 65 9 74
2031 65 9
2032 64 9 73
74 2033 64 9 73
2034 64 9 73
2035 63 9 73
2036 63 9 72
2037 63
2040
2042 61 10 71
9 72
2042 $53,163 $15,949 $69,112
2036 $54,351 $16,305 $70,656
2037 $54,179 $16,254
2043 61 10 71
2038 62 10 72
2039 62 10 72
2040 62 10 71
2041 62 10 71
2030 0.087959
2031 0.100139
2032 0.112227
2042 0.117962
2033 0.124224
2034 0.123525
2035 0.122827
2036 0.122130
2044 0.116593
2037 0.121432
2038 0.120735
2039 0.120037
2040 0.119342
2041 0.118651
2045 0.115912
>Utility Cost: This measure has an estimated utility
cost of $750 per audit. Giveaway device costs and
device rebates as a result of this measure are not
included since these are covered in separate
measures.
>Admin Cost: Estimated that 0.1 FTE time will be
spent on this measure per year coordinating surveyssurveys will be performed by a contractor. (Assume Specialist is administering this measure- total
burdened salary of $168,827 x .1 = about $17,000
annually. Divided by 75 accounts targeted is about
$225 or 30% markup.)
>Customer Cost: Reflects cost/time to install fixtures
and address survey recommendations. Assumes
$1,000/site on average in addition to any giveaways
provided.
>End Use Savings: BAWSCA Phase 1 (YEAR) study on
Making Conservation a California Way of Life found
savings of 10-15% per site. Assume 10% on indoor
devices to be conservative, and 20% for outdoor.

Assume high leak savings from addressing identified
leaks.
>Targets: Per Tom, target ~75 audits annually.
2045 $52,490 $15,747 $68,237 2045 60 10 70
2044 61 10 70
Water Savings
2028
2029 0.075684
2043 0.117277
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: Santa Monica FINAL WCMP_2024-3-29_Submitted (7722 : Sustainable Water Master Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 76 Measure 15: Enforcement: Outdoor Water Waste
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
2045 0.007251
>Utility & Admin Costs: This measure will cost the utility $450 per 4-hour patrol. Per Tom, an estimated 150 nighttime patrols are targeted for this measure. Assuming these 150 nighttime patrols are 4 hours each yields an annual utility cost of $67,000.

It is estimated that approx. .25 of an FTE is spent on this measure per year. (Assume Specialist is administering this measure- total burdened salary of $168,827 x .25= about $42,200 annually.)
>Customer Cost: Assume $50/SF customer cost and $100 MF/CII cost to fix irrigation water waste/leak - most visible water waste is irrigation.
>End Use Savings: Savings of 6% approximately equates to an account having a leak of 33 gallons per day. Assumed 3% water savings per account for outdoor uses to be conservative since not all site visits reveal water waste which yield water savings.

Assumes 95% savings for external leakage since targeting high leaks reported.
>Targets: Per Tom, recent involvement in this measure (2022) is as follows:
> 150 Nighttime Patrols
> 350 NOVs
> 50 Car Wash Coupons
Costs
2045 $66,913 $41,821 $108,734 2045 283 243 70 11 608
Water Savings
Admin Costs Util Total Total Savings (mgd)
Targets
SF MF_2022 CI INST Total
2041 0.007282
2042 0.007274
2037 0.007308
2038 0.007302
243 72 11 610
243 72 11 610
2039 0.007296
2040

Santa Monica City CouncilSeptember 22, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
September 22, 2026