Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, September 22, 2026

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
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
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 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

SANTA MONICA PROJECT
Pico Corridors
of Opportunity
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
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
PART 1:

STATE OF THE CITY
5-6 MINUTES
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
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
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
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
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
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
PART 2:

MAYOR'S JUST CITY

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

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
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
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
PART 3:

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

MAYOR'S DISCUSSION

QUESTIONS
2 MINUTES
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
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
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
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
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
2 Miriam Macias
Gandara Park Resident
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
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.

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

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
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
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.

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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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
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
PART 1:

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
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+

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
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
PART 2:

MAYOR'S JUST CITY

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

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.

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.

PRIORITY PROJECT
SITE
10-12 MINUTES
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Priority Project Site: Pico Neighborhood Today
Virginia Avenue Park

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.

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

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
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.

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
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
PART 4:

MAYOR'S DISCUSSION

QUESTIONS
2 MINUTES
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
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
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
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
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
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
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 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
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
6 Cecilia Haggerstrom
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026
Item 4-N
September 22, 2026

Santa Monica City CouncilSeptember 22, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
September 22, 2026