City Council - Regular Meeting

We are calling the meeting of September 8th to order.

Please turn off your phone or turn it on vibrate so as not to disrupt the meeting. And Council Member Zwick, can you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation,

And we will do the land acknowledgment and then the roll call. Council Member Raskin, can you do the land acknowledgment, please?

The city of Santa Monica is located on the land of Tovongar. With great respect, the city acknowledges the Gabrielino-Tongva as the first people of this ancestral and unceded territory of Corvonga, a village that we know today as Santa Monica. We honor their elders, past and present, and the Gabrielino descendants who are part of the Gabrielino Tungva tribes. We recognize that these peoples are still here, and as settlers and kuyam, or guests, we recognize our responsibility and obligation to care for their land in partnership with them. The city of Santa Monica commits to work in partnership with the Gabrielino Tungva people to uplift their voices and visibility on their ancestral land.

Great. Madam Clerk, if we could get the roll call.

Councilmember Negrete.

Here.

Councilmember Hall.

Present.

Councilmember Raskin. Here. Councilmember Snell.

Here.

Councilmember Zarnis-Gaia. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Swick.

Here.

And Mayor Terosis.

Here. And then I don't know if you wanted to ask about the Levine Act.

Do any council members have questions? I'm sorry, will any council members be recusing themselves from any items on the agenda pursuant to the Levine Act? Okay, none.

Great.

For agenda management purposes, we would love to hear a motion to hear the city manager's report before general public comment and to combine 10A with 10, excuse me, 10A with 11B and combine 16D with the city manager's report.

Is that 16D is my item, yes, about the small business grant? Sure.

Are you making the motion? Second.

I'll second her motion.

Oh, I'll move the item. Okay. Yeah.

Second.

Great. Okay.

Council Member Zarnaskaya?

I'm sorry. Could you say that again?

Sure. We're going to hear the city manager's report before general public comment. and we are gonna combine 10A and 11B, and we're gonna combine 16D with the city manager's report.

Yes, thank you. Okay, Council Member Zarniskaya? Yes. Council Member Snell? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Swick?

Yes. Yes.

Council Member Raskin? Yes. Council Member Hall? Yes. Council Member Negrete? Yes. And Mayor DeRosa?

Yes, that carries. Mayor Pro Temswick just alerted me. 16D is an agendized item. Would we hear the public comment on 16D after the city manager's report, or are there public comments specifically on 16D?

16D would fall under any remaining, so we would have to ask if any members of the public have any If any members of the public are going to comment on 16 D. Okay.

Otherwise, we can hear it with. Okay. So are any members of the public here who would like to comment on 16 D? Otherwise, you can still comment on that item with the 16 items. It just will have already been heard. Okay. Seeing none. Mr. City Manager.

Thank you. Madam Mayor, members of the Council, good evening. It's been a while since we've had a Council meeting. I hope everyone had a terrific summer. We just had Labor Day, which traditionally marks the end of summer, although from our weather, you wouldn't know it. Hope that everyone, as we've been getting kids back to school, who's been winding down the summer months, that You think maybe things get back into routine, things slow down a little bit, but not here in Santa Monica, because the next few weeks we have a packed agenda of fun-filled activities for all to enjoy. First, this upcoming weekend, we have a ton of different events popping in the city. First, on Saturday, we will be having our final Tongva Twilight event at Tongva Park from 7 to 9.30 p.m., You can enjoy a concert by Myra Washington and also see a special screening of Summer of Soul. This Saturday, we're also going to have Santa Monica Block Fest on 3rd Street Promenade, where there'll be food, music, art, and fun running all the way until midnight. And as we move towards Sunday, the day will start early in the morning. Anyone that wants to get up early, the Santa Monica Classic is here in town. Please check Santa Monica.gov for street closures and let's all be out there to cheer on all of the runners here in our community. Sunday also features Americana in the Park at Gandara Park from 1.30 to 6.30 and we hope folks will come on out and enjoy that programming. As we move into the next couple of weeks, I wanted to remind everyone that Hispanic Heritage Month begins September 15th. We have a ton of different activities and educational happenings occurring throughout the month. Please check our website for some additional information. We also wanted to remind everyone not to miss the Peer's second annual Peer Fig Benefit, set for Saturday, September 19th. It will be a 1930s theme, complete with live jazz, casino tables, a silent auction, and so much more. We wanted to also remind everybody in three weeks we will be featuring our first large-scale music festival on the beach, Ocean Way Festival will be happening September 26th and 27th. We've been out sharing information about the festival and interim impacts that will be happening in town as we get ready for welcoming 20 to 30,000 people onto our beach for a fun-filled music festival weekend. We'll continue to have updates to share in the coming weeks, so everyone be on the lookout for additional events leading up to the Ocean Way Festival. Lastly, we wanted to remind everyone that this coming Friday will mark the 25th anniversary of the September 11th tragedy. Our Santa Monica Fire Department is inviting the entire community to participate in a brief ceremony Friday morning at the fire station beginning at 7.30 a.m. as we remember all that occurred 25 years ago on September 11th. Lastly, we did want to end on a happier note to wish everyone who celebrates Rosh Hashanah a very happy and healthy upcoming new year. With that, we will move to our adoptable pet of the meeting. This week's adoptable pet's a little different. We've been highlighting all of the cool dogs that are available at the animal shelter. We have a video today that we wanted to play, which highlights all of the adorable adoptable cats that are at the shelter. One of the cats we want to highlight is Polly D. Polly D was the first kitten you saw on the video. She's a gray and white domestic short-haired tabby. who has been in the shelter since April of this year. She is shy. She is lovable. Polly Dee is also ready for her forever home. So everyone, please make note. The city has extended our Clear the Animal Shelter promotional adoption price on all animals through this coming Saturday, September 12th. Any of the cute kittens you see on the video, you can take home for just $20. So everyone, make sure you come check out the animal shelter. Adopt a lovable pet, and of course, you can always visit the Santa Monica Animal Shelter Foundation website to make a donation or shop the Chewy wish list.

Can we put that on our social media just so people can see it? Absolutely.

Great. We will do that for sure. Next, also based on the reordering of the agenda, as the Council knows, it has been a long time coming. Many thanks to the Mayor and Council Member Negrete for your help. in helping to develop and shape our micro-grant program. We have Jennifer with us this evening who's gonna walk us through that program that's getting ready to launch later this week.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. It's all wonderful to see you tonight. Tough to follow after Polly is the act. So I'm really excited here. Jennifer Taylor, I'm the economic development manager, and we're excited to present the Small Business Microgrant Relief Program. So this is something that Mayor Tarosis and Councilmember Negrete had requested under a 16 item previously with $100,000 from the general fund to help support our small businesses. So we are proposing ready to roll out this week and move as quickly as possible. three quick sites so $100,000 approved budget these would be $5,000 micro grants so it would help to fund 20 businesses with the goals of retaining locally owned businesses encouraging investment and our commercial corridors helping helping to strengthen long-term business viability and promoting economic vitality and activating storefronts throughout the city In terms of businesses who qualify, they would need to be a brick and mortar business here in Santa Monica. These are for small businesses, so defined as 50 or fewer employees, annual gross revenue below $3 million, and a minimum with 12 months remaining on their lease. Or if it's been a long-term business here who's been here for over 10 years, if they're still on a month-to-month holdover, they would also be eligible. And then, of course, a valid City of Santa Monica business license. So as I said, we're ready to roll this out very quickly. So pending any feedback you all have for us, the plan is to launch the program this Thursday. We'll start working with our comms team tomorrow in terms of outreach. And then we're planning a series of two workshops, which are going to be next week on Tuesday and Thursday. So for qualifying use of funds, this is meant to be quite broad. So it can help small businesses support technology upgrades, such as point of sale software, help with fixtures and equipment, marketing or advertising services, inventory or operating supplies, professional services, business continuity or emergency preparedness, as well as general operating expenses, such as accounting or bookkeeping. No, the grant does not apply towards debt service taxes paying any fines any personal expenses or construction renovation or building alterations we have a separate grant to help support some facade improvements and As I said, the minimum requirements were on the last slide, but we also, I've identified what we call some bonus points. So if we get over 20 businesses who have applied for this grant, which I really hope we do, in addition, we would consider the following conditions. So legacy businesses, so businesses who've been in Santa Monica for 20 years or longer, veteran-owned businesses, New businesses that have opened here, but have at least 18 months or longer on their lease. Existing businesses in Santa Monica who are expanding, either expanding their footprint or opening a second or third location here. As well as any businesses who've demonstrated economic shock within the last 18 months. So it could be vandalism or construction impact. So next week, we're going to be having two workshops. First one on Tuesday at the Main Branch Library, and then Thursday we'll have one at the Pico Annex, and we'll have a Spanish translator at that one as well, just to help to answer any questions or help people with their application. We will be launching, we have a dedicated webpage on the city's website, SantaMonica.gov, We'll be working through our by local business Newsletter where we've already announced that this grant is coming soon working with our comms team for social media Getting the word out quickly through the chamber and our partners at our business improvement districts As well as press releases with some of the local papers The application will close on October the 1st And then we'll be aiming to announce the wards late October with a grant distribution late October, early November. So that concludes my presentation. If anyone has any questions or comments, otherwise we're really looking excited to getting this launched.

Thank you so much. Great. We're excited. Did you want to say anything? No.

Thank you, and the only thing I was going to say is you don't have to attend, right, in person? That's just to get assistance?

No, it's purely optional. People don't have to, and it's a really quick, easy grant and application form, too. So you don't have to go to the workshop to attend.

And would economic impact include, most recently there's been a string of those ADA lawsuits. Would that count? Yeah. Okay.

I just want to confirm, are you going to have the application in multiple languages?

Yes, it'll be in Spanish as well.

Great.

And the guidelines will be, too, yeah. All the things will be dual language.

Great. It looks like that

concludes the presentation city manager were there other items on the city manager's report only one item i also wanted to highlight um first jennifer thank you so much and thank you again to lana and carolyn for all your work on the micro grant program on the ocean wave festival one of the things i failed to mention in my report i wanted to just remind everyone as we get ready for this um what we hope will be a terrific event is a larger scale event we have set up a community hotline if there are issues or concerns that residents are seeing as the event gets up and running. There's two ways to access that hotline. One is by phone at 424-260-1923. Again, that's 424-260-1923. You can also send an email to community at oceanwayfestival.com. Both the telephone number and email will be monitored throughout the festival. As everything gets up and running, one of the major adjustments that will be happening for a short-term basis is our beach bike path will be detoured. That's going to start on September 21st, and it will last through September 30th. We will have signage and staff on hand to make sure that the rerouted bike path works functionally. We've also looked at providing increased protection for the detoured bike path during the time that it's up and running. There's additional information available on the city's website, SantaMonica.gov backslash programs backslash Ocean Way Festival, where we have the reroute map and also the additional protections for the interim bike lane all outlined online. WITH THAT, MADAM MAYOR, WE'LL CONCLUDE THE CITY MANAGERS.

COUNCILMEMBER NEGRETE, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

YEAH, I WANTED TO PROPOSE TO MY COLLEAGUES AN AGENDA MANAGEMENT ISSUE. I PRESUME MANY OF THE SPEAKERS HERE FROM THE PUBLIC ARE HERE FOR 12B, AND I WAS WONDERING IF WE COULD DO SOME AGENDA MANAGEMENT AND MOVE IT AFTER ITEMS OR BEFORE ITEM 6 WHEN WE COME BACK FROM CLOSED SESSION. CHECKED WITH JING TO MAKE SURE THAT STAFF WOULD BE BACK IN TIME TO DO THAT.

I'll second that.

I made the motion. Council Member Hall seconded.

You guys can do it by voice vote.

Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Okay, great. So we will additionally move 12B before the six items? Is that what you? Okay. So just to be clear, that would be upon return from closed session. Okay, great.

Now we will move on to... Before we move on, item 16D, was there going to be an action on that one?

No, that was an information item, yeah.

Okay, all right. And Mayor, I had one more. This was an error on my behalf. Usually we have the proclamations

to be heard before the public input unless there's public comment on those special agenda items and that was not included in the agenda management yeah my apologies we didn't have sorry we did not have that as part of agenda management but I will move that we hear the special agenda items to a and B before general public input second All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? OK, seeing none. Great. We are now celebrating or proclaiming Hispanic Heritage Month. It's September 15 through October 15. And I would love to call up the Hispanic Heritage Committee and Mexican Presence Project Committee so that we can celebrate that. While we are doing that, I will Did the committee want to read the proclamation themselves, or do they want me to read it?

You will read it. Okay.

They want to say some words, though. That would be fantastic. So why don't you all say some words, and then I'll read the proclamation. That would be fantastic. And then we'll take some photos.

Hello, good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Daniel Alonso. I don't live in Santa Monica anymore, but I always say Santa Monica will always be my spiritual home. Over two years ago, me and a small group, we started the Mexican Presence in Santa Monica Project. And on our own time, we started gatherings. photographs and doing oral histories. And we spent, we were able to gather a very, very large collection of images that date back from the 1800s. My particular family, my great grandfather came to Santa Monica in 1902. His name was Roberto Casillas. My mother was born here. I was born here. Sharon, you'll see Sharon Reyes is from the Reyes Marquez family, which were the Canyon families. And some of their photographs date back to the 1800s. So we are very, very proud of this project. It was much needed. And we want to, you know, we're grateful that the city is recognizing the work that we've done. We were grateful for the Santa Monica Library. We had a presentation about a year ago, and the room was so filled, people were standing up and sitting on the floor. And then there were a large amount of people that couldn't even get in. So we're looking forward to proceed with our project and take it even further.

Fantastic. Yeah, feel free.

My name is Guadalupe Martinez-Castro. So I'm Native Salmonican, born in 1951 St. John's Hospital. I still live here. And to me, I feel honored that you have us here and that you're recognizing our project. As Danny mentioned, we've been working on this. And we're friends. We're not part of a paid committee. We're just friends who remembered the families, especially along the Pico neighborhood. Some families were displaced. So as Danny mentioned, with the assistance of the library, we were able to do a presentation last year. And we're hoping to continue this. We're still working with families, interviewing families and putting up pictures. So again, it's an honor and we want to thank you for for having us here and remembering us. So thank you.

Thank you so much. Did anyone else?

I think I'm fine. I'm Sharon.

Hi, Sharon.

This is my granddaughter, Monica Reyes, and she's going to be the next historian of the next generation. And I'm teaching her everything I can about our Boca de Santa Monica land-grant family, We've been here since 1822, and she's learning so much. She goes to McKinley School, and I'm born and raised here, as you know. I'm the fifth generation, and so she's going to carry on with my children, I hope. Storytelling is very important, and it's not just our story. It's all other generations that have come here and struggled. So it's not just... my family and Danny's. We're just trying to recognize and bring others to the foreground of recognizing different communities. Thank you.

Fantastic. Well, thanks to you and our team and all of the preservationists out there who are uplifting these stories so they can continue in perpetuity. We really appreciate you. And if that's okay, I'll read the proclamation for Hispanic Heritage Month. Whereas Hispanic Heritage Month starts on September 15th, and a day and month that is important to five Latin American countries who celebrate their independence from Spain, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Mexico, Chile, and Belize, thanks to Simon Bolivar, who united Latin America as one of the , sorry, I do not speak Spanish, my apologies, to declare their independence.

Whereas Hispanic Heritage Month serves as a meaningful opportunity to recognize and celebrate the vibrant cultures, rich languages, and significant contributions of Hispanic and Latino Latinx peoples, acknowledging that while the term Hispanic traditionally refers to those with roots in Spanish-speaking nations, The city of Santa Monica recognizes the broader and more nuanced tapestry of identities this month honors, including Latino, Latinx, and indigenous communities whose ancestors endured colonization, conquest, and occupation by Iberian empires and other European powers. Whereas through resilience and fortitude, the peoples of Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America, and South America fortified their independence, reclaimed their identities, and have continued to shape history, culture, and progress across the globe. Whereas in the United States today, 60.6 million people, or 18% of the American population, are of Hispanic or Latino ancestry. In Santa Monica, approximately 16% of our city's population are of Hispanic or Latino ancestry, and whereas by 1910, Santa Monica's Hispanic people, largely dominated by Mexicanos, established a close-knit community that exemplifies the melding of Mexican and American cultures, its new immigrants formed much of the workforce that built Santa Monica in the first half of the 20th century, and their children and grandchildren carry their family's culture with them as they grow and thrive in the United States. whereas the Mexican Presence in Santa Monica project has created an archive of oral histories and family photographs housed at the Santa Monica Public Library for anyone to enjoy. It brings the stories of many Mexican families together in a way that expresses the history of their community as a whole, in their own words, and celebrates all that they have achieved, consistent with the 2026 theme for National Hispanic Heritage Month, Unidos Somos Mas, together we are more. Whereas Santa Monica aspires to be a city that embraces diversity, inclusion, and equity, and to stand united against all forms of intolerance. At a time when immigrant communities, many of them Hispanic and Latino Latinx, continue to face rising challenges and uncertainty, we are reminded that la lucha sigue, the struggle continues. This Hispanic Heritage Month is an especially important moment to reaffirm that Santa Monica is and will remain a city for everyone, and whereas the City of Santa Monica Hispanic Heritage Month Staff Steering Committee, and with support from City Council, aligns with current city efforts to create engagements to elevate, educate, and empower Latino, Latina, Latinx individuals through culture, community, and economy throughout the year. Now therefore, on behalf of the City Council, we do hereby proclaim September 15th through October 15th as his his so sorry as Hispanic Heritage Month in the city of Santa Monica and encourage all residents to recognize and celebrate the culture contributions and achievements of Hispanic Latin Americans in the United States. So if you would like we would love to take a photo with all of you and the proclamation.

I just wanted to say, I know Danny said it, and Lupe said it too, we could not have done this without the help of all the librarians. They have helped us through this craziness, and we just want more help for them so that we can continue. Please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ready? One, two, three.

And hold it.

I'm just going to do it quite real.

And we can have everyone waving starting now.

Waving.

Council Member Zwick is doing the next one. Who is it? I don't see it. Okay, we have one speaker on this item. Our clerk has let us know. Was this a late shit?

It's for item 2B. No, for some reason they weren't able to sign up.

OKAY. WELL, WE'RE ABOUT TO CALL NATIONAL SUICIDE PREVENTION WEEK, SO THE SPEAKER ON THAT ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND WE'LL HEAR YOU NOW. MR. FOSTER, ARE YOU OUR SPEAKER? YES. FANTASTIC.

SORRY, IT WASN'T UP THERE ON THE BOARD TO CHECK. YOU KNOW, I'VE DEALT WITH SUICIDE ALL MY LIFE. had a terrible traumatic experience with my parents. And I've had a hard time appreciating my parents. And so I've had to read a lot. 30 years ago, I talked to a few psychologists and a psychiatrist about this kinds of stuff. And what I found that nothing anybody said, the Bible, going to church, trying to sleep well, eat well, all this stuff didn't really work for me. So one day I found out about a substance. It was called LSD. And the guy that made it, Dr. Albert Hoffman, lived until he was 102. The guy that made it lived to 102. 102. He didn't commit suicide. He lived to 102. Okay? And what is amazing is that he would get together. Science knows that only... Seven micrograms, you can feel it. Six human beings can't feel it. And what Dr. Albert Hoffman would do is he would get together with people and take six micrograms. You can't even feel the stuff. They talk about you don't want to get high on some substance and try to get out of stuff. But I still see them killing themselves at church. Right? So Jesus doesn't work, really, some of these people. It doesn't work. Why? Why? Why am I still alive? You see, it takes more than just Jesus and it takes more than just sleeping. Constant trauma to the brain causes this too. Caffeine is the number one cause of suicide. Nobody believes me, but coming down off of stimulants really causes people to kill themselves. And thanks for celebrating this, making the awareness, and I'm very happy that I can speak this into the air because it helps me. If anybody needs any help, you can talk to me.

Thank you. Can we go ahead and call up Bridget McCarthy representing the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention? And if you want to give some remarks, our Mayor Pro Tem is then going to read the proclamation.

Oh, thank you so much, Mayor, City Council. My name is Bridget McCarthy, and I'm on the board of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. And I'm on the board because my son, two weeks after his 16th birthday, took his own life. We like to say took his own life. We don't like to say committed suicide because he didn't do anything wrong. Since then, we have been very involved in the city of Santa Monica. Riley went to Santa Monica High School. I've tabled in front of that high school many times, giving out information to teenagers and youth. We now have massive programming that we can go and teach parents and teachers. and even even the children at the school so please reach out out to us for that also every year we hold our big los angeles walk right here in santa monica on the pier and it's october the 10th this year on the pier at 9 00 a.m in the morning you can sign up at lasp.org forward slash la walk and the city will have a team the school will have a team so please come and join us it's just a beautiful day out and all the money it raises goes towards research and advocacy and this year we put into law a bill that put the hotline numbers for 988 and the Trevor project on the back of every single student school ID in California So that's thanks to everybody for your long-term support to get such a major achievement. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. And we're going to read your proclamation. Thank you for sharing.

Thank you. September 2026 is also Suicide Prevention Awareness Month, and that's why we're here. whereas the month of September is recognized as Suicide Prevention Awareness Month to promote public awareness, educate on prevention strategies, eliminate stigma, and honor lives lost to suicide, whereas in the United States, over 48,000 people died by suicide in 2024, whereas suicide affects people of all ages, races, and backgrounds, and behind every statistic is an individual with a story, a future, and loved ones deeply impacted by the loss, whereas suicide prevention is a public health issue that requires a comprehensive approach, including education, early intervention, accessible mental health, and substance use services and community support. Whereas suicide is preventable and every community member plays a vital role, whether by recognizing warning signs, engaging in compassionate conversations, reducing mental health stigma, or connecting individuals in crisis to professional support. Whereas resources like the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, available by calling or texting 988, provide immediate, confidential support from trained professionals 24-7. whereas organizations like the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention envision a world without suicide and are dedicated to saving lives and bringing hope to those affected by suicide through research, education, advocacy, and resources for those who have lost someone to suicide or struggled themselves and urge that we promote awareness that there is no single cause for suicide, that suicide is complex, that risk may increase for a person when multiple contributors, mental health conditions, substance use, and physical health conditions and pain past trauma converge in the context of stress, and that when a person has access to lethal means, they may die by suicide. I encourage all residents, businesses, schools, and community organizations to observe this month by learning the warning signs of suicide, fostering open and honest conversations about mental health, and ensuring that no one faces a crisis alone. Therefore, be it proclaimed that I, Jesse Zwick, Mayor Pro Tem, Santa Monica, do hereby proclaim September 2026 as Suicide Prevention Awareness Month in the City of Santa Monica. And may this month serve as a reminder that hope, connection, and compassion can save lives. And may we continue working together to create a community where everyone feels supported, valued, and never alone. Thank you.

Thank you.

And we're going to take a photo, if you'd like to. Yeah.

I will have some flyers for the walk that I'll put out on the table there, if that's okay with you.

So important. As someone who suffers from a mental health disorder, I really, really appreciate you being here. It's really important. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mayor.

Thank you so much. Thanks for what you do. Okay. We will now move on to general public input on consent calendar and special agenda items. Each person will have one minute. And I'll just let everyone know that our meeting is scheduled to go past 4 a.m. today. So if you have an item that someone has spoken on that you agree with and you can just stand up or do happy hands, I would encourage you to do that or just say I agree. That would be helpful so that we can hear these items at a reasonable time. and conduct the public business while the public is awake.

Karen, let me also mention that we have five members.

Remote, yeah, I see that. So I'm going to go ahead and call folks up, and if you could come and line up in a relatively time-efficient way, that would be helpful. Again, these are items not on the agenda. Lauren Weika, Ashley Olson, Jonathan Foster, Daniel Alonzo, John Medlin, Jerry Rubin, Paul Hipp, Nydia Notario. You can feel free to come up and just state your name so we can check you off, yeah. Lauren Weika. Lauren Weika, yes. GO AHEAD, YEAH, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.

THE CITY IS SUPPOSED TO WORK FOR THE PEOPLE OF SANTA MONICA. RIGHT NOW ONGOING ENFORCEMENT FAILURES ARE MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR RESIDENTS, INCLUDING ME, MY NEIGHBORS AND LOCAL BUSINESS TO LIVE OUR DAILY LIVES. SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, 13 HOURS A DAY FROM 10 A.M. TO 11 P.M. AN OUT OF TOWN GAS POWERED FOOD TRUCK IS INFILTRATING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND INSIDE OUR HOMES. THE BUZZING AND BEEPING IS INSIDE MY EARS IN EVERY ROOM OF MY HOUSE. The rumbling is inside my house, and it sounds and feels like a continuous slow gray jackhammer inside our minds. We cannot rest, work, read, focus, cook, dine, watch TV, or hold a conversation without hearing buzzing, rumbling, and vibrating. I can't stand to be in my own house anymore, and I dread coming home. WHERE AM I SUPPOSED TO GO? WHERE AM I SUPPOSED TO WORK? THIS IS MY HOME, AND SINCE OCTOBER, MY SANCTUARY HAS BEEN TURNED INTO A LIVING NIGHTMARE. YET MY EXPERIENCE CONTINUES TO BE DISMISSED BY THE CITY. DESPITE FIVE REQUESTS, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS NOT STEPPED FOOT ON MY PROPERTY, AND I INVITE YOU TO COME IF YOU WANT TO FEEL WHAT I'VE THOUGHT.

THANK YOU.

ASHLEY OLSON? ALSO, MADAM CLERK, I HAVE A PRESENTATION OR POWERPOINT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU. TONIGHT, AS WE RECOGNIZE HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH AND HONOR DANIEL ALONZO, I WANT TO ASK WHAT IT TRULY MEANS TO HONOR SOMEONE'S HERITAGE. DANIEL'S FAMILY CAME TO SANTA MONICA IN 1902. Daniel has been incredibly involved in a participant in the Santa Monica community. He has helped advocate for public art in the city. And after he advocated for the Commission on the Arts, which he wasn't selected for, He invested in this community by spending more than 13,000 hours creating the 550-foot whale of a mural on Ocean Park Boulevard. He was never paid a dime for that labor. 43 years later, his whales are still swimming, but the mural remains without landmark protection. Tonight, we are honoring Daniel's Hispanic heritage, but heritage can not only be something we proclaim. Heritage is something that we protect. Daniel gave the city a piece of himself that generations of Santa Monica have grown up with. I'm asking the council to begin the landmark process and preserve it for the next generation.

Thank you.

Thank you. So sorry. We love the enthusiasm, but we do happy hands here just to keep the meeting going. Thank you. Jonathan Buster.

Is this working? Hi, Mayor. Mayor, thanks. You are now the greatest mayor of Los Angeles. Yes, you balanced the budgets. And this makes you nine the greatest nine in Santa Monica because it didn't just take you seven. It took the city attorney and the city manager to do this. So I was going to play this again. Listen.

Our general fund is structurally balanced for the coming fiscal year ahead of schedule. but it is the one that makes everything else possible. A balanced budget... Yeah.

More cheering. More cheering for the mayor... in the city council to balance the budget that is awesome news and it really makes me very encouraged as much as i'd like to uh i don't know have some stuff happen about the beer and my complaints and everything i would like to say thank you for balancing the budget and this you should throw a party for yourselves and and declare this council as the best council that ever served in santa monica to balance the budget out of the hole that this city with daniel alonso

Once again, thank you. You know, all my life, ever since I was little, I've always been an animal lover. I'm 69 years old, and I was part of, I was a young adult in the movement of Save the Whales. These whales were being hunted and killed, and they were very close to extinction. That was one of the reasons for the subject matter of why I chose my mural. And I ask you, Council, please consider that Because of the elements, because of time, and because of neglect, don't be the harpoon that causes my whale's demise. Please protect my whales and dolphins on Ocean Park Boulevard. I hope you consider the landmark process. Thank you.

Thank you. John Medlid.

Save the neighborhoods. Today is what? 8th of September. Through your efforts, you've postponed this to February 22nd, 166 days. That's at $4,300 a day, enough to buy another Rose Bowl float, $550,000. Through the end of 2025, you've paid out $14.4 million to Gunter done in culture, your outside law attorneys. Every time you lay this off, delay it, it's $4,300 a day. 14.4 million by 2025. $16 million by 2026 June 30th. You've already run up a budget right now $300,000 just by the first few days by the time you go to the trial on the 22nd of February Thank you

So I'm going to just call up the next few names so we can get through these. Jerry Rubin, you are next. And then we have Paul Hipp, Nydia Notario, Mike Feinstein, Mouse Kim, Fusad Aikiswani. Jerry.

Thank you, Mayor, Councilmember, city staff, fellow Santa Monicans. Jerry Rubin, I'm a member of the Urban Forest Commission. I'm just speaking for myself. I would like to see Danny Alonzo's beautiful whale mural, that mark. I also want to let you know we're going to have our Urban Forest Commission meeting tomorrow at the Santa Monica Library. Everyone concerned about the trees, 6 p.m. upstairs. It's our ongoing meeting we have every other month. You're all invited. Also, I want to let you know that a special meeting is going to be held on October 14th. The community is concerned about the coral trees on San Vicente, and we want to get their input and everybody work together We have a great landscape department, but we welcome the participation of everyone that's caring about trees. So that'll be a special meeting to deal with the coral trees on October 14th. Thank you all for your good work.

Thank you for your good work. Paul Hipp.

Hi, Council.

I have my hard-hitting truth-to-power speech here I was going to do, but I see you guys are so kind and nice. It's been great. I want to bring to your attention the billboards. We live north of the one at 3rd and Wilshire, and it comes into our living room, and it's so blinding. Look, you've seen poltergeist. So just to bring to your attention that they are so bright. I know the ship has sailed on them, and I appreciate that you guys are raising your challenges and raising revenues. Just know that they're really bright. They're shining into people's homes. And I just want to make you aware of that. If you could help us, it'd be just great. And this is available. I also have video if you'd like it. I can email.

We do have our staff here who's happy to take that. Oh, tremendous. And we also would be happy to take it and see it as public comment as well.

This is why I voted for most of you. Most.

Nydia Notario. Is Nydia here?

I have a question before we, I wanted to speak on Hispanic Heritage Month and an item. So do I have one minute for each? Okay, so I'd like to speak on Latino Heritage Month first, and then I want to show my video. Is that okay? Okay, so Latino Heritage Month first. First, thank you for recognizing Latino Heritage Month and for celebrating the contributions of our Latino community. But in that spirit, I need to ask about something at the very entrance to this building. What happened to the interpretive signage that was placed in front of the Stanton McDonald Wright mural? Many Latino and indigenous community members spent considerable time working with the city because portions of that mural are deeply offensive to us and present a troubling depiction of our history. We understood that larger CIP projects to contextualize the mural have been put on hold, but a great deal of community work had already been done to provide historical information and to help determine how this artwork would be appropriately contextualized. And at minimum, there is an understanding that explanatory signage would remain. That signage is now gone. So as we recognize Latino Heritage Month, I respectfully ask, who authorized its removal, why was it removed, and when will it be restored? Please restore the signage while the larger project remains on hold. Next. So if you could please put the one-minute video. If you could turn off my, while you find it. And restart it? Okay. I'll get to start my time. I recently read Mayor Tarosa's Pico Corridors Opportunity Project, as well as their explanation. And frankly, I'm struggling to reconcile the words that many of us in Pico are experiencing. The project identifies Pico as Santa Monica's mostly historically displaced community. It warns about gentrification, speculation, and rising land values. It calls for anti-displacement protections and community-led governance. And now we're told that the real work must be led by people most affected. I agree, but I'm one of those people. My family is one of those families, and my neighbors are those people. So when exactly do we get to lead? Restorative justice cannot simply be something done for PICO. It has to include listening to residents when we're telling you what is happening to us right now. If the goal is to truly protect people who live here today, then please start by listening to us today. Okay.

Thank you, Council Member Parra. Nydia Notario? Hi, and then Mike Feinstein, Mouse Kim.

Good evening, Mayor Toro, Assistant Council Members. My name is Nidia Notario. On February 19th, I asked the Santa Monica Police for assistance for someone that asked me for help. I reported I was being prevented from leaving from this person. I was threatened and coerced, and my belongings were taken. I didn't have my keys so I can access my car, and a firearm was present. I feared for my safety, but instead of receiving assistance, Instead of receiving a detective interview or a meaningful investigation, I was arrested. Seven days in jail. My case was dismissed on August 20 after many days in court. I risked my license. I lost many jobs. But since then, I have contacted multiple public officials seeking review, but I have received no meaningful response, sometimes no response at all. I speak not only for myself, but as a concerned member of the public, justice should never depend on who's easier to arrest, as I heard Officer Cornejo say.

Thank you. I think our team is here and can talk to you. Mike Feinstein, and then Mouse Kim, and then Fuad Al-Kiswani Dick Lucas.

Great. Hey, I wanted to come here and publicly thank the council, the city manager, and put on the public record what a success the Tongva Twilight program has been. As part of your realignment plan to activate our public non-commercial spaces and have community members feel safe and comfortable there is a big success. And a lot of people went there who didn't even know how cool those spaces were or how safe and fun that they could be. So I hope that you will look ahead and Jenny did such a good job, her people, with that. And I hope that you find a way to continue to fund her work, her department, for all of our parks. I also want to suggest that you look at a food cart Possibility in Tongva Park in the future. I suggested that like 15 years ago staff didn't agree with it at the time I think for lunchtime a lot of people would love to be able to go there and just hang out and it would continue To activate that space.

Thanks Thank you Mouse kid There was a little bit of confusion is this an appropriate time to speak about the appointments I

No, that would be later. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Thank you so much. You could talk to our clerk over here. Yeah. Flood.

Hi there. I was asked to come to speak to my plea to join the airport commission and then the Santa Monica Inc. boards.

That would also be later in the agenda. So you can talk to our clerk about signing our clerk right here. Ms. Anderson Warren. Yeah. Thank you. Dick Lucas.

thank you hopefully i don't get nuked too um about eight weeks ago someone dm'd me about mayor terosis hiding comments on her instagram post i made a whole video about it i was going to publish it but i said you know what i encourage this person to make the comments about it they did at the next meeting i've now been informed that another person and i believe the city attorney is aware of this has also been blocked. I think they're unblocked at this point. I assume there are other people and other comments that are being deleted under the mayor's Instagram post. This doesn't sound like a big deal, but the Supreme Court covered this. This is illegal. That is a free speech zone. I can't imagine all the vitriol you probably get in your lightning rod because you are the mayor, but we need that space below your posts to communicate with each other, to keep each other informed, to share ideas. And this is also warning other people Please don't block people, don't delete comments, and if you think your comments are deleted, have another account, look at the comments, and if they don't see it, your comment was deleted, or DM me, Dick Lucas, if you think you're being blocked or deleted, I'll bring attention to this issue, it's very serious, and we need to be able to talk.

Thank you. Denise Barton, Clarence McDowell, Carlos Rodarte, Michael Laborde.

Good evening. Is it on? Good evening. I hope you all saw the California Post August 21st, 2026 editorial article titled, Iconic City or Slum by the Sea, Santa Monica Needs Help Stat, where I thought the best line in the article was, police presence won't fix years of decline caused in part by a permissive, radical, and at times loony tune city council, because that describes you so well. For example, at the end of July, the police had in custody someone ICE had a detainer letter for, which the Santa Monica police returned, refused to honor, and they released the criminal back into the community, resulting in ICE having to go out into the community and pick him up. So I hope everyone can see it is your action that is causing the fear for the illegal immigrants. So you can use more of the city taxpayers' money under the guise of they're so afraid of ICE as a result of your action.

Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.

Good evening everyone, Mayor, Council. My name is Clarence McDowell. My wife Vicki and I have been here for 20 years living in Santa Monica. And it's been a year since we've slept in our home due to repairs that the landlord continues to not make. We've asked for the city's help, and we only have three asks this evening. Ask number one, we're asking that you enforce the per diem that is required by the landlord to make repairs. Second, we're asking the city to settle the liability claim, as we have a number of people who have confirmed that they've been given direction to not pay the per diem. And third, we're asking to confirm the tenant harassment and stop the demands for rent on uninhabitable unit that my family.

Thank you. Carlos Rodarte. I'll call up some more names. Michael Laborde. Reverend Jim Kahn. Michael DeAndre Davis. Dylan Moore. Claire Thomas. Well, I'm a California resident. Can you state your name, please?

My name is Michael Davis. Excuse me. Michael DeAndre Davis. I'm a California resident. All my life, I've been a designer, a creator, a builder of new things. I've invented things like the Tesla, the motor that's in the Tesla. Little Rascals, they made the go-kart. I said, take a part two. Let's put in the real world differential. Let's put it in the car. Let's go. All right. They did that. I didn't get paid. I invented the touchscreen on your phones. I said, hey, make a grid, put some wires, and let's figure this out because I want to touch my screen, okay? It does, you know, one thing after another. I mean, I've built Facebook design, you know, ideated and added so many things. Well, this time I'm keeping the credit, okay? I built a business called Yacht Teacher R&D LLC. I am seeking a grant. I need to build some business. I'm a miner, a Bitcoin miner. I built...

Thank you, Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Is Carlos Rodarte or Michael Laborde here? Okay, Reverend Jim Kahn, former Mayor Jim Kahn.

Mayor, council members, I'm not sure how I missed this on the past agenda, but I learned this week that a delegation from our city will be attending a conference on social housing in Vienna this month. And along with a handful of housing staff, a council member will be attending as well. Can I say your name, Barry? Oh, good. Barry Snell. And I was delighted that this social housing is the conference that we're attending because it has become such a significant source of fair housing across Europe. So, and of course, as you might imagine, I think that the closure of Santa Monica Airport is a perfect opportunity to develop this concept in Santa Monica and a small portion of that vast area at the airport.

Thank you, Reverend Kahn. We have Dylan Moore, Claire Thomas, Mark Youssef, Kelly Strader.

Hello, my name is Dylan Moore, and I'm a resident on Euclid Street next to the two Waymo lots. Two of our 65-foot palm trees were cut down without any of the 14-day public notice as required by the Urban Forestry Master Plan as established by the City Council. This is what remains of one of the trees that was older than any residents living on our block. The plan requires notice to appear on the trees themselves, announced on an email list, and posted online, and none of that happened. Instead, we saw spray-painted Xs on both trunks on a Sunday, and by Monday, they were gone. These trees came down because Waymo applied for additional curb cuts on Euclid, and these trees were simply in their way. Like a cartoon villain feeding a billion-dollar company trees for dinner, the city approved both and made sure angry residents could not object. Allowing citizens to speak on material issues that affect our streets and our living conditions is a bedrock requirement of democracy. The city overrode its own arborist and forestry commission, which voted down the removal. We need to investigate and hold accountable.

Thank you. Ms. Thomas.

Despite the school district's complaint that the city is an unfair partner, the city has been formally supporting SMMUSD with funding since 2002 when the school was in bad financial situation. The school district just now came out with their actual numbers for the 2025-2026 school year, showing an $8 million surplus instead of as predicting a $10 million deficit. Their reserve goal was 33% of their $228 million budget, which, if they include both their unrestricted and restricted reserves, now equals 39%. Instead of advocating for more money from the residents in the form of the parcel tax, why not go back to the school district and ask them to be good partners and help the city out in this time of fiscal distress? The council is putting forward bills to help protect residents from eviction and frequently quote that many folks are $500 emergency bill away from getting behind in their finances. Yet they're advocating for a $495 a year tax that increases each year and has no sunset. Please stop advocating for more taxes.

Thank you, Dr. Youssef.

Hello, City Council. My name is Dr. Mark Youssef. I've been a practicing physician and a business owner here in Santa Monica for 22 years. Active member in the community, member of the Chamber of Commerce. I've spoken to some of you about this project next to our building at 1325 Fifth Street that will negatively impact the entire street. If you can picture it, it is in between on Fifth Street in between Santa Monica and Arizona. There is no residential projects on this street currently. This project has been given several concessions, including no parking for a five-story building and many other concessions that will negatively impact the safety of the patient care that we're doing at our surgery center. And I don't want to wait till an emergency happens to come and tell you about this. This project really needs all of our attention and really needs to be looked at to be properly built somewhere that's more appropriate. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Kelly Schroeder.

Hi. Just to piggyback on what Dr. Yusuf had said, I just want to raise a very specific concern about this project. According to the applicant's own filing, these 35 affordable units are being placed to satisfy affordable housing obligations associated with three different separate market projects. One on Lincoln, one on sixth and one on fifth. So my question is, why are all the affordable housing obligations generated by these three different market rate developments being concentrated into one small parcel? Why weren't they incorporated into the developments that originated the obligations? The application proposes 35 apartments and five stories with zero automobile parking. Our patients undergo surgical procedures. Many cannot simply walk or bicycle home afterwards. They require safe vehicle pickup and drop-off privacy, reliable access, and occasionally emergency medical access. Construction also raises serious concerns about vibration, dust, noise, and access during surgical procedures.

I APPRECIATE IT. I KNOW THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU'VE BEEN HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF OUR STAFF IS ABLE TO CHAT WITH YOU. OKAY. ZOE MUNTENER, LILIANA HERNANDEZ, BROWN ACT VIOLATION, CAMERON CASH.

I WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT LATINA HERITAGE MONTH FIRST AND THEN PLAY THE VIDEO THAT I SENT YOU AND THE IMAGES THAT I SENT YOU IF THAT WILL BE POSSIBLE. Thank you so much for recognizing Hispanic Heritage Day. Back in 2022, I spoke to City Attorney Sloan and City Attorney Susan Colla and City Manager David White about Latina Equal Pay Day. Last month, we had Latina Day and the city failed to recognize that important holiday. Latina Equal Pay Day is on October 8 of 2026. Latinas earn an average of about 51 cents to 54 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men, including part-time and seasonal workers. Let's remind that yesterday was Labor Day. The career loss of our standard of 40-year career results in a loss of more than $1.2 million for Latina workers. Time to catch up. Because of the wide gap, a Latina must work nearly 23 months to make what a white non-Hispanic man makes in 12 months. Why these gaps exist? That's what I wanted to discuss with the city attorney's office, and I was assigned someone to work with me and then never receive an email to work on this. So we can do the symbolic proclamations, but, you know, actions speak louder than words. Can you place a video? No, it's the other video, the video that you had before this.

No, no, no, it's above, I sent two videos.

Two movies. Can you go up or down, down, down, down?

The ones that said M-O-V.

Okay. Okay. I was pepper sprayed last Sunday, and Lana Negrete gave this weekly report. She said that public safety is more than numbers on a piece of paper. I took the bus in front of Santa Monica Place, I got off on Lincoln Boulevard, and this man, this is the film, this man that is a worker on a pedicab business that is operating from four rent-controlled garages on the alley of 7th and Pico. didn't like the fact that I started videotaping because I've been collecting evidence to present to the mobility department about this illegal business. They have taken over the whole alley, and this woman that is a neighbor, just crazy, her name is Hannah Behan, the police had to come because she called the police and me, Because between my downstairs neighbor that operates this illegal business and her, who works from her house for DoorDash, have waged a war against me for no reason than my former roommate violated his lease.

Thank you, Ms. Moutaner. Liliana Hernandez, Brown Act violation, Cameron Cash, Alan Segi, and Shondell Taco.

My name is Liliana Hernandez, former housekeeper of Fairmont Miramar Hotel and proud member of Unite Here Local 11. I'm here tonight on behalf of the Cloverfield Commons Coalition and Unite Here and CLU, and I'm advocating for you to keep below-market rate housing at the airport in the forefront of your minds. I'm also advocating for my co-workers and myself who will have to travel as far as two or three hours commute every day. This is a unique opportunity to do the right thing for workers who kept the hospitality industry running at Santa Monica. Thank you. Thank you.

Brown Act violation?

Okay, I sent an email. It's in the written comments, under general written comments. I've sent several emails to you guys in the last 24 hours about having violated the Brown Act in numerous ways. I was able to speak to the city attorney just before this meeting because no one had gotten back to me. There was no written agenda posted outside of City Hall, which is a violation of the Brown Act and therefore anything that you do at this meeting tonight will be null and void because there will be a lawsuit. The city attorney wondered why I hadn't heard back from the city clerk. Then she advised me that they were coordinating a response to me and that the agenda, the written agenda that's supposed to be freely available to the public is at some kind of wayfinding kiosk. However, the city agenda, the 900 and some page city agenda for tonight's meeting says that the agendas are reports and reports

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Cameron Cash.

Good evening, mayor and city council members. My name is Cameron Cash, and I'm a community organizer in L.A. in Santa Monica with Clue Justice, and I'm here tonight on behalf of the Cloverfield Commons Coalition and Clue. I'm advocating as well for you to keep low market rate housing in the airport at the forefront of your mind. Santa Monica is presented with a fantastic opportunity to do the right thing for the more than 80,000 people who work in Santa Monica who can't afford to live here and have to commute from as far as Palmdale. and build below market rate affordable housing so that their families can go to school here and pay taxes here and be a part of this beautiful community. Currently, there is a very confounding dearth of below market rate homes in Santa Monica, but it doesn't have to be this way and it shouldn't be this way. And as a representative of Clue Justice and the interfaith community in Santa Monica, I implore each of you to continue to think and talk about this and to do the right thing for the workers of Santa Monica to increase the vitality of this beloved Santa Monica community. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Is Alan Sege here? We'll move to Sean Del Taco.

Thank you. 911 Montana is a shit show. A biblical proportion. I've been here. almost a dozen times, not here, but throughout different councils. It's too late right now for the city to stop allowing this cluster blank to continue for a coffee shop. Right up the yin-yang of a bunch of old ladies, and I'm the oldest one there, because I've been bitching and moaning for a long time. Virginia Avenue Apartments Mayor Pro Tem Zwick said that it was a major booboo. Nobody's been relocated. That was at the heart of that 40 million dollar 40 unit. 15 million for the purchase, 25 million for the restoration. But we've been there and this is 86 Saturdays, 21 months of construction. It's a Mills Act property. You know, this is the same billionaire who owns all the, who's doing a lot of the digital displays.

Thank you, Sean Del Taco. Okay, Alan, say you're not here. Now move on to the phone callers. Thank you.

Okay, Mitchell, we're ready for the phone callers.

All right, our first caller is Mike Montgomery. Mr. Montgomery, you can press star six to unmute yourself, and your time will begin when you begin speaking.

Hello. I've lived in Santa Monica long enough now to understand when leadership stops paying attention to the people who actually live here. I've seen a number of them tonight. And under Mayor DeRosa, that's exactly how it feels. Crime doesn't feel like it's distant anymore. It's break-ins, confrontations, the shift in how people move through the city, and The unhoused population has grown in ways the city wasn't prepared for, even when we're simply asking for it, it seems. So what changed things for me was learning, I guess, quietly, not from the mayor, but from the public, that she planned to place severely mentally ill individuals into housing just a few blocks from my family with no notice, no conversation. This is something that she tried to advance without telling the community. And I think it's ridiculous that she's never had to answer for it. She never stood up and told the truth publicly about what she tried to do. And Monica deserves leadership that's honest with the people who live here. And right now, we don't have that.

Our next speaker is Farhad Chanduwadia. You can press star six to unmute yourself and your time will begin. All right, we might have lost him. Move on to Samantha Pearl. Samantha, you can press star six to unmute yourself and your time will begin.

Want to go to the next one, Mitchell?

Yes, Anthony Jernigan is next. You can press star six to unmute yourself and your time will begin when you begin speaking. Mr. Jernigan, make sure you're unmuted on your phone as well. I see you're unmuted on Zoom, but we can't hear you.

Okay, let's go on to the next one.

All right, and then we have Efren Creato. You can unmute yourself by pressing star six, and your time will begin when you begin to speak.

Hi, before I start, I have a question. Do I have one minute or two minutes?

You have one minute. Go ahead. You can begin.

Can you guys?

You can go ahead and begin. Can you hear me? Yes, you have one minute. Go ahead and begin.

Good evening, mayor and council. I want to talk about something that a lot of residents are concerned about fairness and honesty. We have a mayor who is running for office while still using her position as mayor. We've seen her take credit for things she voted against or did not support. We also seen city social media being used to promote her while comments from residents are being hidden or blocked. And when police officers show up at campaign events, People have the right to ask is a city business, or is this part of the campaign? This is not about Democrats or Republicans. It's about doing what's right. City resource belongs to the people of Santa Monica. It should not be used to help any politician campaigns. People deserve a fair process, honest leadership and clear awareness.

Thank you.

okay um miss anderson warren i believe that concludes all the general public comment is that it mitchell or do we miss anyone that was all the callers going down the list thank you so yes great um we will now move on to the consent calendar uh and no items were pulled is anyone recusing themselves

I have one item. Mayor?

Yes. Oh, this is on the consent, the four item, the consent calendar.

Okay, let me pull that up.

Mayor? I'll go ahead.

Sorry, I was a closed session item.

Sorry, we will tell us the recusals and then we'll do the public comment.

I'd like to pull 4J to recuse the rent control apartment that I rent is within 1,000 yards of the facilities under discussion in this item, and though I have no financial stake in the decision, I will recuse to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. Thank you.

Okay. We will now hear the public comment on this item, and I will call our speakers. And again, sorry, Raskin, go ahead.

Sorry, I've got one more recusal here on item 4F I'll be recusing. Brown and Caldwell is a client of my law firm, Hanson, Bridge, LLP. Neither I nor the law firm have any financial interest in this contract whatsoever, but to avoid any appearance of a variety, I will be recusing.

Great. And again, we will hear the public comment now. I'm not trying to tell people not to comment, but again, we have a lot of comments. And if someone said something that you agree with already, you can feel free to say I agree. Kenneth Stevens, Aspen Smith, Nakul Joshi, Amber Bhargava.

I'm Kenna Stevens, the owner and one of the coaches at Santa Monica Trapeze School, and I've been working at the school since 2010. I want to say thank you to the city for thinking of my small business as a way to activate the underutilized space at Clover Park. Activating spaces like this with the appropriate local small businesses can do more than generate economic activity. It can make our public spaces safer. When a space is unused, as the space in Clover Park has been since 2022, it can feel neglected or disconnected from the community. The Trapeze School creates natural eyes and ears in every space we go to simply by existing. Supporting small businesses in this type of activation is an opportunity to strengthen our local community while making our public spaces more welcoming, active, and safe. Thank you.

Aspen Smith.

Hi, I just wanted to say I'm a Santa Monica resident born and raised, and I started going to the Trapeze School, which is currently run by Kenna when I was 11 years old, and I currently work there part-time just because I love it so much, and it's such an important space for me and my community, and I'm really hoping that you all will consider supporting a small women-owned business that is looking to create a space where she can do good in the world and make this Santa Monica a better place. Thank you.

Thank you. Nicole Joshi, Amber Bargava, Carissa Drucker, Mary Beth O'Donovan.

Hi, my name is Nicole Joshi. I've been living in Santa Monica for the last five years and West LA for the last 10. We started this meeting with a little talk about small businesses and how we'd like to support them. I think we have a brilliant opportunity to show that right now. Let's just approve it without further delay. I would ask yourselves, you know, if you had no way of planning and you were being moved around every month, how would you be able to plan a business? So that's it. Thank you.

Amber Bargavette. Just echoing what people have said. Going to Santa Monica Trapeze School, it's been like, you know, really like the highlight of living in Santa Monica for me. And it would be great if we could continue to support small businesses. I would like to say that too many things. Anyways, what...

Should have prepared things better here.

Santa Monica Trapeze School was one of the first things that I started doing in Santa Monica after the pandemic. It's been a really great place to find community. It's an amazing third space and really unique from other businesses where the communities are great and the attention given to the students really creates a really great atmosphere. I knew I was going to cry, and I'm doing it. For the city, it would be great to send a strong signal to keep local businesses that want to stay in Santa Monica afloat. I know a lot of other places, even like the REI, have left, and it's been really sad to see that happen in a place that could be really, really great. So that's all I have to say.

Thank you. So we have Carissa Drucker, Mary Beth O'Donovan, Denise Burton.

I'm not here to talk about the Trapeze School.

That's OK. It's anything on the consent calendar. OK. Yeah.

I'm here to talk about the planned islands on 14th Street. I am not just a resident. I also own property in Santa Monica. I've been here since 1981. I live off of Broadway, so we have already experienced on Broadway and then near the food co-op on 17th what has gone on for calming measures or protective lanes for bikes. And I'm here to say that it's not right. It's just not right what the city is trying to do on a theoretical basis for bicycles and sustainability or whatever it's considered because 14th is one of the few streets that goes through. It's dangerous. It causes real traffic blockage so that emergency vehicles can't pass easily. We have had significant problems just from where I live on 10th down to say 4th on Broadway because of the way they've taken out the parking. It is not good for small businesses. I don't think it is appropriate. And I don't understand why a plan that was conceived during pandemic when nobody was around is now going forward and spending millions and millions of dollars to do it. We have enough bike lanes. Colorado goes that way. Broadway now goes both ways. There's so much other things that we could be doing in this city other than creating cement islands on 14th Street. That's basically what I'm here to say. Thank you. Thank you. Mary Beth O'Donovan.

Hi, my name is Mary Beth O'Donovan. I've been a Santa Monica resident since 2000. I have two children that were born here, and I'm here to talk about this trapeze school as well. I started flying at the school when it was on the pier. I think it was the most beautiful place for it. I've spent most of this meeting reading all of the letters that people sent in. the form letter, I totally agree. The pier was the perfect place. But unfortunately, we were moved out of there. And then we were moved over to the airport. And that wasn't well thought out. And we've been fighting with people over there. This school is adorable and loved and quirky and weird and unique, and it has supported some of the most beautiful people I have ever met in my life. My daughter started flying through the air when she was two years old on a trapeze. It has changed everything about my life. My oldest daughter wrote her college essays, her entrance essays about the way she was accepted at that school. This is a beautiful place. We started the meeting talking about small businesses. This is a small woman-owned business and she is struggling so hard and not fighting as hard as she can and should sometimes, I think, I really wish she would find a way to help her. I think that Clover Park is underutilized. I think that the barbecues is a ridiculous argument.

Thank you. Thank you. We have Denise Barton, Christine Parra, Andrea Tabuenka, Steven Johnson.

Good evening. On item 4A, do the people giving the grant know that $15 million was paid out of the water fund for the Powell lawsuit, which hasn't been paid back yet? On item 4G, was the original work order to furnish City Hall East, the East building, not all of the city, with all of the inclusive... ESSENTIALS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AND DOESN'T $3.5 MILLION SEEM A LITTLE EXCESSIVE? ON ITEM 4M, I HOPE THE REASON YOU NEED SO MANY REAL ESTATE AGENTS IS BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE SELLING CITY PROPERTY TO REPLENISH THE RESTRICTED FUNDS USED TO PAY OFF THE POW LAWSUIT. AND ON ITEM 4R, KEEPING THE CURRENT CITY CLERK AS A HELPER TO THE NEW CITY CLERK UNTIL OCTOBER 1ST. THE NEW CITY CLERK HAS A HISTORY OF ADDING THINGS IN BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READINGS OF ITEMS. So you're having one dirty city clerk show the new dirty city clerk her dirty tricks making all of you look dirty. Thank you Thank you Councilman Rapparo Once again

I WAS STUNNED TO SEE TONIGHT'S CLOSED SESSION ITEM REGARDING 2525 MICHIGAN AVENUE, BERGAMOTTE STATION, WHERE THE CITY IS NEGOTIATING PRICE AND TERMS WITH HOUSING DEVELOPERS. THIS IS 5.6 ACRES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO ARAGONDARA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT IDENTIFIES BERGAMOTTE FOR 707 AFFORDABLE UNITS. I want to be very clear. We don't know what these developers are proposing. We don't know whether it's 707 units, what density or height is contemplated, what populations are going to be served, or what ultimately happens to the existing arts community. And I'm not going to speculate. and here's what we do know later tonight the same council will consider whether to further up zone argandara park neighborhood so on the same evening you're negotiating behind closed doors over the potential redevelopment of 5.6 acres of at bergamot while considering major land use changes in the same immediate adjacent residential neighborhood. Our community is already bordered by the freeway, expo line, and major commercial and transportation corridors. Many of us were there first. We are already experiencing development pressure on Delaware Avenue. At what point does somebody stop looking at these decisions individually and examine their cumulative impact? WHERE IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS? WHERE IS THE ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC, INFRASTRUCTURE, EMERGENCY SERVICES, CONSTRUCTION, DISPLACEMENT PRESSURES, AND THE CUMULATIVE BURDEN BEING CONCENTRATED ON WITHIN THIS ONE SMALL COMMUNITY?

NEW SPEAKER ANDREA TABUENCA, STEPHEN JOHNSON, KAREN MILIK, ZOE MUTINER.

Hi, I'm Andrea Taboinka. I'm a child psychologist by day, but I'm also an aerialist and a trapeze flyer, and I'm here in support of moving the trapeze school to the park. This isn't simply about finding some land to house a trapeze rig. It's about the value that the space could offer back to the public. The Trapeze School would bring so much life into this space with families, movement, and art. It would create a greater sense of safety and connection, bringing together a community that cares deeply for the spaces that the trapeze calls home. Our community has a bunch of different people, so diverse, experienced athletes and Olympian even, engineers, social workers, and teachers, people who just want to try something new. We once welcomed an 86-year-old grandparent flying trapeze for the very first time with his grandchild. As a psychologist, I often talk to kids about fear and courage, and I show off my tiny wrist tattoo that says HUP. That's the word that trapeze catcher calls out when it's time to let go and trust that someone is there to catch you. That's what the trapeze represents to our community. It represents courage, safety, trust, inclusion, and fun. And I think that's a pretty powerful message for a public space, and one that the city of Santa Monica could be proud of. You don't have to be up in the air or a student of the school to receive that message. Every day people join us with picnic blankets and snacks just to watch, bring friends, and enjoy the time in their city. We're a city of outdoor life, movement, creativity, and the unexpected, and the Treppies belongs here. Thank you.

Thank you. Stephen Johnson.

NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. AND DIRECT CITY STAFF TO BRING THE PROPOSAL BEFORE THE RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION, THE URBAN FOREST COMMISSION, AND THE SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION, AS WELL AS PROVIDE OUTREACH TO THE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS, SCHOOLS, AND SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS THAT CALL CLOVER PARK HOME. GRANTING A 5 TO 10 YEAR LEASE TO A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE IN A PUBLIC PARK WITHOUT PUBLIC REVIEW GOES AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF OUR PARKS. THE PIER WAS A GREAT LOCATION FOR THE TRAPEZE SCHOOL. and I'm sorry to see that they were pushed out of that location. We'd like to know more about why. But the pier is not a park, and the airport parking lot where they are currently operating is also not a park. So I hope you'll agree that any commitment of public park space to a private entity deserves both deeper and wider consideration. Please place this on a future agenda after it's gone through a proper public process. Thank you.

Thank you. Karen Mielek, Zoe Mutunera, Miles Freeman, Eve Lopez, Brown Act Violation.

Good evening. I'm Karen Mielek. I support small businesses and the Trapeze School is a unique business, but this is a precedent-setting agreement to put a commercial business in our limited park space. without adequate review. And this is something that you already did once. You put it at the airport without adequate review, and that's why you're trying to move it. So don't make that same mistake. It needs community review. and the city staff and Recs and Parks Commission. Because it isn't in line with the Parks and Rec Vision Plan, the Parks and Rec Needs Assessment, or the Airport Conversion Plan. So you're putting it in another place where it's gonna be a temporary thing and move, because it's not a part of the stroll. And the space, we've been asking to activate that and put it back to be at the amphitheater and our asking has been ignored by the city. And the trailer area is actually 40 feet short of the space that they say that they need. It's 80 feet and it needs 120 feet. So trees will be affected, and I'm sorry, having trapeze fly over our picnic area is the same thing as having them fly outside the window of the Mar Vista residence, which is what you're trying to do here. Please, the area that's under-utilized is the parking lot space on the pier. Put it there. Why can't it go there? Thank you.

Thank you. Zoe Moutonier and then Miles Freeman and Eve Lopez.

I want to speak one minute on the Trapeze School and one minute on the Virginia Avenue Park kitchen. I know Karen, the founder of this Trapeze School because we lived together at the YWCA in Brooklyn, New York. We were broke and the only thing that we could afford was a single room occupancy but there were a lot of creative people at that particular housing and we all took different paths and I know that she's so hardworking and a visionary But more than anything, I learned to fly in New York. I actually went to my first Trapeze Academy in Brooklyn. And there was a reporter from the New York Times there and published a story about it. And I was featured in the story. And I want to speak about... the value that it has for people that have disabilities and people that struggle with mental health challenges because our mayor disclosed tonight that she suffers from something similar. So this is something that really touches on a lot of different areas and if it's not Clover Park, Just find another place because the value of this for the community and as a small business owner myself, I can tell you it's invaluable for people with disabilities, with people that struggle with mental health and to build community in those particular segments of our population. And as William Shakespeare said in Coriolanus, what is the city, but it's people. Thank you. Virginia Avenue Park. I'm excited about the kitchen. I love to cook and that's another of my creative outlets and also helps a lot with mental health. the actual process of cooking. And I love the fact that we can create pop-up restaurants at the Pico Avenue, Virginia Avenue Park, because I wanted to open a pop-up Puerto Rican restaurant. Everybody asks me, where can I get Puerto Rican? So that would be a great idea.

Thank you. Miles Freeman. Eve Lopez, Brown Act violation, Lisa Berliner, John C. Smith, Hillary Bibicoff.

I'll be speaking on 4B, 4K, and 4M. Is it two minutes or one minute for three items? Two minutes, great. As I indicated, I'll be speaking on items 4B, 4K, and 4M from the consent calendar. Regarding item 4B, we all support safer streets and improved mobility, but before authorizing nearly $2 million to design a protected bikeway along 14th Street that may affect roadway capacity, emergency access, or evacuation routes, THE CITY SHOULD COMPLETE A COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY EVACUATION CAPACITY STUDY, PLEASE. THIS IS ABOUT SEQUENCING. UNDERSTAND OUR EMERGENCY AND EVACUATION NEEDS COME FIRST. THEN DESIGN OUR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND THOSE FINDINGS, NOT IN THE REVERSE. PLEASE DEFER 4B UNTIL THAT ANALYSIS IS COMPLETE. regarding item 4k it proposes to relocate the trapeze school into a public park whatever your view of the relocation we should remember how we arrived here the airport commission made representations concerning the trapeze school that exceeded its advisory authority and contributed if not caused the current litigation exposure the city is facing residents now face losing access to a portion of their public park as a result. This serves as an important reminder that relevant expertise, sound judgment, diverse perspectives, and an understanding of the commission's limited authority matters. When those qualities are absent from any commission, including the airport commission, and or incumbents lacking these qualifications are reappointed, situations like the trapeze school will result. And lastly, item 4M, I ask that you, it asks to approve 16 as-needed real estate planning, architecture, and design consulting contracts, totaling nearly $16 million. While having qualified consultants available may be efficient, efficiency should not come at the expense of fiscal oversight and transparency. With no defined projects, you are writing a $16 million blank check with no public input. Please.

Thank you. Brown Act violation?

Hi, I think you need to get rid of Anuj Gupta because whatever data you're looking at, he is not a traffic management specialist and all of this ghost riding bike lanes that have taken six feet off of every street with a green lane and there is no one using them in my neighborhood. Like people come to visit me and they say, what are all these green lanes for? Because they can't figure it out because no one is riding in the green lanes. So that's the problem. You shouldn't be doing this on 14th Street. You're gonna create problems. I can see it. I am disabled. I cannot imagine when I was using a walker what would have happened with me trying to get out. of a car and try and get over these, I would be dead. Okay, I would be dead. The problems that you guys have with all of this stuff on consent, you're taking away, you're considering an enclosed session to take away part of Reed Park community room for we don't know what. So that's why the wise healthy aging isn't feeding the poor elderly people across the street and in my neighborhood. I mean, what is it about you guys that you can't just stop greed and taking over everything? Who are you serving? This is ridiculous. You guys are not thinking. You are utopianas, and utopianas is a word that I'm going to coin because you believe that you're thinking the right way, but you haven't thought ahead. You're like one step that you think ahead instead of, hey, what about the poo-pooers that will really make you think harder, make you deliberate? You're not using your time correctly. and you're disrespecting the community in the meantime. Thank you.

Thank you. Lisa Berliner, John C. Smith, Hilary Bibicoff.

Hi, my name is Lisa Berliner. I've been a student of the Santa Monica Trapeze School for 14 years and an instructor for 13. The Santa Monica Trapeze School has become a staple of our community for more than 18 years. Although we've been displaced from the pier, we would love the opportunity to continue serving Santa Monica at the beautiful Clover Park. We are not asking the city to move anything or take away from the existing park uses. We are asking for the opportunity to activate an underutilized portion of the park and bring something unique, active, and community-oriented to the space. Santa Monica Trapeze School is more than just a school. It is a safe and welcoming place for people of all ages and abilities to participate in the circus arts or simply sit and watch and enjoy what we do. At a time when so much of our lives are spent behind computers and phones, we provide a place where people can get outside, move their bodies, challenge themselves, and connect with others. You don't even need to participate to feel connected. I personally have a friend that comes just to watch. As an instructor, I've watched countless students, young and old, accomplish things they never believed they could. Students have come to us from local home schools to fulfill their physical education requirements. They've even had the privilege of watching teenagers spend their formative years with us, go off to college and come back as adults with careers and families of their own. These are relationships and memories that extend far beyond a single class. We also contribute to the safety and vitality of the spaces in which we operate. When working on the pier, particularly from the platform, our team is constantly scanning for the surrounding environments for potential safety issues, both inside and outside of our immediate space. Recognizing a problem early, communicating effectively with our team, and calling appropriate assistance before situation escalates is a priority for us. We take this responsibility very seriously. Personally for me, I have a full-time job working in healthcare. It is a huge stress relief for me. It also is a safe space for me.

Thank you. John C. Smith.

City Clerk, two items, four minutes total. I'm speaking on the consent calendar, item 4K and item 4B. Two items? Two minutes. I only get two minutes? Killing me. All right, guys. John Cyrus Smith, former Parks Commissioner, speaking on 4K and 4B. You know, I used to drive to Hollywood, Burbank, USC every day, five, six days a week. Now I bike and e-bike all over town. I remember using that protected bikeway, my wife and I going to the fireworks at SMC, and I'm thinking, she's safe. And that's what we're talking about here, safety. However, adding another protected bike lane to 14th Street, just three blocks away, and to 11th Street, that's part of the plan, is overkill. And I think it will bottleneck our city. And I'm a cyclist, guys. 11 and 14 are two workhorse thoroughfares of our city. No one uses Lincoln anymore, and 20th has the hospital traffic and the train. So now imagine the 41 bus is coming up there, the BBB, slowly crawling its way north on up 14th from Pico to Montana on a Thursday afternoon as school gets out, holding back a long line of cars because it blocks traffic every time it stops. Look, the best thing you've done in terms of public safety was putting those stop signs in Wilmont at all the intersections. That was a simple, really accessible, good public safety improvement. But putting three north-south protected bikeways within less than a half mile of each other through the heart of the city is not. Please rethink this item, pull the item, rethink it, resubmit it, And, you know, let's talk to the Rick and Parks Commission next time before we, how much time left? 22 seconds. Anyway, it's the Trapeze School. I love the school, but giving a private entity a five-year plus five-year deal in a public park without a public process that only earns $48,000 a year is silly. And you should rethink that and pull that item as well. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Hilary Bibikoff?

Hi, I'm speaking for Santa Monica Trapeze School. So Santa Monica Trapeze is my happy place. I started flying there regularly when I was 49 and I'm now 60. This is a supportive, loving, all-inclusive environment for kids of all ages that would be an asset to any community. Our noise and traffic footprint is small. Our largest classes are capped at 10 people and most classes are capped even lower. We take an underutilized area of the community and fill it with love and encouragement. We cheer everyone on, whether their goal is to get over a fear of heights and make it up the ladder, catch their first knee hang, or fly professionally in the circus, with most of us falling somewhere in between. So many students are thrilled with what they have accomplished in just one class. Santa Monica neighbors who are objecting to us are either opposed to anything at all in their neighborhood or fearing the unknown, not knowing what an asset we will be. Santa Barbara Trapeze is loved by its neighbors and has turned a drug and homeless riddled park into a wonderful space, bringing the community together. And Santa Monica Trapeze has already operated for many years on the Santa Monica Pier as a safe and healthy environment for so many. I've read the written objections that have been submitted to approving the new home for the trapeze rig. The vast majority of them are form letters, several of which even left the sign here language in the signature line. These letters talk about removing trees, which is not happening. They also refer to a huge commercial venture, which is not what this is. This is about being a supportive environment where students can gain confidence and find community. The community at large loves to watch us and perform and we welcome all to watch and come fly with us. We are not taking away park space. The rig, there's no flying over anybody. The rig has a net under the entire rig. We are below the houses where we are now and we will be flying over our net. And this is a rare experience. The closest school outside of Santa Monica is Santa Barbara or Escondido. It would be a huge loss to this community to not have this. And we are not taking up space. We're taking up a space right now with buildings that cannot be occupied. Thank you.

Thank you so much. That concludes the comments on this item We have I'll all entertain a motion to approve the consent calendar minus items 4j and 4f I'll second it was there a motion. I'll move the consent calendar.

Okay second by councilmember Snell Sorry, you said 4j and 4f, but I wanted to pull 4b. I thought that was already being pulled I

That was not one of those items that was pulled or told that I was being pulled by a council member asking but That was not on the list of what was pulled by 5 p.m. Did we get a notification that 4b was being pulled by 5 p.m. Last night We did not okay, but we can still pull it if we don't need a staff report, right?

Is there I'm making a motion just to pull it no staff report is needed Madam City Attorney.

Do we need to suspend the rules for that?

I just reread the rules, and you do not need to suspend the rules for it. The rule for the 5 p.m. is in order to ensure that staff can come and questions of staff may be asked. However, after the clerk makes announcement of everything that has been pulled, council members may still request that items may be pulled from the consent calendar.

Okay. The motion is to pull everything except for, excuse me, to approve everything except for 4B, J, F, and J. I'll second that. So did Councilmember Hall make that motion?

I seconded the motion. Sure.

Okay, Councilmember Hall originally made the motion, and it was seconded by Snell. Yeah, previously. All right.

I was wondering. Okay. All right. Councilmember Zarniskaya? Yes. Councilmember Snell?

Yes.

Councilmember Raskin? Yes.

yes yes yes yes yes that carries we will not have a staff report on 4b but let's just go ahead if there are questions on that item

I just want to make sure that we received, all of us, I think the notes from the school district in particular, and that amongst the community concerns and the school district's concerns with traffic flow and pickup, that we make sure that there's ample discussion around design. I know we've talked about when these things are implemented, sorry. Um, that they can sometimes be undone, but in an effort to not have to do that, I'm would just love to know. I guess there is 1 question is, are you going to be having that community discussion and specifically taking into account what the schools have brought up?

So I don't mean to interject here. I apologize, but you would need to suspend the rules to start speaking to staff. Right? So the. So pulling it at this point is just to pull it and maybe discuss amongst yourselves. But the rules do require a suspension in order to ask questions of staff. And that's the point of the 5 p.m. the day before rule.

Well, City Manager, did you want to respond to that? Maybe since... Can you oversee the staff? I'm talking to you. I can't talk to you.

Don't look at me. You can speak to me without needing to suspend the rules, but the short answer is yes. We certainly would anticipate engaging with the school district on any design-related activities or anything on 14th to address concerns raised.

Is it just the school district or is there a community input beyond the school district?

We would, in true Santa Monica fashion, I can represent on behalf of the staff. There's certainly an extensive outreach process that we would engage as part of our design efforts as we do on all of our street-related improvement projects.

Okay.

Great.

Council Member Hall. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to move 4B with direction to ensure that the team is also solicited. Feedback from SMUSD officials and explicitly from parents at Will Rogers, Lincoln Middle, and Jams, and that it's clear to staff that our standing Vision Zero guidance to prioritize pedestrian and bicyclist safety on our streets remains in effect.

Second. Did we want to have any questions, Council Member Zwick? Or is it not questions but comments? I see you're in the queue.

No, I was just clarifying that this is a contract to engage, to begin that outreach process, and it's expected to be a two-year outreach process. So I imagine we'll have a lot of time to talk to everyone.

Absolutely. Great. Madam Clerk, if you called the roll. Yeah, great.

Council Member Negrete? Yes. Council Member Hall. Yes. Council Member Raskin. Yes. Mayor Pro Temswick. Yes. Council Member Snell. Yes. Council Member Zarniskaya. Yes. And Mayor Tarosas.

Yes. And I would just say in honor of the additional pedestrian that lost their life this past week on our streets. Thank you. Okay. We will now, 4J, who was recusing from that?

There was a 4F, or did you want to do 4J?

Oh, sorry, F comes before J in the alphabet.

I'm recusing it for F for the reasons previously stated.

Does anyone have any questions on that? I'll move the item. Great, I will second that. Oh, sorry, what...

Councilmember Raskin was almost out of the room, but not quite so.

Well, he's now out, so I think we can safely vote on that. Move it again.

Okay, and who made the motion? And seconded?

Yep.

There we go.

All right.

Councilmember Negrete?

Yes.

Councilmember Hall? Yes. Councilmember Raskin? Oh, I'm sorry. He's not here. Accused. Mayor Pro Tem Swick?

Yes.

Councilmember Snell? Yes. Councilmember Zarniskaya? Yes. And Mayor Tarosa?

Yes. Great. And I see that Councilmember Hall is leaving because he is recused from this item due to his residence, and Councilmember Raskin is returning. Does anyone want to make a motion on this item?

Hold on a second. And this is 4J.

4J. I'll move 4J. Second.

And that was Councilmember Snell and Mayor Pro Tem, correct?

Raskin, no. Councilmember Raskin.

Oh, Raskin, okay. I'm sorry, I wasn't looking. Okay. Councilmember Zarniskaya? Yes. Councilmember Snell? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Swick? Yes. Councilmember Raskin? Yes. Councilmember Negrete? Yes. And Mayor Terrosis? Yes.

Great. That carries, and Councilmember Hall can come back. We would love to be ready to close session.

Now we have a closed session. We have several closed sessions. The first one is conference is existing litigation. This is with several John Does. And the next one, we have another existing litigation is the city versus ICSOP. Then we have another existing litigation with Waymo LLC versus the city of Santa Monica. Then we have another legal counsel existing litigation, Martha Garcia versus the City of Santa Monica. We have a real estate negotiation. It's a Miles Playhouse. Portions of Reed Park and portions of Jocelyn Hall. The city negotiator is the city manager. Owner of record is Cizek Olympias. Persons to be negotiated with is Blanca Consigna. It's the Chex House Project Director, and under negotiation is price and terms and payment of lease. Then we have another real estate negotiation, and this is for 2525 Michigan, Bergamot Station. The city manager is a city negotiator, along with Aileen Reynolds, who's our Director of Housing and Human Services. It's for the city of Santa Monica. Personas to be negotiated with is Joey Hagan, Associate Bridge Housing. The senior development is Community Development Partners. And to be negotiated is a real estate development, West Hollywood Community Housing Corporation, under negotiation, price and terms of the payment. And then we also have another real estate. This property is 2900 and 3000 Airport, 3011 Airport Avenue. and 3021 Airport Avenue. Again, the city manager is the negotiator, Tim Catt, Galeant Holdings, LLC, and the executive managing director, TransWestern, under negotiation, price and terms, payment and lease. And then finally, another real estate negotiation, 256 Santa Monica Pier. Again, the city manager is the negotiator, owner of record, the city of Santa Monica. Persons to be negotiated with is Scott Francis, CEO, Santa Monica Brew Works. And again, under negotiation is price terms and payment of lease. And that's it. City Attorney, how long do you think this will be?

We anticipate one hour and 45 minutes.

Can we make it one hour and 15 minutes?

We can do our best.

Yes, I would just say that it might be better to say that we're coming back in case we finish before 1 hour and 45 minutes, just so that we can dispense with the rest of the items. Is it possible to say that we can sure.

So I am just doing the math. So that would be approximately. Well, it's 732, so basically would say 850.

sure so we will return no later no earlier than 8 50. thank you yeah i'm sorry mayor yep i will be recusing myself on one item on closed session okay make that announcement um Let me find it. I will be recusing myself on item 5F due to my employment at Southern California, Director of the Housing Action Coalition, which advocates for housing production. Thank you. Thank you.

And just a quick reminder that it will be 12B as soon as Council reconvenes to open session.

Thank you all. We'll be back after 8.50. Thank you.

Thank you.

We have a lot of people. We have a lot of members. I'm not a member. I don't work in the field. Thank you.

so much. I appreciate it. Congrats, I guess.

Thank you.

Okay, the time is 917. And we have returned from closed session. Thank you all for your patience. I know it's a long night here. And as I previously said, if if your comments are represented, when you come up to give a comment, feel free to just say I agree, because we're gonna try to get make sure everyone's heard in that we can hear the items on the forthcoming portion of the agenda. Madam City Attorney, do you want to give us a readout of closed session?

Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor.

Items 5A through 5C and Items 5E through 5H were heard with no reportable action taken.

As noted on the agenda, Item 5D was a report out only as follows. At its July 14, 2026 meeting, the City Council approved a settlement in Garcia v. City et al., a personal injury case involving a claim that two individuals were seriously injured as a result of an alleged dangerous condition of public property. The City denies liability and does not admit fault, but agreed to settle for $22.9 million And in exchange, plaintiffs agreed to release all claims against the city. The city will contribute its $1 million of self-insured retention toward the settlement and its excess insurers paying the remaining amount. The settlement was approved by a vote of 7 to 0. Council has further authorized the following statement related to item 5F. As noted on the agenda, the council considered price in terms of payment for the property located at 2525 Michigan, commonly known as the Bergamot Art Center, which is identified as a city-owned site dedicated to affordable housing development under the city's housing element program 2E. On February 25th, 2025, the City Council declared the Bergamot Arts Center surplus land, authorized the City Manager to advance a notice of availability and request for proposal by June 30th, 2025, and take implementing actions necessary to comply with the Surplus Lands Act and the City's housing element. At that time, Council emphasized that proposals should maximize affordable housing and revenue-generating opportunities, and that Bergamot Station Arts Center proposals should include preferences for right of return for current Bergamot tenants, commercial art serving purposes, and relocating current Bergamot tenants. Tonight's closed session is a continuation of that process and a consideration of the price in terms of payment for proposals submitted in response to that RFP. The City is not negotiating a sale of a property of the property, rather a long-term lease structure. That concludes it.

Great. Thank you.

Recording in progress.

Okay.

Does anyone have any reports on travel?

Sorry, Mayor. Can I just ask the Clerk a question? Was the city attorney's statement being recorded for our YouTube and our city TV recording?

It absolutely was for the YouTube, yeah. That's just our Zoom.

Okay, got it. Thank you. Great question. No, I mean, there was a reason that we read this statement. All right. Does anyone have any travel announcements, reports on travel? Seeing none, we will now move on to, because we moved item 12, sorry, was it A or B? B. Thank you. Sorry, because we moved item 12B ahead of the remaining agenda items, we will just make sure I'm doing this correctly, city attorney. We're going to hear just the comments on 12B first, correct?

Correct.

You will actually, you will hear a staff report first, take questions of staff, and then take the public comment after that.

Got it. And then we will hear the public comments on the remaining agenda items. Yes. Great. Thank you. So with that being said, if we have a staff report on 12B, we would love to hear it.

Good evening, Council. Rachel Kwok, Environmental Planner. Tonight, what's before you is proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance to increase development standards and select parcels in the Expo Bundy TOD zone so that this TOD zone could qualify for SB 79 temporary exclusion. And just to recap of how we got here, just as a reminder, there have been a lot of opportunities for public comments. We first started in April. Back in April 15th, we did two study sessions, one at Planning Commission, which provided some informational presentation regarding SB 79 and its impacts in Santa Monica. Then two weeks later, we did go back to city council and we provided updated information on SB 79, what it meant for Santa Monica. And we also presented some options with what we can do in terms of SB 79 implementation. And then back in June, we also went to Planning Commission and provided some options, including recommended adoption of zoning amendments that would adopt an exclusion ordinance so that qualified sites could be excluded from SB 79 until one year following the adoption to the seventh cycle housing element, which is approximately 2030. And during that Planning Commission public hearing, they also recommended that amendments be adopted such that there would be increased development standards for multi-unit zone parcels, which are the R2, R3 parcels within the half mile of the Expo Bundy station. So that would also qualify that Expo Bundy TOD zone from delaying the applicability of SB 79. So as a recap for our July 14, 2026 council meeting, council adopted SB 79 exclusion ordinance. What this meant was that we were able to temporarily halt SB 79 for six of Santa Monica's seven TOD zones. And that exclusion ordinance went into effect on August 27th. However, the city did receive three project applications for SB 79 projects, and because these applications were submitted before the effective date, the ordinance's effective date of August 27th, they are considered vested, so the city does have an obligation to process these three SB 79 projects to the extent that they are compliant with the law. Of course, SB 79 no longer, because the ordinance went into effect on August 27th, SB 70 no longer applies to the six TOD zones that are indicated in this yellow kind of bubble. However, as you can see here, the Expo Bunny TOD zone, which is on the eastern periphery of the Santa Monica, does not meet the criteria for exclusion, meaning that SB 79 remains active here. be simply because, as you can see, this zone, most of it lies within the city of Los Angeles. And because if we're only looking at our own sites here in the city of Santa Monica, we simply don't have enough sites that are zoned for high capacity housing. And so SB 79 remains active and applicable there. Just this is, I won't go into detail here since you've heard it a million times here probably, but the most important thing to gather from this slide is that the Expo Bundy TOD zone, which is the half mile area around that Expo Bundy TOD station, That area remains, again, applicable for SB 79 projects because if we only looked at the number of sites that are within Santa Monica boundaries, we don't have enough sites, which is 33% of the sites must have at least 50% of SB 79's housing capacity. And right now, only 74 of the 381 parcels within this zone that are in Santa Monica meet this threshold. So simply put, we have to increase the development standards for at least 52 additional parcels in this zone. SO BACK IN JULY, ON JULY 14TH, COUNCIL REVIEWED PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO INCREASE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR 66 R2 AND R3 ZONE PARCELS SO THAT THIS TOD ZONE COULD QUALIFY FOR SB 79 FOR EXCLUSION, MEANING WE COULD PUT A PAUSE ON SB 79 FOR THIS TOD ZONE. However, Council asked us to review the displacement risks for these 66 R2, R3 parcels, taking into consideration what is existing there now on these parcels, a comparison of the existing units on the parcels to the potential up-zone density that you could get, as well as looking at what state law allows. And the analysis of the displacement risk for these R2, R3 parcels concluded that there would be low displacement risk for at least 36 parcels, meaning that these parcels, which are occupied by multiple dwelling units, apartment buildings, and so forth, there's 36 parcels that could redevelop, but they have low displacement risk. However, there's never a a guarantee that they won't be redeveloped. So we found that there's 36 parcels that have low displacement risk. 30 parcels have no displacement risk, meaning that there's either no units on the site or they're owned by single family homeowners or that they're existing affordable deed restricted units. So those are unlikely to turn over and be displaced. So after reviewing the displacement risk, the 36 parcels with low displacement risk, again, it's not a zero displacement risk, but there is low. Council instead directed us to return with options to increase development standards for also the R1, either all or a selected group of the R1 zone parcels within this TOD zone. SO COUNCIL WAS PRESENTED ON JULY 28TH WITH THREE POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR INCREASING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE EXPO BUNNY TOD ZONE. OPTION ONE WAS UPZONING 89 R1 ZONE PARCELS. THESE WERE SELECTED BECAUSE THEY PROVIDED A CLEAR GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARY. THEY'RE THE CLOSEST IN WALKING DISTANCE TO THE STATION. They're clearly defined by geographic barriers. That was option one, and that would have affected 89 single residentially zoned parcels, and that would definitely get us to the 33% criteria that is needed to exclude this TOD zone. Option two was just simply to increase the development standards for all 212 R1 zone parcels in this TOD zone. That would have more than been enough to meet the exclusion criteria. That would have provided a consistent, uniform application of increased development standards. And then the last option that was presented to council was going back to the Planning Commission's original recommendation, which is increasing the development standards for 66 multiple unit dwelling, multiple zones parcels that are within the Expo Bunny zone. And that would have gotten us to 36%, which is sufficient enough to exclude the Expo Bunny TOD zone from SB 79. ultimately council decided to move forward with option one that would have increased the development standards for the 89 r1 zone parcels within the area bounded by the i-10 freeway dorchester exposition boulevard and sentinella and so you'll see here in this map these are the parcels that we are talking about 89 parcels that are indicated in purple And since that July 28th meeting, city staff did participate in a couple of community meetings. One was held on August 20th as part of the Pico Neighborhood Group. And then one was a formal August 25th community meeting held here within the council chambers. And in those meetings, city staff did provide information on what SB 79 was to clear up some information and what the proposed amendments are and why they are being proposed. The community did in response request additional data on the 89 R1 zone parcels that are proposed for increased development standards. They particularly wanted to see rental data and whether or not there were any kind of units that are within those 89 PARCELS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING RENTED BY RENTERS. THE COMMUNITY ALSO SUGGESTED A DUAL ORDINANCE APPROACH WHEREBY WE WOULD INITIALLY ADOPT AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD JUST INCREASE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE MINIMAL NUMBER OF PARCELS NEEDED WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 36 PARCELS. SO WE WOULD SELECT 36 PARCELS TO HAVE THIS DIFFERENT INCREASED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. AND THEN LATER ON COME BACK WITH ANOTHER ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, IF THAT INITIAL ORDINANCE WAS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT COME BACK AND THEN INCLUDE ADDITIONAL PARCELS WHICH ARE PROXIMATELY 53 ADDITIONAL PARCELS SO THAT WE CAN ENSURE THAT THE EXPO BUNDI TOD ZONE REMAINS EXCLUDED. SO IT WOULD BE KIND OF AN ADOPT ONE AND THEN AS A BACKUP DO ANOTHER ORDINANCE. So in terms of the rental data that was requested by the community, we did look at that. And unfortunately, the city does not have a comprehensive rental registry that identifies all the rental units in the city. We do only have rent control data and we do have business license data, which we looked at. And so when we looked at the rent control data, we found that of the 89 R1 zone parcels, five are registered under rent control. However, they're developed with single unit dwellings, so they're likely owner occupied. We also looked at business license data, and that showed that there are two single dwelling units that are currently being rented. However, as we said, there could be other dwelling units that are being rented but they simply just don't have business license for. And with respect to this dual ordinance approach that was suggested by the community, staff did look at this and we ultimately do not recommend this approach because for a number of reasons. First, SB 79 is silent on how to calculate capacity In a TOD zone that crosses multiple jurisdictions. So we did reach out to HCD before to ask them, how do you treat a TOD zone that crosses through several cities? For example, like the Expo Bundy one crosses through Santa Monica and Los Angeles. They did not provide us a formal answer. And we're still awaiting an answer for that. And they still don't have technical guidance on how to treat that. Also, because SB 79 is state law, any qualifying SB 79 projects that are denied, the city would be in violation of state housing law, and we could be subject to significant penalties. And housing, if we adopted this dual ordinance approach, housing projects could face uncertainty about what development standards would apply. If this approach is determined to be insufficient, then, and we deny any SB 79 projects, it could expose the city to liability. So therefore, our ultimate recommendation is to stick with the 89 parcel approach because it does provide greater certainty, it reduces our litigation exposure, and it minimizes displacement risk. So what is before you tonight are proposed amendments that would increase development standards on the 89 R1 zone parcels. What the proposed amendments would do is establish a minimum required density of one unit per 1,080 square feet of parcel area. That is essentially equivalent to 40 dwelling units per acre, which is what we need to qualify the Expo TOD zone into SB 79 exclusion. So this minimum required density would be for multiple unit dwelling projects. And then if you met that minimum density requirement, then you would get the FAR of the floor area ratio of 1.25. This ensures that someone just doesn't take advantage of the 1.25 and builds a giant house. So it ensures that we're actually producing housing and not just allowing a property owner to build a large home. We are not proposing any change to existing 28 foot maximum height limit that is already in the R1 zoning district. So that would remain the same. And just to kind of bring it all back together of where we're at, what we're proposing, this is a chart that you have seen a number of times. I know it's kind of small here, but the top line is the existing R1B standard, which is the 0.50 FAR that is in place, as well as the 28-foot maximum height that is in place in the one unit per unit. PER PARCEL. HOWEVER, AS WE NOTED BEFORE, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STATE LAWS THAT COME INTO PLAY THAT DOES ALLOW A PROPERTY OWNER TO POTENTIALLY ADD MORE HOUSING TO THEIR SINGLE FAMILY ZONE PARCEL. AND SO YOU COULD ADD ADUS, AND IF YOU DID ADUS, YOU COULD GET UP TO POTENTIALLY FIVE UNITS WITH ANY KIND OF COMBINATION OF ADUS OR JADUS. Also, what's in play is SB7, sorry, SB9, Senate Bill 9, which is our duplex lot split law. And that could allow for up to four units if someone chose to divide their parcel in half, subdivide, and then build duplexes. SB1123 is also available to certain property owners. And so under that law, you could get up to five units on a typical 6,500 square foot parcel. The yellow is really what we wanted to kind of just point out. This is what is currently in play right now. And so, as I mentioned, the SB 79 exclusion ordinance is in effect. However, the Expo Bundy TOD Zone does not qualify for that SB 79 exclusion ordinance. So what is in play right now is that anyone right now could come in the door with an SB 79 project in the Expo Bundy Zone and get 2.5 FAR, a height of 55 feet, and 80 dwelling units per acre density. That is what is being allowed right now. And they could get up to 12 units based on this typical size parcel. And so what we're trying to do is get to the green here, which is what's being proposed before council, is the 1.25 FAR. and a density of 40 dwelling units per acre. And so with the green, we would be able to basically swap out the yellow for the green and then that would until 2030. And so with that, I will leave this two recommendations up, which is to adopt the finding of statutory exemption and introduce for first reading the ordinance to amend chapter 9.06. Staff is here to answer any questions.

Great. So we will take questions and then we will hear public comment and then we'll have our comment, our Council comments. Council Member Negrete.

Hi. So can you go back to the the R2 R3 impact? I just want to make it, like, really clear. If we're talking about least amount of impact, I had wordy questions, but I just want to make it very simple for everyone watching. If we're looking for the least amount of impact, but to meet the requirements of the state, I still don't understand how it's not the R2, R3 zone. And more specifically, the fact that we were looking at deed-restricted units, there was, correct me if I'm wrong, is that in there was there four or two?

SO THE ONES WITHOUT ANY DISPLACEMENT RISKS, WHICH ARE EXISTING AFFORDABLE DEED RESTRICTED UNITS, THAT'S IN THAT FIRST KIND OF BUCKET THAT SAYS NO DISPLACEMENT RISK, 30 PARCELS. AND THE SECOND BUCKET IS THE LOW DISPLACEMENT RISK, MEANING THAT THERE ARE RENTAL UNITS THERE. WE DID LOOK AT A NUMBER OF FACTORS SAYING LIKE WHAT IS ALLOWED UNDER EXISTING ZONING, WHAT IS ALLOWED UNDER SB 79. And could someone potentially redevelop the site? Likely they may not, given that there are some replacement unit requirements and so forth, but we can never say no, right? So there are 36 parcels that are developed with rental units that could potentially redevelop. And so a lot of these are, they would be involuntary displacement of renters are in those units.

But forgive me for bringing in the city manager into this. Wasn't there a specific discussion around actually that was nailed down to like two parcels, if I'm not mistaken, that actually would potentially have this?

The two parcels would be for the R1, and those are the, are you talking about the R1?

No. Yeah, that's right, yeah.

So under the multifamily, So of that, like, subset of the 36, there was actually five that were, you know, sort of, like, not really sure. But of those, there were two that had less than, had two units or less. So they would be, you know, vulnerable to SB 79, like, if nothing happened regardless, so.

But in that circumstance, could the city not have, were you going to say something?

Just to slightly clarify, so the displacement protections under SB 79 only apply when you have more than three or more units on the property. So what the planning director is discussing is ones that would not be subject to those displacement protections under SB 79.

It's three units and at least one of them has a rent control unit.

And but in that circumstance, is there not opportunity to create some sort of agreement with the property owners directly so that we could protect that if it should happen? I mean, I know this is a big if, but I'm saying we're talking about three specific units, right?

Right, right. Well, two parcels, you know, that would have potentially been affected regardless. Certainly, we could have explored

You know possibilities under that but okay, it's not the road we went down Right and I'm just saying that there's that I'm just because we're talking about the least amount of impact and then as it pertains to the business license The business license and the you know, we're talking about that in the single-family home area, right?

Are you looking at the two single dwelling units with business licenses I

But did you guys ever come back without the number of how many rented units are actually per block?

So this represented the best objective data we have, which is, you know, we talked to our rent control board and also looked at business licenses. Do these licenses that are like rental or residential property? So two is what showed up.

You're talking about two business licenses, meaning, like, preschools or something like that?

No, no, for just rental of residential property. Oh, okay. Yeah.

But within the single-family home area, there is also, like, a preschool and... That's right. Other business licenses.

Yeah, there are some business... Yeah, I'm aware of, you know, one commercial, and I think we had... heard testimony from one, sounded like a family daycare of some kind.

But your assessment of business licenses doesn't also mean that there isn't other people just renting houses there.

Absolutely. Right. And that's what we're saying. We don't have a measure, a data source to tell us definitively. We've heard anecdotally one in five. You know, there's just no way for us to verify that other than what people share with us.

But presumably there could be a large amount of renters within the same, even though it's not an R2, R3, it's single family, there could be more renters that we just don't know about.

There certainly could be more renters we don't know about.

Okay, thank you.

Council Member Snell.

Thank you. With the specific number of 89 parcels, that calculates to about 42% under the threshold, right, 45%. Is there a buffer and we talked about this is there a buffer where you can get the minimum where we could go less than 89 or.

Yeah, and I think that was suggested as part of the, from the community was that we really, we need 50, we need 52. right?

And so, yeah, and so the. Is there a way of calculating being able to do that? just picking 52 parcels.

And so we did provide a number of options in I believe the July 28th meeting. We did provide some options that were rejected. For example, we did look at like a third mile, you know, one third mile. It just, to us, we needed a rational basis to, you know, determine how that, how which parcels we select for increased development standards. And ultimately, we needed to get to 52, and so the one-third mile was, I believe, like a little too much. I can't remember, but it was, yeah, we did provide some options in there.

Okay. And then my second question has to do with the fact that L.A. hasn't submitted to ACD at this point.

No, they have not submitted their SB 79 ordinance to HCD. The data that we got from them was from their website, and they were also emailed to us, and it matches what is publicly available.

Is there an opportunity for us to proactively revisit once they do?

Yeah, I mean, again, like, I think the dual ordinance approach, as we talked about, it does put us at risk. So if we were to do one ordinance first and then another later, you know, qualifying SB 79 projects wouldn't know what standard to utilize or whether or not they would be permitted. So that would put us at litigation exposure.

Okay, thank you. Councilor Raskin.

Thank you. Could we go back to the slide that compares the existing development standards to, yeah, that's the one. So just to make sure we're all on the same page here. So before SB 79, on any of the 89 lots in this, using the 6,500 square foot threshold, you could build up to five units on that, right?

UNDER SB 1123, YES.

RIGHT. SO THE BASELINE ZONING BEFORE WAS FIVE UNITS. WHAT WE CALL BASED. UNDER 1123. RIGHT. AND SO WHAT WE WOULD BE DOING IS JUST CHANGING JUST THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT COULD BE BUILT RELATIVE TO 1123 FROM 5 TO 6.

Can you repeat that question? What do you mean?

So we're not changing height?

We're not changing 1123. 1123 still remains the place. What we'd be changing is basically what is permitted under our base, our one zoning.

Right.

For these select 89 parcels.

Right. So for six, again, for a 6,500 square foot lot.

Right.

Instead of five units, it's down six.

Yes.

You can't build any higher.

I mean, they could with state density bonus. Yeah. Okay.

So I have a PowerPoint presentation, because I want to get really precise about what the impact is in the R2 and R3 zones. And I think that this point of comparison of the delta from the five to six units is informative, and I want to ask you some questions about this. So I pulled up three examples from the option three properties. The first example, if I'm understanding this correctly, this is the property that's just south of the parking lot, just south of Trader Joe's on 33rd Street. It's an existing four unit rent controlled property. And just to preface this, am I correct in understanding that four-unit properties are not subject to the replacement requirements under the housing... Less than five-unit properties are not subject to housing replacement for rent control or affordable housing under state law, right?

No, SB 330 replacement requirements apply generally. You cannot result in a no-let loss. And if you're a protected unit, we have to replace those units.

Okay. I thought it was only for five units or more.

No, the five units or more is state density bonus.

Okay. All right. Well, in any event, so the existing, under existing zoning for this particular parcel, it's 6.4 units on that particular parcel. And am I in correct understanding that our option three upzoning would upzone it from 6.4 to 8.8 base zoning?

That appears right, yes.

Okay. Let's go to the next slide. So this is another four-unit parcel in the Option 3 area. So this one is 2439 34th Street. It's about 11,500 square foot lot. Under existing zoning, you can get about 7.68 units. Am I correct in understanding that the Option 3 would upzone that all the way to 10.4?

Yeah, I mean, the math looks right, yes.

Okay. And then let's get to the third slide here. This is just the third example. This is a bigger parcel here. This is a nine-unit rent-controlled building at 2437 Centinella, where existing zoning allows for up to 11.8 units. Am I correct in understanding that the option three would up zone it all the way to 16.3 units?

Yeah, based on that size of the parcel, yes.

Okay. And I mean, here's what seems ironic to me, and correct me if I'm getting this wrong. Our local upzoning would not exclude rent-controlled properties, while SB 79 does exclude rent-controlled properties above a certain threshold.

Right. There are replacement requirements, though, yes. Right. Yeah.

Right, right. Mm-hmm. But it wouldn't, you know, there wouldn't be an automatic exclusion under our local zoning for rent control.

No, there would not be, yeah.

Okay. Am I also correct in understanding that our local law requires relocation payments for tenants in single-family homes?

Yeah, I'm going to have, I'm not aware of that. Unless the city attorney's...

Right. So for non-rent-controlled properties, that would be considered, I believe, the tenant protections would be considered as part of the charter amendments coming to the voters in November.

Okay. I'll read the citation later in discussion. I happen to have checked this beforehand, and it does apply to single-family homes.

Yeah, I think it does apply to existing tenants, but anyways.

Well, I think you understand the point. So let me ask this question. So I believe there was one 1123 project in the Gundara Park neighborhood since the law went into effect, right?

Yes, that is correct.

And looking at Sunset Park as a comparison, were there any 1123 projects in Sunset Park?

I do not believe there was an 1123 in Sunset Park. We've had very few in the city thus far.

Do you have a general sense of how many single-family home teardowns and rebuilds there have been the last few years in Sunset Park? I do not have that off the top of my head. Would it appear to say that it's been dozens? Yes.

Okay.

That's all the questions I have.

Council Member Hall.

Thank you, Mayor. Are we allowed to pick and choose which parcels to upzone based on who is currently inhabiting the homes on the parcels?

No, there needs to be a rational basis.

Okay, thank you. And hopefully you have this pulled up, but if you could pull up the Housing Progress Dashboard, please.

Thank you.

So if you could just cycle through the Completed by Location tab and scroll down to the map. And then now let's go to Under Construction by Location. Okay, thanks. And now could we go to Approved by Location? And then now could we go to the pending by location? Okay, thank you. So having seen the housing progress that the city's making, is it fair to say that housing is being developed in all neighborhoods of the city under various state laws or local ordinances and programs?

Yes, it's fair to say. Different sizes, though. Okay.

And just to be clear, because some of those dots are really small, townhomes and new apartments being submitted for approved and being built in north of montana our northeast neighborhood and in sunset park yes to a lesser extent okay thank you council we're asking do you have additional questions okay council returns guy

Thank you. I just have two questions. So first one is, when are we expecting feedback from HCD on our technical assistance question regarding whether our SB 79 exclusion ordinance and the specific proposed targeted upzoning meets the necessary requirements?

So we don't have an estimate on their technical assistance letter answer. Secondly, there's no timeline for it, but the HCD does have 90 days to review our SB 79 exclusion ordinance.

And we would have an opportunity to cure if they find that it's not sufficient? Correct. Okay. And then second question. So just to make sure I understand, according to the staff report, the current base standards of SB 79 are still in effect for this one particular section of Santa Monica around the Bundy Expo station. So Does that mean that if we delay with implementing this minimal targeted upzoning of the specific 89 parcels as proposed, does it mean that the current 2.5 floor area ratio, 55 foot maximum height, 80 dwelling units per acre and maximum 12 homes per parcel applicable under SB 79 continues being the default standard

till we adopt that is correct zoning yes all right thank you okay and just to be clear have we had communications with this since i don't see any other people in the queue have we talked to the city of la about how they plan to approach this since the transit stop in question is in the city of la

Yes, we did discuss with them how they are still modifying. They're also doing a number of upzoning as well, and so they may be modifying their SB 79 exclusion ordinance as well, because they are doing some select upzoning as well. So they would be modifying their data, and they let us know that they would be modifying their data.

Has the City of LA submitted their proposed ordinance to HCD? Not yet. And is there a world where the City of LA could take all the density needed in the transit zone?

What do you mean by taking all the density?

Well, in order for us to meet the SB 79 up zoning requirements, we have to to to account for greater density in the Expo Bundy station. Is that correct?

Correct.

So is there a world where we would talk with the city of LA and the city of LA would absorb the increased density just in the city of LA?

I'm not sure that I understand the question. I would say that without guidance from HCD, it would be very difficult to know what their position would be on how it's calculated because it is cross-jurisdictional. I mean, the issue is that HCD has not issued guidance, as far as we understand it, with respect to TOD zones that straddle multiple jurisdictions. So it is unclear how they would calculate that.

And it's our understanding that LA only used their parcels as well on their exclusionary ordinance, so... It's hard to say if they ended up having to factor in ours, if they would also have enough.

And based off of this slide, if we do nothing and wait and see what happens, we're currently having to take 12 units per parcel. Is that correct?

That is correct. And we did look at City of LA data, and even including their data with our data, it didn't really get us to what we needed to. Okay, thanks.

I think we're ready to hear public comment. um appreciate that we let's see have 18 folks and um miss anderson warner other people in the queue online okay Got it. So that would mean that we have 23. Okay. All right. Ashley Olson, Cecilia Hagerstrom, Christine Parra, Denise Barton, Laura Rae Lake.

Do I have to hit that up here?

Madam Clerk?

So this photograph was given to me by Daniel Alonso, who you guys honored tonight with the Hispanic Heritage Proclamation. And when he shared with me his family history, he shared that this photograph was taken in 1948, and the homes behind these children were a neighborhood where black and Latino families built homes, raised children, and created community at a time when discrimination restricted where they could live. Years later, the construction of the 10 freeway cut through these communities and hundreds of these homes, including his, were demolished and families were displaced. Santa Monica has acknowledged that history and made commitments to address its consequence. Tonight, history should inform the decision before you. You are considering changing the zoning of R1 properties in the same part of the city. I understand the state mandates and the very difficult choices that state mandates create, but decisions about land are never just about parcels. They are about family, people, communities, and generational stability and who gets to remain in Santa Monica. We cannot acknowledge historic displacement with one hand and then make land use decisions without always examining the history and the consequences of those decisions. honor the commitments the city has made and consider the displacement and equity impacts. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Cecilia.

Hello, my name is Cecilia, and I am a renter in the Gondarra neighborhood. I am here tonight to voice my strong opposition to the targeted upzoning of my home and business. As a local childcare provider, I serve low-income families and disabled children who rely heavily on the stability of our single-family community. Every day, a school bus can safely drop off these children in a secure, predictable environment. High density rezoning threatens to erase this community's character. Increased congestion and construction traffic will make it dangerous for buses to navigate safely. Furthermore, targeting our neighborhood for high density units drives up land values, risking the immediate displacement of renters like me. If I am forced out, these vulnerable families lose a vital care resource. Please protect our tenants, protect our children, and reverse the decision on upzoning R1.

Thank you. Thank you. Christine Parra.

Again, I want to be very clear tonight. I support closing the SB 79 window in the Expo Bundy TOD zone, but I cannot support doing it by placing a lasting burden on these 89 properties in Gandara Park neighborhood. Page six of your staff report finally makes the trade-off very clear. By increasing the development standards on these 89 R1 parcels, the city gets the entire Expo Bundy TOD zone temporary excluded from SB 79 until approximately 2030. So the entire zone receives the benefit. But our 89 properties provide the additional housing capacity that helps make that exclusion possible. And what troubles me the most is what staff says next. This temporary exclusion gives the city time to develop a more comprehensive approach to growth through the next housing element, a loose update or a TOD alternative plan. Then use that time. If the comprehensive planning hasn't happened yet, why are you making a lasting zoning decision for our neighborhood tonight? Make this zoning change temporary. Tie it to the SB 79 exclusion. And when you undertake the comprehensive planning, analyze it. Analyze where this density should ultimately go based on actual data, including displacement, renters, infrastructure, environmental justice, redevelopment pressure, and cumulative impacts. Because you were concerned enough about displacement in R2 and R3 neighborhoods to change course, we are asking you to show that same concern for us. I spent years advocating for Gundara Park before I sat where you sit, and I continued advocating for it when I served on this council. Tonight, I'm back on this side of the dais asking you to hear us again. Close the SB 79 window, protect Expo Bundy, but don't make Gundara Park permanently pay for that protection.

protect us too thanks thank you denise barton um and then we have laura ray lake casey shapiro and jay para i only have one minute on this item i only have one minute on this item

Good evening. On item 12B, I think this is another prime example of you putting your special interests above the best interests of the single-family home residents in the specified area. And I can only repeat what I said in the public meeting on August 25th. which is in this location, like other locations such as Lincoln between Broadway and the 10 Freeway, there has been so much residential development that the residents and other people downtown would be trapped in the event of an emergency that required evacuation. Or would that be the reason an evacuation planning map and map have not been done in so long, which again shows the best interest of the residents is not being put above your special interests, just like the residents' safety is not a priority to you? You sit up there in your self-interest and gratification while your actions put more residents at risk and in danger. Thank you. Thank you. Laura Raylake.

Hi, I'm Laura Ray Lake. I'm an owner of one of the 89 parcels that you're proposing to rezone. I understand SB 79. I understand that you have to do something, some upzoning to meet this requirement for temporary exemption. I also believe Santa Monica needs more housing. We understand that, especially affordable housing. But all development is not good development. The City Council's proposed ordinance is too hasty and it unfairly targets a small neighborhood of homeowners when there are other more viable solutions on the table. You all said that you want to choose a solution that minimizes the impact, but you did not do that. You didn't choose the minimal impact solution. Your city planners proposed a minimal impact solution that you discarded. And then even though Los Angeles makes up 75% of the zone, you seem to abandon the pursuit of this kind of collaborative solution of using LA's data. On the Planning Commission staff report on April 28th, it said that combining the data would only require 2% of the parcels to be rezoned in Santa Monica. That is a minimal impact solution. The idea that we're still waiting on the state to respond is unacceptable. Let's get an answer to that. Let's do the legwork to get an answer on whether we can collaborate in this TOD zone. It's hard not to feel like this neighborhood has been targeted for development or either dismissed. And then you dismiss the planning committee's recommendation, which they are experts. We don't see an equity analysis. We don't see an environmental analysis. We don't see a water sewer analysis. I think there's more.

Thank you. Casey Shapiro, Jay Shapiro, Jay Parra, Zoe Muntinera, Charles Doback.

Hello, I'm Casey Shapiro. I also live in one of the 89 parcels. I have to admit I'm a little bit nervous in front of all of you, but I'm going to do my best. So this is the third meeting that I've been to. I was at the one at Virginia Park as well as another one in here, my good friend over here. And I agree we need to figure out a way to close this loophole, but I feel like there's been an ask for data, there's new data that's been presented today, and I think the evidence is very clear. As someone who uses data in my everyday life, it's very obvious to me that displacing the chance of a low risk of displacing 30 is very different than the possibility of displacing 89. And I think it's important to look at the data and It's the first time I'm seeing it, but I think making that choice, I know initially the vote was six to one. I just don't understand how it can be done that way. It's important that we close the loophole, but we need to be thoughtful and slow down. And if there's a way to do both of those things, I think it's really important that we not risk the people on our block. Ishihara House is on our block. So you're willing to name a park after them, but open their house to be demolished to build another gigantic building? Like, that's silly. So let's take care of our neighbors. Let's get more data. Let's make sure, like my neighbor said, that we're getting all the things that we need to make sure that we're making good decisions and not sacrificing our 89 parcels for the rest of our zone. Thank you. Thank you.

Jay Parra.

Hi there. Jose Parra. I am a first generation Mexican-American, former Santa Monica renter, 1995 to 2001. Thanks to rent control, the dream of living in the Gandaro neighborhood became a reality for myself and my wife and my three kids. So this land means a lot to us. So I'll get right down to it. I would ask city staff to return with a two-pronged emergency ordinance calculating the 33% threshold using the entire Expo Bundy TOD zone paired with a self-executing contingent provision. Applying Santa Monica-only calculation should HCD or a court so require. Direct that the ordinance up zone only parcels that have no displacement risk and only the absolute minimum number of such parcels as is necessary to satisfy the applicable threshold. Direct that all approximately 30 parcels that according to staff contain no risk of redevelopment be included irrespective of whether the entire Expo Bundy TOD zone or the Santa Monica only calculation is selected. And these satisfy a substantial share of the threshold without, according to staff, placing households at risk and none should be passed over in favor of parcel that faces any risk of displacement. Direct staff to select any remaining parcels using an explicit redevelopment risk methodology that takes into account maximum achievable density, including state density bonus law. 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. I'm not going to finish this, but I do want to say that today actually marks my 25th anniversary of getting the keys to my house. September 8th. Thank you.

Thank you for sharing. Zoe Moutonier, I do not see. Charles Dobek, Brian O'Neill, Maria Loya, Oscar De La Torre.

My name is Charles Dobek. I reside at 2964 Delaware Avenue. I'm opposed to upzoning the 89 R1 parcels east of Dorchester. If option three is approved, investors will not be able to afford the higher costs and new developments will not happen in the next few years and will give the city time to come up with its own plans for development appropriate for the city of Santa Monica, not for the state. If option one is approved, then developments like 2904 and 2958 Delaware will ruin the neighborhood. I live next door to 2958 Delaware. I'm now stuck with the development of a two-story, four-unit condo blocking out my son. It's going to ruin the tree, a 15-foot offset in front. They're going to have to cut back the ficus tree and probably kill it. Once approved, you cannot go back to R1. Please return to option three. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

I think about Santa Barbara for some reason. And Santa Barbara has been able to preserve their neighborhoods much better than Santa Monica does. So they must be doing something that is worth exploring over there. And I want to address the relocation assistance for a no-fault eviction, which would be the case for the renters that are exposed to that. So the permissible no-fault evictions for no-fault reasons are owner or relative to move in, Ellis Act withdrawal, or unhabitable redevelopment. And the relocation for a one-bedroom is $2,700. That is not enough money in this market to get a new apartment in Santa Monica. If you take these renters from their apartments, they're not going to live in Santa Monica anymore. Let's be transparent about that. And as someone that is a renter that has been able to stay in Santa Monica all these years with incredible challenges, I just need to protect renters and think of that. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. O'Neill?

Good evening. Good to see all of you. I've spoken to some of you in the last few days, and This hits home, literally, right? Hits me right here in the heart. What's at play here? What's at stake here? Like Jose Parra, my wife and I, I was a renter in this city for many years in a rent-controlled unit. I was able to buy a condo and then a townhouse. And my American dream, my Santa Monica dream is 2929 Delaware Avenue, right in the middle of this option one, you know, going into the R1s for upzoning. It seems to me you have this other option. It was option three from the original city report. The risks were much less, right? It was sort of the minimalist risks as opposed to the R1s where I live. It's maximalist. The developers are already after our single family lots. I get a letter or a text, at least one every week, I'm interested in your property. Can you sell me your property? These are developers. These aren't families wanting to move in to Santa Monica. These are outside investors wanting a quick profit. That's what's going to happen. It's already happened in two lots on my street. And if this is all upzoned, look out. People say, well, you're a homeowner. You can choose who you sell to. These developers come in and offer over 200 grand over the highest bidder. you know maybe a family trying to move in to this american dream neighborhood and it's going to turn into a nightmare if this upzoning goes through to the extent that i fear and that i'm already starting to experience so please do your dill diligent do your due diligence it seems like everybody here is still finding out new new nuances, right, about this whole complicated situation. But it seems to me that the option three will do far less displacement than option one.

Thank you. Thank you. Maria Loya, Oscar Latorre, Jennifer Polhemes, Juan Matute, John Cyrus-Smith.

GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY STAFF. MY NAME IS MARIA LOYA, AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE PICO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS. AND WE STRONGLY OPPOSE OPTION ONE, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ONLY R1 NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE PICO NEIGHBORHOOD. Our opposition is rooted in the history and reality of environmental racism in the Pico neighborhood. The construction of the I-10 freeway cut through an isolated Pico neighborhood, demolishing homes, displacing residents, and leaving remaining families to live with decades of freeway noise, air pollution, traffic impacts, and physical division. And yet they were able to create a beautiful neighborhood that right now is being threatened, right? The option with the least amount of impacted displacement was option three, R2 and R3. That is what you all should focus on. The city is acting under legal uncertainty. The staff report acknowledges that SB 79 is unclear about how to calculate exclusion criteria for TOD zones that cross city boundaries. such as the Expo Bundy, which includes both Santa Monica and the City of Los Angeles parcels. Santa Monica requested guidance from the State Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD, but has not yet received a formal answer. The council should not up-zone 89 parcels before receiving definite guidance from the state's HCD. You should proceed with option three. The PICO has... too often been asked to absorb the city's burdens first and receive protections later. The council should not repeat the pattern of behavior and put Pico neighborhood residents' quality of life as secondary to development interests.

Thank you.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE, COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS OSCO DE LA TORRE AND I SPENT 25 YEARS WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE PECORE NEIGHBORHOOD, A COMMUNITY I'M BORN AND RAISED IN, NOT JUST AS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER BUT AS A MEMBER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD AND ALSO MEMBER OF THIS CITY COUNCIL AS WELL. AND I'M HERE TONIGHT TO ASK YOU TO OPPOSE OPTION 1 AND ASK YOU TO ADOPT OPTION 3. EVERYONE ELSE HAS SPOKEN ELOQUENTLY I couldn't say it better. A gradual approach with the minimal impact solution is definitely what we need to move forward on. We shouldn't try to go beyond what the state law requires. This is a very sensitive part of the city. And as you've heard, there's a lot of history in terms of the dumping and decisions that HURT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HURT COHESION AND HURT WHAT WE HAVE HEARD SO MANY PEOPLE TALK ABOUT TODAY, FAMILIES AND NEIGHBORS AND PEOPLE COMING TOGETHER TO BUILD THIS WONDERFUL COMMUNITY THAT IS AT RISK. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO LOOK AT OPTION 3. I THINK IT WAS WELL RESEARCHED AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNDERSTANDS THE HISTORY OF WHY OPTION 3 IS A BETTER OPTION, AND SO I HOPE that you all can do the right thing today. And as Maria just stated, not continue a pattern of putting the quality of life of the residents of this community secondary to development interests. Thank you very much.

Thanks.

Jennifer Polemos. Good evening. I don't live in the Gandara Park neighborhood, but I am a long-term Santa Monica resident and small business owner, and I know the history of the Santa Monica City Council to come up with creative and forward-thinking solutions to problems that have a lot of uncertainty. This is one of them. I have three things I'm going to urge you to consider. One is the more than 600 units that will be coming online that we already know about and we see across from the Bundy Expo station that are going to influence ALL OF US. TWO IS THE VERY CAREFUL AND PASSIONATE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PICO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS. AND THREE IS THE ALSO VERY CAREFULLY RESEARCHED LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD TASK FORCE, A RELATIVELY NEW NONPROFIT IN SANTA MONICA. that offers not only ideas and elucidates the problems, but has solutions, one of which would be a simple two-pronged approach that would solve a lot of these issues. Staffs, PowerPoint presentations seem to characterize that as two ordinances. I don't know why. It's a one ordinance with two prongs. I won't go into the details because you're familiar with it because you've all received the letter from the Neighborhood Task Force, but that's the kind of solution that would embrace the unfortunate reality of the uncertainty with the city of Los Angeles and offer a creative, rational way out of the pickle that we're in. I urge you to look carefully at both the Pico Neighborhood Association letter and the letter from the Neighborhood Task Force. Thank you. Thank you. Juan Matuja.

Good evening, Mayor and Council, Juan Matute. I'll take the opposite. I would encourage you not to take a creative approach. A previous council took a creative approach when it came to housing issues, and now there is a 24-story building entitled in this neighborhood, but across a major street. So it's still within the zone. And so I really appreciate that everybody's taking the time to look deeply into this issue, trusting staff, trusting your city attorney and city attorney's office, because this possible pending litigation, we now know what that looks like. A previous council led to several entitled buildings in this town that I don't think any of these people even know about. And they did that in response to the types of messages you're hearing today about thinking creatively. So I would encourage you to think analytically about this one. Thank you.

Thank you. John C. Smith.

Thank you, folks. Two minutes. Hi, John Cyrus Smith, former parks commissioner, and I stand here tonight thinking that nothing I say right here right now is going to change how you feel about this issue. And I think that's a shame. And I'm going to tell you why. This council and our legislature talk all the time about affordable housing. We need more affordable housing. But then we produce all these laws that don't really build any of it. You know, it's like abundant housing. I keep saying this. Abundant housing is not affordable housing. It's just more housing. And in Santa Monica, it's more highest market rate housing, 85% to 90% of the stuff that's built in this city, if we're lucky. I mean, you know, we only get 10% to 15% affordable as it is if we're lucky. Look. The planning commission, your planning commission, smart people, they came and say, we recommend option three. But most of you are willing to disregard that recommendation and in favor of a small SB 79 test case in the corner of our city. I mean, we're talking about lives and neighborhoods. SB 79 and the Wiener solution, the Sacramento solution, is no solution at all. And I keep coming back to this, that the loose, I remember when the loose said protect existing neighborhoods. That was like the number one tenet, the theme, the thing that we want to do was protect existing neighborhoods. We shouldn't be blowing them up. Thank you.

Thank you. Gina DeBaca, C. Kennel, Joseph Cohen-May, Erica Leslie, Michael Feinstein. Is Gina DeBaca here? She's coming down. All right.

Apologies. Gina DeBaca. And I'm just here to say that I support option three. I'm really concerned about the neighborhood. I'm concerned about all of Santa Monica. But it's really, we have, it's already been said, all of you know it, Pico neighborhood always takes the brunt. And it shouldn't. But I don't want to see it happen in any neighborhoods. I don't want to see our neighborhoods change. Growing up here, I remember I knew all the families. You walk down the street, you run into 10 people you know. Now you walk down the street and you don't run into people you know. Our community has changed so much into a city, a big city. And I liked when it was a community, and I would like to keep it that way. I don't know. I don't live in that area. I don't live in the Gundara Park. I still call it Silverfield. I don't live in the Gundara Park neighborhood, but I still don't want to see their neighborhood be destroyed. So thank you. That's all.

Good night. Thank you. C. Kennel.

Howdy. 20-year Santa Monica renter, six-year homeowner in Gundara Park for the last six years. I'm dismayed this council chose to upzone our single-family streets instead of following the Planning Commission's recommendation to upzone the R2 and R3 parcels. This ignores the economics of development. Real estate isn't cheap, but compared to R2, R1 lots are much cheaper, single owner, and easy for developers to acquire and tear down. It's a radical plan that invites a feeding frenzy, and once those parcels are rezoned, we can't turn back. There is no recourse for our neighborhood. The R2 alternative would have spread the impact across several neighborhoods and onto buildings that are already multi-tenant and better suited for this kind of expansion. Instead, everything is concentrated on Gandara Park, which already hosts the 10 Freeway, Metroline Facility, Kite Pharma, and the city's transfer station. Piling five-story, ten-unit buildings with no parking and no setbacks on top of that is irresponsible development. that will do lasting damage to this city. We absolutely need to grow our tax base and increase revenue for Santa Monica, but this is not how to do it. This plan sacrifices one small neighborhood permanently instead of taking the more measured path the Planning Commission already recommended. I'm asking this council to revisit that decision before it's too late to undo. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Joseph Cohn-May, Erica Leslie, and Michael Feinstein.

Hello. So I want to start, I think it's a bit ridiculous that people are claiming it's more equitable place density on neighborhoods that are rent-controlled apartment buildings rather than single-family neighborhoods. SO A DIFFERENT ELEMENT, IT WAS TOUCHED ON ALREADY, BUT THE ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STANDARDS IN SB 79 DON'T APPLY WHEN YOU'RE DELAYING SB 79. THEY ONLY APPLY WHEN SB 79 IS IN EFFECT. AND IF YOU'RE CLAIMING THAT OPTION 3 IS THE MINIMAL IMPACT OPTION, YOU'RE, I THINK, OPENING UP THE CITY LEGAL RISK BECAUSE FOR R2, R3 PARCELS, ANY ANALYSIS OF LOW DISPLACEMENT RISK IS basically saying that you're only doing a paper upzoning where development isn't feasible because of anti-displacement or SB3 authority protections. But if that's the case, then the capacity doesn't exist. You're admitting it doesn't exist. You're opening up the city to potential litigation or developer saying the exemption is invalid, submitting SB79 project, then suing the city after the city denies it. I do, however, think it could be reasonable to limit the absurdity to 52 rather than all 89 parcels. And particularly looking at if there's ways to legally exempt where there would be displacement. I don't necessarily think that it wouldn't be a rational basis to do that. to target the upzoning based on displacement potential and be reasonable to look at exempting at least the daycare properties. Another point is that while the city does have four years to develop an alternative plan, with an alternative plan, all parcels have to have at least 50% SB9's capacity. So no matter what, all of these 89 parcels will need to be upzoned in 2030 when the exclusion ends. And that's the minimum possible you can do. Obviously, those different strategies to tailor the upzoning, that's the minimum possible those parcels can have once the exemption expires in around four years. Thank you.

Thank you. Erica Leslie. Good evening.

I'm here to speak in opposition to SB 79. I am for affordable housing. I'm for building, but I'm not for disruption of our neighborhoods. When you talk about the Beaker neighborhood, we've already, we're the brunt of displacement from the 10 freeway, redlining, upheaval from improvements, construction. And when we talk about Santa Monica, we always talk about equity. We always talk about how the Pico neighborhood has suffered much. Don't make a decision this evening that restorative justice cannot correct. The community has spoken and they want you to listen to them. Repeatedly, time after time, the community members have come up and tried to defend their communities and their neighborhoods. Please listen before it's too late.

Back of answering.

I really appreciate what a hard issue this is for you. I really appreciate the questions and stuff you were presenting before. I attended the August Zoom and I came out with two thoughts. Obviously, it's really hard to predict displacement, really hard, but I felt like it's terrible for us to be pitting R2, R3 versus R1. And your staff admitted on that Zoom that we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. The other thing about HCD is You guys endorsed SB 79 in part because you thought it was gonna give you more local flexibility, but this legislation is infirm. If it did not define what a TOD zone is that stretches across two municipalities, it is a failed legislation. And I don't wanna sound like grandpa, but had I been on the council, I would have gone with Ken Genser and I would have gone to the city attorney and city manager and said, what is our legal strategy back in April when they didn't answer you and found a way to challenge the state and get an answer instead of being in this position now. This is asinine. So I think that the letter that Barry Rosenbaum sent to you is trying to thread the needle here. And Councilmember Hall, I appreciate what you're saying about not spot zoning and not trying to zone without a rationale and just doing it on who lives somewhere. And we're trying to thread a needle with this and try and pick between both and find a way to minimize displacement. I agree with the folks who had said before that with Jennifer Palimas that a two-pronged contingent position is different than having two subsequent ordinances. And I really hope when Barry Rosenbaum gets up here that you talk to him in some great depth about the options that he presented. I think there's a possibility there. We should not be in this position. We should not be in this position. And the state is at fault. You can't pass legislation like this and leave.

Thank you, Council Member Feinstein. Barry Rosenbaum is not in the queue since your name has been evoked. Did you want to get yourself in the queue? You submitted the request.

Okay.

The text speaks for itself, I guess. He doesn't want to talk. You do? Well, I've run through all the commenters that have signed up to speak on this item. Did anyone sign up under 12A that really meant to sign up on 12B? So come on up and state your name.

I'm Melick, and I oppose the 12B, the upzoning of the R1 Pico neighborhood area. This area is some of the most affordable single-family homes in the city. I bought my first home in the Pico neighborhood. Now these lower-cost homes will be replaced with higher-cost, multi-unit properties. continuing the extinction of affordable single-family homes in Santa Monica, and again, negatively affecting housing affordability. Please listen to the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the city staff and the citizens to go with option three. If you're not going to listen to the commissions, the Planning Commission on this one, and multiple Parks and Recs Commission's recommendations, why bother with the commission appointments later on tonight and just go home early? Thank you.

Don't forget, we also have one caller on the phone.

Okay, Mr. Rosenbaum, you can come up. Sorry, we're having a mic situation.

Hi, Mayor, council members, city staff. Yes, so I wanted to speak to the letter that was submitted by TNT. A couple members have already spoken and made it clear that the TNT letter did not suggest two separate ordinances. quite the opposite. The TNT letter suggested one ordinance with one provision becoming effective immediately, and we were recommending an emergency ordinance with one provision becoming effective immediately. That provision would indeed treat the TOD as a whole, not separate between LA and Santa Monica, as has been spoken. Staff did the right thing and inquired with HCD as to whether you could do that. They did that in April. So they were looking ahead. HCD has not responded for a reason I don't understand. But the law, I think if you read the law on its face, it didn't separate. There was no indication that it was separating between municipalities if they were both within the same TOD zone. And the legislature understood how to do that. They did that in other provisions of the law. And so it's just curious to me. Why the city would then take the position? We're just not going to Look at it as a whole even though that appears to be what the law provides and HC my understanding is HCD is supposed to Pre-review this ordinance And so HCD, before the order can, during the pre-review, hopefully HCD would take the position and it would give an assessment of whether or not you could do that. Again, I think HCD would be, if they said you could not look to the DOJ as a whole, I think HCD would be not following the law. But you still should, you know, we'll find out what HCD's position and can act accordingly. The law would be set up so that if HCD took that position.

Okay.

Thank you. Did you want to finish your sentence?

Well, I just wanted to add one thing. To suggest that looking at properties where there are tenants to make sure that they are not subject to eviction and to suggest that's not a reasonable goal. a rational planning scheme and not in the public interest is just plain wrong. I mean, the rent control law is built on that, protection of tenants. The city has protected tenants for many years.

Sorry, that was the sentence. Thank you. It now appears as though, hold on, are there someone's, you're clicking off people. Okay, Karen Milet, no, everyone was commenting. We have one on the phone, great.

Okay, Mitchell, we're ready for the caller.

All right, Jacob Wasserman, you have one minute when you begin to speak, press star six, and your time will begin.

Thanks so much. My name is Jacob Wasserman, Santa Monica resident planning commissioner, but speaking for myself, I want to correct some misinformation. The planning commission did not recommend option three. We were presented, I'm speaking for myself, but we were presented Upzoning R2 and R3, and then the other option was one that's not even on the table tonight that everybody agreed was unworkable. We were never even told that upzoning R1 was a possibility. I don't know how we would have voted, but please stop invoking us. That is incorrect, and I'm particularly annoyed to have to be correcting this as a Jew on a city commission from someone who does not want me on city commissions who commented earlier. It's insulting. Please stop spreading this information. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Okay. We are now in comments. That exhausts the public comment. If you'd like to get in comments, please put your name in the queue. Council Member Negrete. Council Member Snell after that.

I was going to say I thought I was the only one. I'm still very much interested in this other option I just think that there's timing issues clearly with exposing ourselves to development and unfortunately what we've seen both where I live in Sunset Park and in the Pico neighborhood contrary to popular belief whether it be one specific developer or So multiple, we are seeing R1 family homes being offered half a million over asking and multiple units being developed. So I just want to explain why a very limited change in R2 and R3 may create less real world displacement than substantially increasing development potential in R1. as policy focused council members we can sometimes become so absorbed in in maps and parcels and capacity calculations that we forget that people actually live on these streets they're asking us and in most cases they're they're begging us to slow down and consider what these changes mean for their homes and neighborhoods and i see a lot of the facial expressions from some of the more pro-housing folks scoffing at words like character and knowing my neighbors, but these are real issues for people who are living here. It's not that they don't want development at all, it's that they're saying, we are kicking, we are slightly creaking the door open and usually right down the line, and in this case, probably in 2030, the state comes and rips that door right open. So this pace of change is jarring. It feels like every time we crack the door open, like I said, the state kicks it even wider, and reality doesn't always fit neatly on a zoning map or behave the way theoretical models predict. If an R2 or R3 property already contains several occupied rental units, adding capacity for one or two units is unlikely to make redevelopment pencil out. We've heard that many times up here and so an owner would have to relocate multiple tenants and I think you heard to your own point that we have strong renter protections so you know purchasing a building and then demolishing it an income producing building and then financing a new project and having to replace everyone just for very small increase in units except for the two exceptions that you showed just doesn't seem like it's more likely to happen than taking an R1 property and building more units. The economics are just different. Replacing one home with several units can create a much stronger incentive for demolition. Some affected parcels contain modest rental homes providing relatively affordable family-sized housing in one of Santa Monica's more affordable areas. We're watching homes in this neighborhood currently right now being demolished. We could remove a home or working family and a working family can afford today and replace it primarily with smaller market rate units. What we're seeing is one home is being torn down for six units that are completely unaffordable. So it's not like we're getting what we would have hoped to get out of it. We haven't seen that yet. No one's shown me the proof that any of those projects have yet yielded more affordability. We must also consider the additional vehicles, deliveries, traffic, water, trash pickup, all of those demands on the surrounding neighborhood. And if we're required to identify more capacity, we should place it where it is least likely to incentivize demolition and displacement. A map may show theoretical units. but it does not show the family behind the front door or the neighborhood that has to live with the consequences of decisions that we make up here as a body. With that, I go with option three, only because it seems like this other option, there might be a gap in timing. I'm still open to that dialogue, but option three is my preferred.

Okay. Councillor Stahl. So, you know, this issue has been obviously based on the timing. Residents had an opportunity to speak on several occasions with respect to it. And as you heard tonight, our planning commission wasn't even afforded this opportunity. And so that kind of discussion about us council not going to planning commission is not correct. Also, with respect to the R2 and R3, that's affecting the Pico neighborhood also. It's not just the single-family residents. One of the things that I looked at in making my decision tonight was how do we minimize this displacement? You've heard it many times, and I've heard and I've talked with a number of single-family residents in the Pico neighborhood that we don't know how many... single families would be displaced that are renting in that particular neighborhood, and that is correct. But we do know that in R2 and R3 that could possibly happen. What I'm trying to do tonight is minimize it as much as possible. And I can't get away from the fact that a single family owner and those single family owners that spoke tonight, I didn't get a feeling from them that they're going to run out once we make the decision and sell their home. because they're going to make more money from a developer. They care about their neighborhood. They care about where they live and would like to stay there as long as possible. So why I'm making the decision to go with Why I'm making the decision to go with the single-family neighborhoods, these eight and nine units, is that very reason that I think we do minimize the effect on it. I do think that those individuals that are in our R2 and R3 neighborhood, the reason we didn't hear from them tonight is because we weren't affecting them. I think we would have heard just as many individuals if we were going to make that decision. But one of the things I do want to say, and I want to give staff the credit, We've been very transparent. Staff has been very transparent with this issue. I think all of us have learned an awful lot about SB 79. And as you heard from many individuals, this is not an easy decision. But why I'm going with the R1 zones is to minimize as much as possible the effect of development in this particular area. So that's why I'm going with my decision tonight.

Thank you, Council Member Snell. Council Member Raskin.

Thank you. I've just got a few real quick follow-up questions for staff, and then I want to make some comments. There is a question that's come up a few times in a few different contexts about limiting the ordinance to a smaller number of units. And in prior discussions, we had talked about there not being a rational basis for doing so. Could you just address that very briefly?

So, yeah, if we did the minimum amount of R1 parcels that needed to be upsized, I believe it was 52, it would essentially cut a block in half. So we need to kind of find a rational basis, a true geographical boundary. That is why we used the street system, because it kind of really made sure that everyone on that block got treated the same. If we didn't do that, one neighbor over another would be having completely different standards.

Okay. Can you, just because there's been some debate about this, can you just clarify what the options were that the Planning Commission considered?

At the time, there was, I believe, two options. The first one was looking at just upzoning the parcels within the quarter mile, which ultimately was kind of immediately rejected because it didn't get us to the numbers we needed. And then the second one was this option three you've been hearing, kind of looking at the multifamily, largely because it was the fewest amount of parcels that still had a rational basis. Okay.

And one final question that came up. Somebody had mentioned exemptions for daycare properties in the area. Do we have any data about, I know you looked at the business licenses for leasing, but do you have any idea if there are daycares that are licensed in the 89 properties?

We didn't look at the data for businesses for business license. I believe there is one at the very least, potentially two, but I do not have that confirmation in front of me right now. Okay.

I mean, obviously I'm putting you on the spot by asking this, but perhaps while we're continuing our discussion, I would be interested in hearing options for potentially protecting that in some way, and I don't know what the answer is. I mean, obviously, that's a much longer discussion we don't really have time for right now. But, yeah. Well, anyway, I mean, maybe I'll return to some comments and we can come back to that. Great. Yeah, just getting to the point here. You know, I'm nearing now two years up here on the council. And, you know, I've got the perspective now looking back on some votes that I wish I could have back. One of them is the way in which I, speaking for myself, handled the SB 79 vote up here. I don't think that I did that the right way. And we're seeing now the implications of that. And that's one of the things that keeps me up at night. As former Mayor Mike Feinstein said, we're left picking up the pieces in a way that doesn't I mean, at what cost? I mean, what are we doing here? We're looking at really, really painful trade-offs. And another thing that really stuck with me is what John C. Smith said. I don't know if you're still here, John. But he said, I don't think anything I'm going to say right here is going to change your mind. Again, speaking for myself, I do want to make sure I get this right. I sat down yesterday, I had breakfast with Maria Loya and Oscar De La Torre. I've been talking to people in the neighborhood. I understand that these are very real impacts, not just in the R1 neighborhood, but also in R2 and R3. And one of the things that has informed my decision-making going forward Getting us to this point is that there are about 300 households that would be impacted than multifamily Compared to 89 in the r1 so it's just a simple numbers game and you know we looked at some specific examples, but You know in the r2 r3 you've got the potential to really double development capacity relative to underlying zoning whereas with r1 r2 you're you're you're going from five units under 1123 to six And so I've been asking the question, how does going from five units to six units open the floodgates for development in a way that didn't already exist before? And maybe the floodgates have already been opened. But how does that change from five units to six radically change the status quo in the R1 neighborhood? And Council Member DeGrasse, I would pose the question to you. Help me understand it. How does that open the floodgates to development relative to the status quo? Yeah.

I think it's just more of the reality of what people are seeing on the ground. We're seeing a unit as a house that was 1.2 and now the six units are going for well over 2 million. And I think just the idea that someone is going to go in and potentially have to deal with 30 plus renters replacing them following our tenant protection laws. that just seems like a less feasible opportunity to get a minimum amount of units when you could buy a much cheaper piece of land, which is happening all the time. I know these people own their homes, but there are many people in those pockets of neighborhoods, including where I live, where either because they're seniors or whatever their family situation is, that knock on the door ends up after the fourth or fifth time being received, and then they move out of the neighborhood. It's hard not to accept Hundreds of thousands of dollars over asking so I understand the point you're making that like well these people own their homes I'm not going to sell it. That's not what they're talking about They're more concerned that what they're seeing is the neighbors that they thought would never sell or selling and so what is happening is in there the neighborhood impact is greater in this one area where Look, as someone who's born to immigrant parents, the dream to own a home is an American dream that still lives with many people here. And working class families still desire to own a home, to have a front and a backyard. I have a cement backyard that's shared, that one of the speakers here used to share with me a long time ago. And they rented for 20 years to then own a dilapidated home that they took a very long time to make livable. And so I think when you say, explain this to me, we're seeing it happen. And I understand that you guys are mathing it out and putting it on a map, but it just doesn't seem feasible to me that what you're going to see is all of a sudden people are going to buy these apartment buildings and start displacing people. But what does seem feasible what is happening in reality is a lot of these single family home lots are being redeveloped for six units that are not very affordable on streets that don't have curb cutouts, that don't have large bin trash can pickups. There's other impacts that are happening that we're not thinking about. But more importantly, it doesn't seem like we've even done or had the ability to do a lot of the checking of how many renters are in those neighborhoods, et cetera, et cetera.

I hear you. I mean, I think a lot of those incentives existed exist now under the pre-existing, the pre-SP-79 zoning with the five units per 6,500-unit parcel threshold, I don't think that we're gonna radically change those incentives by going from the five units to six units, whereas in the R2 and R3, I showed just a few examples, but I looked at every single parcel before coming here tonight, and in many of them, you're really doubling the development capacity, and it's a very different calculus for R2 and R3.

But you're just talking about the development. What about replacing all of those renters? Financial capacity the the financial impact and investment and the time that so you buy a parcel with 40 20 renters in it and you can make it 40 but you've now got to got to relocate those 20 and The time that it takes to do that versus the time it takes to buy our one parcel and redevelop it is grossly different and

Well, but people are doing that all the time. I mean, people are doing it all the time, yeah.

Mayor, point of order.

We're getting into a back and forth here between, and people are in the queue.

Yeah, I would agree with that, if you could just stick to comments.

Thank you for engaging Council Member Austin.

I want to make sure we get this right. I mean, I... I'm really struck by the suggestion of looking at other options, including looking at the impacts in the early capacity in the LA part of the TOD zone. I mean, the danger for me is that that just means that we just keep SB 79 in effect longer. But I mean, if that's what people want, then OK. Council Member Czernicka.

Thank you. So I'll just start with thanking everyone for coming and sharing their perspectives. I understand this is a very difficult issue and there's a lot of very strong feelings around it. So I'll just start with saying if there is a legally defensible way to do the dual approach with a rational basis, initial upzoning and then having the mechanism to upzoning the remaining parcels based on HCD guidance and including the protection of the daycares and And hopefully renters in single-family homes. I would love to see that option come back to us Although I understand that that may prolong how long the current SB 79 law and zoning is in effect I also just wanted to share that I really appreciated hearing public commenters' stories of being renters in Santa Monica and then being able to save up to buy a home and become homeowners. And I think we need to recognize that this is no longer a possibility for renters today. talk about creating pathways to home ownership and and i think that allowing this minimal increase in zoning standards effectively allowing one more additional home over what's currently permitted under existing state law would do just that and i understand that some folks might not like that and that's okay um I think that allowing multiple homes to be built on parcels where there's only currently one single detached home, especially if they're built as condominiums does provide more affordable home ownership opportunities. I just looked it up on Zillow and the lowest cost single detached home. ANYWHERE IN SANTA MONICA, INCLUDING IN THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD, IS 1.55 MILLION. AND I AM FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT MOST FAMILIES CANNOT AFFORD THAT. HOWEVER, THERE ARE TOWN HOMES THAT ARE GOING FOR 650, 700,000, WHICH, AGAIN, IS STILL NOT AFFORDABLE TO MOST PEOPLE, BUT IT'S MORE AFFORDABLE THAN A $1.5 MILLION HOME. I think that under this proposal, and again, assuming there were not able to come back with some sort of legally defensible way to do the dual approach, it actually gives current homeowners more options. This might increase their property values, so it gives them the opportunity to improve their homes. if they choose not to sell and choose not to redevelop their properties, because they would have more equity and could potentially take out loans against that equity. There's no longer such a thing as an affordable single-family home in Santa Monica, and I think we need to recognize that as we're moving forward and trying to create these pathways to more affordable home ownership. I have more to say, but I'll, in the interest of brevity and not going until 5 in the morning, I'll stop there. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Rahal.

Thank you, Mayor. So I mentioned this last meeting, we discussed SB 79 implementation. I want to make sure folks understand that we are doing this temporary exclusion work to create the space for alternative TOD zones that we want to protect against the displacement risk in the Pico and Mid-City neighborhoods. Tonight's decision is a balancing act between multiple long-standing city priorities, protecting renters, especially rent-controlled renters, Section 8 renters, and below-market-rate affordable housing tenants. Affirmatively furthering fair housing by concentrating development in higher resourced areas of the city while protecting our historically harmed neighborhoods. Realistic opportunities for living without vehicles or in car light ways, which means putting housing capacity closest to our public transit. Creating new housing, especially housing with multiple bedrooms for families. You know, I think I heard the public commenter right tonight. Forgive me if I'm misquoting, but I believe I heard that families will move in. And forgive me, but I thought we wanted families to move into our neighborhoods. Anyway, these principles are in tension tonight. I'll be voting to approve this item for a handful of reasons. First, I campaign pretty openly on a platform of gentle densification, townhomes, condos, small apartment buildings like cottage courts throughout all of our single-family neighborhoods to meet our housing obligations and prevent the massive 20-story skyscrapers that we saw entitled during the Builder's Remedy fiasco. That's why I've supported ordinances that will promote this kind of housing in all of our neighborhoods, including the Northeast, north of Montana, Sunset Park, and Ocean Park. When you flip a single-family home into a handful of townhomes, it contains rising prices. Otherwise, those single-family homes get flipped into larger single-family homes that are 4.5, 5, 6 million McMansions. Wouldn't we rather have a handful of townhomes instead of blocks, more blocks, and more blocks of McMansions? SECOND REASON, YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD A HANDFUL OF REMARKS ABOUT, QUOTE, LISTENING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND WHY BOTHER HAVING COMMISSIONS. AND I JUST WANT TO RESPOND THAT PREVIOUS COUNCILS APPOINTED SIX OF THE SEVEN COMMISSIONERS WHO VOTED ON THIS. AND THOSE COUNCILS HAD VERY DIFFERENT HOUSING PRIORITIES THAN THIS COUNCIL. THIRD, I THINK THIS PROCESS OR THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, WE'VE REALLY SEEN THE POLITICAL POWER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE GENERALLY MORE PLUGGED IN OR ENGAGED I think it says something that we heard from a lot of homeowners tonight and not the right control tenants from the R 2 R 3 option so in their absence of showing up because by all accounts the staff report recommendation was that we wouldn't be affecting their homes I will continue to represent their interests as I promised to do. And then last, I think I would just say, I think it's been said before, homeowners generally have the agency to choose whether to sell. And I acknowledge that's not always the case. And I acknowledge that the question isn't always necessarily whether I as a homeowner sell, it might be my neighbors selling. Here in the United States, we have private property rights and homeowners or property owners get to choose what to do with their property to a certain extent. I think choosing to sell your home is not displacement. But with renters in multifamily housing, eviction is always an option and thus a threat to stability. So with that, I'd like to move the staff recommendation with direction to staff to immediately begin development of our alternative TOD zones if that hasn't already started.

Do we need a second? Yes, we do. I'll second it.

Okay. Can I? Sure, and then I want to. Sorry, sorry.

We kept talking about five to six units, and I just wanted to clarify before I brought it up, and I might need help clarifying it. But in fact, SB 1123 is 28 feet, and SB 79 is 55 feet and 12 units. So is it not true? Because you keep saying that we would just go from five units to six, but actually you could go to 12 units. Is that not correct?

Can I prescribe that? Yeah. Sorry, I know we're not doing a ping pong, but I don't know if Ross wants to respond or.

So I think you mentioned the 1123 height limit. So the state law says the underlining zoning district height limit would apply. So in the R1 zone, that would be 28 feet. But HCD has provided technical assistance that ultimately to achieve the units that are allowed under the law, an applicant could modify development standards. The Delaware 1123 project that we've all been hearing about is utilizing that by reducing the front setback from 30 feet to, I believe, 15. They could have alternatively chosen more height. SO IT'S HARD TO SAY THAT THERE'S A TRUE CAP WHEN USING 1123 VERSUS THIS TARGETED INCREASE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MODIFY 28 FEET.

So just to be clear, it is only you can go to maximum six units, not 12. 12 is not possible by upzoning this R1 specific area?

Under the targeted zoning, it would max out at six. Or in this standard parcel size, it would max out at six. It's ultimately, the calculation is one unit per 1,080 square feet. On a 6,500 square foot parcel, which is the norm in this area, it would limit it to six. But if it was smaller, it could limit it to five.

And if it's bigger, it could be up to 12.

Probably not 12, but yeah.

It could be bigger. It could be more than six.

It could be probably seven at probably max in this neighborhood.

Okay, okay. Thank you. Sorry.

Okay.

Yeah, I have a question. Okay, I feel like we're getting new information every time we discuss this, which is a little bit disconcerting. I mean, I think I asked in July if we could figure out how many rent controlled renters were in the R1 neighborhood. I heard none. Then today I heard five of the sorry, not renters. That's the wrong word. THAT THERE WERE FIVE RENT CONTROL PARCELS IN THE R1 NEIGHBORHOOD THAT COULD BE SUBJECT TO RENT CONTROL EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE CURRENTLY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. IS THAT CORRECT? I MEAN, RIGHT, AND AS SOMEONE WHO IS ON THE RENT CONTROL BOARD, I'M PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH HOW THAT WORKS. THERE ARE GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR THOSE PARCELS IF THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO RENT CONTROL. WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION? I JUST WANT TO SAY I WANT TO.

NEW SPEAKER THAT'S NOT NEW INFORMATION. THAT WAS IN PREVIOUS REPORTS.

I had asked Oliver earlier today, we just got this number, did we have this number earlier? There are five R1 rent, subject to rent control. I did not hear that stated at the last community meeting that we had here.

On the July 28th meeting when we presented option one, it was provided that there was five rent controlled units in the 89 parcels.

Okay, well then I guess I must have missed that. So our additional exclusion order, like the exclusion ordinance that we're talking about here went to HC on August 13th, is that correct?

I'm sorry. So, yes, the exclusionary ordinance that was approved by on July 14th was submitted to HCD for their review. We've not heard back from HCD regarding that ordinance yet.

So we would be hearing back on October 12th, probably.

Hopefully.

Okay. And if we talk to HCD in April and we haven't heard back from them on this outstanding issue yet, Why has no one on council been enlisted to call contacts at the state to figure out if HCD can get back to us? It seems a little bit like a dereliction of their duty not to respond to us.

Yes, there is no time limit for them to they don't even have to respond to technical assistant letters. We repeatedly are being told that they refuse to respond sometimes, but certainly council could elect someone to reach out to HCD to try to put a little pressure on them.

Okay. I mean, I feel like we have to explore all of the options that we have available to us because there are multiple, we're making decisions that I, again, I understand the policy consideration of why we did what we did here, but we are making decisions where you clearly have a group of people who are very concerned, very frightened. I understand. I live in a single family home. I actually live next to a five unit rent control department building. I understand what it means to have someone looking onto your property. I understand why people are upset here. However, we are being asked to make a decision without all of the answers given limited information.

I think that we're presenting to you the best approach that is available with all the information to try and close the door because the goal is to try to close the door as quickly as possible. if no action is taken, the door remains open, right? Right, which is not acceptable to me.

Right.

And I think that if we did hear back from HGD, there's absolutely nothing to prevent staff from coming back in the future with an amended ordinance. Great. That, you know, this dual ordinance idea, I think, is a great idea that's being presented by the community, you know, but again, in the interest of closing the door as quickly as possible, staff is presenting an option that provides the greatest amount of certainty that we feel, you know, that would meet HGD's certification requirements. You know, we've seen how they've reacted to other cities in terms of proposals that have gone up to the state and the technical assistance has come down around that. So, you know, we're trying to take in all those inputs and try to present something that provides that level of certainty to try and close the door. But again, it does not prevent us from coming back You know, if we do get that guidance.

Right. So if we already submitted something to HCD, we're waiting to hear back until October. Is there anything preventing us from at least proceeding on that path? Because, again, we want to close the door as quickly as possible while at the same time working through on a dual track, potentially this two pronged ordinance. Like, could we draft that? Okay. Understanding that no one wants 12 units on, on there are one lot. So we're trying to close this door, but at the same time, looking at other options, could we explore this two pronged approach?

We can track that. We looked preliminarily at, you know, what would it, and I think, you know, as Rachel mentioned, it was like 36 parcels. This is just preliminary assessment. It happens to cut off at the other street. I think it's Warwick. if it's in the R1, but that's just kind of a very preliminary assessment. We'd also have to track what Los Angeles is doing because that is completely out of our hands. As far as we know, haven't sent up the ordinance for certification yet. There were certainly, you know, some questions, it seems, in the methodology that HGD did ask LA about. So, you know, some of that is, you know, when you have to combine the two together, you are putting, you know, a lot of faith, right, in how Los Angeles acts, you know, how they move forward with their zoning and what have you. If given that direction, absolutely, we can continue to monitor that, you know, pursue that. You know, I think we have the basic foundation, you know, to continue to proceed with that and to continue to request, you know, HDD. We followed up, you know, at least a couple times just to be like, hey, do we have any response yet? And it's just, I'm sure they get a lot of inquiries from a lot of cities that are affected by this.

Right. And one of the commenters tonight mentioned that he believed that it would be reasonable to look at displacement risk and do an assessment based on that and also based on other uses like childcare. While we adopt the ordinance that we have already sent to HCD, could we also investigate potentially exempting some of these parcels under reasonable. Yeah.