City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Uh members of the audience uh please turn off your phones or set to vibrate. Uh we are about to begin the meeting. Uh to begin um we do a call to order. Uh, and we'll start with the pledge of allegiance. Uh, Council Member Raskin, will you lead us? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Council Member Rasin. Um, we will now call the role. Council member Negrete here. Council member Hall present. Council member Raskin here. Council member Snell here. Council members Erneskaya here. Mayor Pro Timwick

here. Um, next is the land acknowledgement. Uh, council member Hall, would you like to read it? Thank you, Mayor Prom. The city of Santa Monica is located on the land of the Tovangar, land of Tuvangar. With great respect, the city acknowledges the Gabrieleno Tongva as the first people of this ancestral and unseated territory of Kuravanga, a village that we now that we know as Santa Monica. We honor their elders, past and present, and the Gabrieleno descendants who are part of the Gabrieleno Tongva 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 Gabriel and Tongva people to uplift their voices and visibility on their ancestral land.

Thank you. And now let me Sorry, mayor. The clerk will ask um I know I wanted to ask do any council members have will any council members be recusing yourselves from any of the items on the agenda pursuant to the Lavine Act? None. Okay.

None. So, um at this point, um I'm going to propose um some agenda management on behalf of staff. Um staff is requesting that we hear items 11 and 13 together. Uh that we accommodate a request to allow the Silus family representative to call in and speak before general public comment. Um that if close session exceeds one hour, we remove the remaining close session to be heard at the end of the meeting. uh that we hear the mayor's highlight and the city manager's report before general public comment and that both public hearings be heard before close session.

Is there a motion? Yes. So moved and wave uh the necessary council rules to execute these uh requests. Second. All right. Thank you. Moved by council member Hall, seconded by council member Raskin. Council member Degrete. Yes. Council member Hall. Yes. Council member Rascin. Yes. Council member Snell. Yes. Council members Ernes Gaya. Yes. Mayor Pompick. Yes. Okay. Um so the first item is the city manager report.

Thank you, Mayor Promswick, members of the council. Good evening. um had a couple of quick updates we wanted to share with everyone here tonight. First, um as we move into the spring event season is starting and we've got a busy week and weekend ahead of us here in Santa Monica. First off, tomorrow evening we have the sustainable quality awards at the Annenburgg Community Beach House. Um during that event, we're going to be honoring four local businesses for their environmental stewardship, social responsibility, and sustainable economic development. We hope folks will join us for that. Again, that's tomorrow evening at the Annenburgg Community Beach House. Then, as we move to Saturday, the beach house is inviting the entire community to take a moment and an unplug to enjoy the afternoon at the beach house to enjoy a range of offerings designed to support well-being, reflection, and connection. Wanted to share with everyone also that the brand new Santa Monica International Jazz Festival is opening this Sunday with a free event for the community on the prominade from 100 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. We're just delighted to have the festival take place here in Santa Monica as it kicks off a season full of events and activations that we'll be sharing more about in the coming weeks. The jazz festival also is planning to have ticketed events on May 8th and May 9th at the Broad Stage in Tongva Park. On May 9th, we're also going to have fire service day at Fire Station 1. We're going to have a 50th birthday celebration for our Main Street community garden. There's going to be a beach walk-in sketch at the beach house. There's going to be another Jewish American Heritage Month concert at the main library. Um, and we're going to be celebrating the birthday of our main library as it turns 20. So, we hope everyone takes advantage of these cool upcoming events that we've got um here

in Santa Monica. Um, one of the reasons though that we've been moving this particular report up to the top of the meeting is um, thanks to the work of our terrific animal um, control team, we are introducing folks in person to our adoptable pet of the meeting. And tonight we wanted to introduce everyone to Dove. Everybody meet Dove, a one-year-old lab and pitbull mix. Hello, Dove. Dove came into the shelter with her brother and is the perfect medium-sized dog for a family that wants someone to cuddle and play with. Dove loves running around the yard with people and dogs, but also, as you can note from Dove's demeanor, calms down and relaxes very quickly. She's super gentle with people and kids. Um, please, please contact the animal shelter if you're interested in meeting Dove. And as always, you can visit the Santa Monica Animal Shelter Foundation website to make a donation or shop the Chewy wish list. With that, uh, as we meet Dove, we'll, uh, turn it back over to you, Mayor Prom. Thank you. Um, I think we're now moving to travel announcements. Does anyone have any announcements on travel? Uh, council member Negrade.

Um, I see council member sky as well. Um,

council member sky next. Yeah, we both traveled to uh Sacramento for Cal Cities. Um besides being introduced on the assembly floor with uh assembly members of Burough, we attended the Cal C's conference. Um in part, we also uh met with our state legislators um to push for AB218 um to help our community um resolve the issues under major lawsuits that are impacting our city financially. I attended various um meetings within the conference. One that struck out to me was how we do build and finance a great park and another one was how AI technology can help our code enforcement using special cameras actually to um take photos of commercial corridor vacant properties and instantaneously find any um code enforcement issues. So, um it's always a great opportunity to learn from other cities and what they're doing and always a great opportunity to meet with our state legislators um to make sure they understand the needs of Santa Monica.

Thank you. Uh Council Member Dennis Gaya.

Thank you. Um so, as Council Member Negrete just noted, we attended the Cal's uh city leader summit in Sacramento last week. And in addition to the opportunities to connect with fellow city leaders from across the state and as council member Negrete noted meet with legislators offices to discuss how Santa Monica's most pressing issues can be addressed with state legislation. I personally got to attend some breakout sessions on really important topics like the role of child care in creating family-friendly cities and the role of local governments in protecting our community in the midst of the current federal administration's extreme focus on immigration enforcement. I was also thrilled to be able to attend the housing and community development committee meeting with council member Negrete to observe and provide moral support to council member Hall as he testified in support of our city sponsored bill AB1740 which addresses a number of our state legislative priorities and I'm very happy to report that the bill passed the committee with uh an enthusiastic 12 to0 unanimous vote.

Thank you so much. Um, anyone else have travel to report on? Thank y council member.

Thank you, Mayor Prom. Um, so last week I was asked by the city manager to testify in Sacramento on behalf of the city in support of AB1740. Uh, as council members Ern Sky just said at the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee hearing uh last Wednesday. Um, so AB 1740 sits squarely within Santa Monica's state legislative platform, which the council adopted in a public hearing in March 2025. uh as well as being aligned with our realignment plan. So the bill aligns directly with our adopted positions across multiple policy areas including local control of preferential parking zones for residents and mobility capital improvements, production and preservation of inville housing, especially affordable housing, streamlined permitting for businesses and housing. Uh outdoor dining and economic activation, preservation of access to our coast, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Um, definitely want to thank my colleagues, Council Member Zernitzkaya and Council Member Negrete for taking some time away from their League of Cities activities uh to join me in chambers. The emotional support was appreciated. Uh, it was my first time testifying in Sacramento. Um, after the hearing, I then tagged along with my two colleagues to meetings with State Senator Ben Allen and Assembly Members of BUR staff where we discussed AB218 reform. Uh like my colleague said, we made the case for amendments that would better protect real victims while preserving municipalities ability to provide continue providing uh the critical services we are responsible for. That concludes my travel report. Thanks.

Thank you so much, Mayor Prom. Sorry, I put my name in the queue. Um sorry about that.

I just wanted to make clear and take this opportunity since we're on the dis talking about it. With all due respect, I've already had conversations with both uh my colleague Council Member Hall and Assembly Members Aburr. Um although I do independently not support AB740 in its current form. There are 90% of that bill I agree with the housing portion. I am um [clears throat] uh not in agreeance with and that's what democracy is about. We're allowed to do that. So I just wanted to take a personal note to say that my attendance to Cal Cities and at these events were in attendance of Cal Cities and support in in different ways. But I just wanted to point out that my independent um position on AB740 is is quite different from the city's position. But thank you.

Thank you. Um so now um I see we're at the mayor's highlight. I'm not sure if we have that ready to go. Yes. All right. Um, this is the moment. Uh, oh, and here's the mayor. Perfect timing. She gets to do the highlight. Uh, I was going to say this is the moment where the mayor honors um, members of our city staff for doing excellent work. No, no. Uh, all you.

Okay. Apologies everyone. Um, had to say hi to Dove downstairs that I just missed. Okay, so uh, as you know, we like to honor our staff who are doing the silent work behind the scenes, making sure that our city is running well. And so we are going to be honoring traffic services officer Jeffrey Pinkerton and Officer Reagan Mina. So, on March 12th, 2026, about 8:00 p.m., traffic services officer TSO Jeffrey Pinkerton and Officer Reagan Mina responded to lot 3 North located at 1150 Palisades Beach Road for a medical emergency.

For law enforcement purposes, a medical emergency can range from minor medical needs, such as a person failing, falling, and injuring their leg to significant calls such as a person experiencing chest pains indicative of a heart attack. In this instance, it was probably the worst call you could receive, which is a baby or child not breathing. To make the situation a bit more intense, the family brought the baby to TSO Pinkerton while he was conducting enforcement action in the beach lot. TSO Pinkerton had no time to mentally prepare for what was about to happen, but to say he handled it well is an understatement. TSO Pinkerton immediately began life-saving efforts on the child. He turned the baby over and began emergency airway clearance techniques in an attempt to clear anything which may have been lodged in the baby's throat. While doing this, he was able to use his police radio to advise dispatch of the situation. Officer Reagan Mina and his partner responded with lights and sirens to the location. TSO Pinkerton realized he was near Santa Monica Fire Station 7 and headed toward the fire station with the baby. TSO Pinkerton realized the fire engine was not at the location, so he continued with additional life-saving efforts to clear up any possible obstruction. At this point, the baby began to spit up, but was still breathing abnormally. Officer Rean Mina arrived on the scene and provided additional assessment. Officer Mina described the baby as appearing limp, motionless, and had an unknown white fluid dripping from its mouth. TSO Pinkerton handed the baby to Officer Mina, who continued emergency life-saving efforts. Baby's father assisted Officer Mina by conducting a finger swipe of the mouth to clear the remaining obstruction, which resulted in successfully regaining a normal breathing pattern. Their actions reflect a profound commitment to humility, placing the needs of others above self, integrity by applying their training

with precision and accountability, and motivation by responding without hesitation to a critical moment. Above all, their genuine care for the well-being of our community embodies the core values of the city of Santa Monica. through their courage and compassion, TSO Pringerton and Officer Mina not only saved a life but also reinforced the trust and confidence that our community places in its public servants. So without further ado, um would love if the folks could that we're honoring could come up and I don't know if you wanted to say a few words to the council before we take a photo.

No. Okay. Don't want to say a few words. Well, we are very very grateful for your heroic act and we would love to take a photo with you guys.

It's officer everyone. I'm so sorry. Thank you very much. I know. That's exactly what I was thinking. Okay. Don't move.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

And again, apologies for my horrible pronunciation, it's officer Mena. I just want to be very clear. So when you see um Pinkerton and Mena on the street, you can thank them. Okay. So, mayor, now we have on the phone um Silus White's representative. You missed this part. They voted to let her let the let them speak. Great. [laughter]

And a mayor, maybe for context, later this evening, the council will be conducting a public hearing to consider the renaming of San Vicente Terrace as Silus White Street. This is all part of the expansion of the city's restorative justice and DEI related programs. Um and in conversations with representatives from the White family, um they have authorized um a member of their team to make a statement this evening. We were hoping to be able to facilitate that before um the meeting got um too late into the evening. Great. Let's do that. And that is before our special agenda items. Great.

Go ahead, David. Can you give that to Lana? I think it Oh, good evening. There you go. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead.

Okay, very good. Good evening to the mayor, Mayor Pro Tim, and members of the council. My name is Sedera Devon. I am attorney for the White family, and it's my pleasure to be present with you this evening and to share this statement on their behalf. The family of Silus White acknowledges the city of Santa Monica for its impending designation of Silus White Street. We look forward to the city's continued efforts to recognize and address the historical injustices experienced by communities of color. This action is a significant step in acknowledging the racial mo racially motivated policies that hindered individuals and families from accessing entrepreneurship, home ownership, and the accumulation of generational wealth. While no single measure can fully remedy these losses or restore unrealized opportunities, it is essential to continue paving the path toward meaningful repair. The White family supports the city's ongoing commitment to restorative efforts benefiting impacted communities, including those associated with the Belmar Triangle, the Pico neighborhood, and [clears throat] Ocean Park. We respectfully encourage the advancement of policies and initiatives that promote equity, inclusion, and repair for all affected residents of Santa Monica. We remain hopeful that these efforts will continue in an expeditious manner and contribute to a more just and equitable future. We would like to thank the city for its efforts specific to the Silus White family. Thank you.

Thank you. Great. Really appreciate you calling in. Thank you. Um thank you for having me. So I believe Madame Clerk, can you just refresh since I wasn't here? Are we moving just to general public comment at this point? Yes. So, now we're going to the general public comment. Um, there are 30 speakers in the queue. Okay. So, that would be one minute each.

Okay. I'm going to call up names and if you could just come up. It doesn't necessarily have to be the order I call you, but when you come up to the mic, if you could just state your name so that we can mark you as having talked, that would be very helpful. So, we're going to try to get through this quickly. Matthew Hel, Laura Wilson, um Hajer, Bill Davids, Bridgette McBride, Barbara Olinger. You can if you're if you're ready, you can just come up and say your name. Thank you, council. I think the first minute my first minute would be playing a video that was provided. And I'm sorry, what was your last name again? Sorry, what is your last name? Hzel. H A U SL E. Matthew Hel. Okay. or Housei as it's actually pronounced. Okay.

Sorry. Uh there should be some audio with this.

That's what it sounds like. Being much louder audio with this. Yeah, that's disrupted a little.

Go ahead. This is

unfortunately it doesn't really convey the level of noise that is a constant uh uh symptom of the conversion of the embassy apartments into the Pale House Hotel which was now taken taken over by the Hilton who's attempting to even expand uh the offerings to the public which will further increase uh the destruction of the peace and quiet enjoyment of our our neighborhood uh and set a precedent a dangerous precedent for the expansion of these sorts of activities and the destruction of the peace and quiet for the residents of Santa Monica.

That's what it sounds like with the window open. Um yeah. So we ask the council to please uh protect the residents in this kind of an instance. Thank you. Thank you. Um our our clerk will reset the clock, I believe, for you. Go ahead. Take it, Miss Wilson. Okay. I prepared two minutes, so I'm a little, you know, obviously not happy about being able to speak. Let me Can I please have my two minutes? I need to find my um Okay. I need to find my document that I just typed up. If [clears throat] you want um Hajer to go next. No, I'll be ready and just give me 30 seconds to find it.

Give me a second to find it. Okay. Well, I'll just speak from my heart. Then you can start. So, we moved into a residential neighborhood 27 years ago, a rent control department, next door to a rent control department. I understand that none of you understand the history, but it was a slow, deliberate, illegal erosion of the rights of the people that live there. Low-income families and senior citizens lost their homes, their rent controlled homes that they lived in for up to 40 years. Slowly, they've chipped away at the residential aspect of this one building. Now, we have no notice to the public. No public process whatsoever. Just one day in 2013, we see this sign out front that they're advertised for. They wanted a liquor license. Residents fought that liquor license. We got a 70 vote from the planning department on that and they assured us that there would be no businesses going in inside, no restaurant open to the public because that out there, that was only eight people. I don't know how many people they can accommodate, but somebody at the city, I called them. There's a sign out front now that says they're open to the public for a restaurant starting at 8:00 a.m. below my bedroom window 7 days a week. Thank you. Um, Hajer. Then we have Bill Davids, Bridg McBride, Barbara Olinger, and we'll call some more names.

Good evening. My name is Hajer.

As most of you know, Santa Monica was once home to a thriving black American community with neighborhoods like Belmar, Ocean Park, and Pico district serving as one of the most significant black American enclaves on the west side. That community didn't just disappear. Your predecessors helped displace it through eminent domain, redlinining, redevelopment, and the construction of the 10 freeway. Today, black residents make up only four to 5% of the population. This is not change. It is the result of policy decisions. So, when you talk about policies like AB1740, we are not starting from a neutral place. One policy increases density near transit, AB1740 opens up public land for development. At the same time, you and the city manager have dismantled the diversity, equity, and inclusion department and eliminated the reparations and landback task force. You are accelerating development while removing the very structures designed to ensure that development is equitable and does not repeat past harm.

Thank you, Bill Davids. Two weeks ago, I appeared uh questioning the banking entity that was holding funds for the pod program. I've come back because I have even greater concerns about the banking entity that's holding funds. In the interim, I met with Britney. Uh we spent about 45 exasperating minutes with the representative from the banking entity. We got absolutely nowhere. But what I found out is the fact that the bank is extracting funds fees from pod participants which are not justified in my particular case. July uh I'm sorry, not July 1st, uh December 1st, Monday, I went to use the ATM. Uh finance had not placed funds in the account yet. I was charged $3.25 for the use of the ATM when the ATM is supposed to be fee free. Uh $6 charge.

The idea. All right. I'm not sure if staff wants to address any of this, but um I I do think there are members of staff that are here today. Just if folks who are coming to comment want to talk with them, I just want to make that general statement. Um Bridg McBride, Barbara Olinger, Robert Robin, Ruddil, Janessa Kurland, and Tim Jones. And you could just come up and state your name. Yeah.

Okay. Hi. Uh, I'm Bridget McBride and I represent approximately 1500 Venice residents who are desperate to reduce the saturation of prop planes circling East Venice. You've seen me before, I'm coming back. Um, last night, Santa Monica Airport released their annual noise and operations reports for 2025, which corroborates much of what we previously uh presented to the council. um that there's a 39% increase in prop planes flying over uh total operations, but then of the total operations, 100% of those are local flights circling Venice to perform [clears throat] touchandgo procedures. So that translates to ex 74,500 operations circling Venice in one year. Um it has to do with a few factors. A new flight school, um prop planes flying over from Vanise for lower landing fees and more available airspace. But there's another piece to the puzzle that's quite interesting because Torrance banned their touchandgo procedures at Louis Zampirini airport in 2024. So they did this as a result of the dramatic increase from flight school activity.

Thank you. Thank you.

Uh Barbara Olinger. Can I put this down? Hi, I'm Barbara Olinger. I have lived in Venice in my home for 32 years. years. I have also worked at the YW.CA in Santa Monica for 23 years when I know some people from there. Um, and the the Santa Monica airport has not been a problem in my life. In fact, my kids loved it until last summer when the noise got untenable. Um, as Bridget said, the the touchand goes. Um, I work from home. It's hard. I don't have an air conditioner. It's hard to focus on my clients. I have a tenant who's disabled. She's home all the time. We've already been in conversations about how it's affecting her life. It's a real gamecher as far as quality of life and as I said it for 31 years it wasn't a problem and then boom it exploded. So I asked the city council to really keep active in trying to figure out solutions to that 14 seconds to spare.

Amazing. Appreciate you.

Is Robin uh Retil here? Great. I'm Robin Rudisil from Venice. The Coastal Act is the people's law. The coast belongs to all Californians, not just one city. The Coastal Act was inspired and required due to conflict with local governments driven by property interests. That is why so many are concerned about Santa Monica sponsoring Assembly Bill 1740. A few of us are here today to make sure you know how terribly wrong-headed this bill is. When I sat with the bill's author, staff, and saw how easy it is to qualify, I could see this was just a sham to get around the coastal act. Did this council formally vote to sponsor this bill? This is not a bill for environmentalists to support. It's the opposite. All you're doing is making Santa Monica look unreasonable and self-obsessed, and the bill undermines Assembly Zabur's strong environmental record. The Coastal Act already contains waiver and streamlining tools. Today, World's Ocean Day, a day dedicated to celebrating and protecting our coast. I urge you to withdraw Santa Monica's sponsorship of this bill and to work within the Coastal Act by

LCP. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, is Janessa Kurland here? Great. Or whoever you if you want to come up and speak to that's I was in the second group. Okay. You in the first group? Just state your name. Yeah.

Hi, I'm Tim Jones. Um, I'm a 25-y year uh resident of Venice, raised my kids there. Um, like some others have voiced, the Santa Monica airport has become unbelievably disruptive to my life. Um the flight schools now are flying so regularly that for an hour on this Monday, two days ago, I had 24 planes fly over my house in 1 hour, uh where the decibb reach 65. Ambient noise is 30. 65 happens for a stretch of 30 seconds and it goes up to that to 65 and then down. [music] And that um that was happening uh every minute and a half for an hour. There's 200 of these flights, training flights that are touchand goes per day. It's I can't work from home anymore. I can't even talk on the phone or Zooms without being interrupted. And I'm really asking to try to limit the flight school operations, please. I know that's a lot of it is out of your rulings that of things you're able to do because of the FAA, but you need to be able to limit how these flight schools operate and limit these complete nuisance of these things that are so uh obtrusive and giving a black eye to thousands of us in the community for a handful of pilots who are trying to learn to fly. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to call up a few more names as you're coming up. Morgan Hunter Gross, Daria Jones, uh, Dana Garcia, Janet Gallery, McKithan, Wade Kelly.

Hi, Janessa Kurland from Venice. I work in Santa Monica and I'm involved with the Sierra Club uh, XCOM in our area. Um, AB1 1740 threatens the balance that has been established by the Coastal Act, which guarantees that inland and lowincome Californians also have meaningful access to the ocean and our coast. The bill would allow jurisdictions to exempt projects such as parking removal, residentonly parking conversions, mixeduse projects, and outdoor dining expansions from coastal act review. Coastal communities like Santa Monica, public parking, rightway managements are not minor issues. They directly affect whether inland families who are not living near transit can reach the beach. The Coastal Act is a balance and it provides statewide equity. AB1740 would allow those decisions to be made without coastal act oversight. Coastal communities are not exempt from co urban communities are not exempt Thank you.

Strengthen. Don't detach. Correct. Thank you. Hi, my name is Morgan Gross. I have a video. This is part of my XR research stuff. Government. My name is Morgan Hunter Gross. I sent you a video for the clerk's office. I have the agenda here. It's cool. You read about it. You see it sometimes in video, but until you see it for real life, you don't really appreciate how real it is and maybe how near it is. It's going to give us different regional mobility. Where we live, where we work can fundamentally change. I made this video for you guys.

Form of aviation and new way of moving people around. Electric powered vertical takeoff and landing aircraft [music] is so exciting. The national airspace is built around something like 30 or so big airports. It's built for the convenience of the airlines and the system that runs it. Not just for the ultra wealthy who can fly in a private business jet, but for people who want to use commercial aviation in their standard [music] everyday life. Using it will be a lot more like calling an Uber today. You could take out your mobile phone, order a flight, [music] get on the airplane, and you'll go where you're headed. If you guys don't want to listen to me, these are all experts.

Batteries and from jet fuel. And the reason it uses both sources is you get a different advantage to storing energies in different ways. [music] The great thing about storing energy in batteries is it lets electric motors which can pull really [music] high outs power for short durations pull that energy really quickly. And so by burning fuel with the turbo generator, we can fly much further than we could. Hope you guys enjoyed it. Thank you guys. Thank you. Um, Daria Jones, Donna Garcia, uh, Dana Janet Wade.

Good evening. Uh, my name is Daria Jones. I'm a resident of Santa Monica. I'm here to speak to my concerns around the city eliminating the DEI team. I understand the proposal is to redirect those funds towards economic development in many forms. I want to respectfully offer a different frame. You cannot separate the two. Businesses don't thrive in a vacuum. They thrive in cities where residents feel safe, seen, and invested in. Where people want to spend money, start businesses, and put down roots. When segments of our community are experiencing racism or prejudice and have no instit institutional channel to be heard, they don't disappear. They disengage. They leave. They stop trusting city government. A DEI team isn't a program for some residents. It's infrastructure for all of them. It's what's makes economic development possible by ensuring conditions for civic trust in the first place. You cannot build a thriving economy on a fractured.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Um just a point of clarification because I don't know where these comments are coming from. Um city manager, have we implemented our DEI team? No, we we haven't. And if there's been some discussions out in the community that the city hasn't gotten out ahead of to explain, um, that's my responsibility. I apologize. We have not eliminated our DEI team. What we've been doing is working to incorporate and expand the DEI efforts and embed it with our broader restorative justice framework that the council approved earlier this month. In fact, as we move towards May, we're going to be looking to start rolling out all of the programmatic details that result in an expansion of our DEI related efforts. It's going to start with upgrading um into a commission, a restorative justice commission that the council will consider in May to authorize that move. We've allocated additional funding, $5.5 million towards implementing our new restorative justice program. the council, this council has adopted. We're also looking to implement all the components of our equity plan. Um, and that equity plan really calls for embedding within all of our departments DEI related practices and equity focused initiatives and personnel. And to that um, effect there have been some reorganizations where we're adding staff and adding personnel and moving different components into various parts of the organization. we have not in any way dismantled the DEI operation. So, I apologize if we haven't gotten out ahead of this particular issue. Um, we'll talk internally at the staff level. We'll make sure to get some communications out related to what we're working on and obviously we'll be communicating with all of our partners on that effort.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that clarification. Okay. Uh, Donna Garcia.

Hello. My name is Donna Garcia. I am a student at Santa Monica High School and a proud member of Leva Latino. We have come to City Hall before to ask for your support and we have also sent many emails about this request. Today, we are respectfully asking for a $10,000 donation to help support this year's Latina graduation celebration and to give scholarships to Latino students who have worked hard and given their time to clubs and their community. This year, more students are graduating. So our costs are higher and we want to make sure every student receives a stol and and their celebration includes cultural music performances and tradition that makes this event special and meaningful. This graduation celebration is important because Latino graduation includes our culture, music and traditions. It helps students feel proud of their background and shows respect for diversity in our city. Latino students make up 58% of students in California public schools and 35 as percent at Santa Monica High School. We're a big part of the school and our su success should be celebrated.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Um Reverend McKithan,

hi. Thank you for that uh city manager uh that explanation. Um I think part of the reason that there's a misunderstanding is because we don't know what's going on. And so I'm a part of many different groups and each group has their own version of what they think is going on. That so that's the part of the point. That's why I'm speaking about it. What we do know is that one DEI staff member is gone and the DEI program it seems to be out of sight. And I've seen this story before. When an institution wants to get rid of a justiceoriented department, they'll say that it's not actually gone. That we're sort of infusing the whole institution. We will now be doing that work in every single department. It really doesn't work. Other departments already have a culture and a way of working that they're not going to change without a dedicated department. Getting rid of DI DEI says to the community that we'd rather you stay invisible so we can carry on the way that we always have. Hopefully this isn't

two minutes. Okay. Thank you so much. And we of course take written comments as well. Wade Kelly and then Sarah Waters, Denise Barton, Joanne Berlin, Joe D. Rosa, Robbie Jones.

Hello. Who endorses the Great Park and Community Housing Initiative? Jazz hands. I'm here to stand up for equal rights, equal justice, equal opportunity for all. Last year, 72% of all the arrests in Santa Monica were homeless human beings. Black Americans make up 30 more than 30% of the homeless population and less than 5% of the Santa Monica population. We need our leaders to stop criminalizing poverty and homelessness and start standing up against segregation and use that part. use 44 acres of the Santa Monica airport to build affordable housing, 3,000 units, and also keep working towards integration and uh get behind the Great Park and Community Housing Initiative. I have it right here. Anybody want to sign the petition to get on the ballot? Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Sarah Waters. I'm a lawyer and a mother who raised my daughter in Santa Monica. She was a member of the Sam High Surf team with access to the coast every day. I'm confused and troubled that Santa Monica is a sponsor of AB1740. It seems that your sponsorship of this bill was not voted on separately. I want to speak specifically about the bill's exemption for outdoor dining expansions. The bill would remove the requirement for CDP or coastal development permits for these expansions. And that sounds minor, but it's not. Venice particularly is affected by this. Outdoor dining is not just about tables and chairs. It affects parking supply, noise levels, safety, pedestrian access, visitors serving uses, and cumulative coastal access impacts. Without Coastal Act review, there would be no requirement to demonstrate that expansions maintain lowerc cost visitor serving opportunities, preserve public access, protect neighborhood character, or mitigate cumulative.

Thank you. Thank you. Uh Denise Barton, good evening.

Good evening. My question would be with one minute cutting time to one minute. Do you really want to hear what the public has to say or do you even care what the public has to say or do you already have your decisions predetermined ahead of time? Because if you're a representative of the public, you should want to listen to the public and what they have to say and not cut them down to one minute. on the DEI thing. Obviously, this the city council and the city city manager missed that the southern California the southern law center on poverty or whatever they call it was paying the KKK to to create the whole DEI thing. So, it that's just a sham in itself. [clears throat] And then Maros is on this ball on this ballot measure that you're putting trying to put through in in Sacramento. Did was that by week gave you $1,000 in your 2024 campaign contribution because that is above the limit that was allowed. Thank you.

Joanne Berlin. Hi. Um Joanne Berlin. I'm the volunteer coordinator for the committee for racial justice in Santa Monica. So you can imagine when we heard [clears throat]

uh the uh rumors and everything about DEI being destroyed, we had a reaction to that and uh it would have been helpful to actually hear about what other plans you all have. It [clears throat] sounds good that you're talking about um repar not reparations, you didn't use that word, but a similar word you used Mr. And [clears throat] uh so I I think that um what needs to happen is more is more communication. We are of course for racial justice. We are of course concerned about diversity, equity, and inclusion and we want it to be a priority in this city and you said last October that it was a priority for you. So

thank you. Hear you. Thank you. Um Joe D. Rosa, Robbie Jones, Jonathan Foster, Katherine Gentile. Uh hi, city council. She's going to play a video. Oh, same one here. [music] Uh this is a two-minute video, so I hope you guys watch the rest of it at artistseries.com, but it's about taking over the 302 Colorado and turning it into a concert and production [music] venue.

28 Olympics. The projected economic impact is significant. We anticipate annual visitors growing [music] to 1.2 2 million in a mature year. This is expected to generate dollar200 to 250 million in direct visitor [music] spending and 18 to 25 million in new toot and sales tax for the city by year 3. A deed restriction ensures this is a permanent legacy win blocking the property for LA artist series use such as art, music, and film events. This provides certainty and avoids [music] future conversion to retail or residential use, benefiting the city and increasing land value. Our long-term economic projections show a $250 million mature annual [music] impact growing at 3% annual inflation. This results in a cumulative economic impact of over 11 billion [music] within 25 years, representing a generational economic driver for Santa Monica. The venu-driven economic uplift boosts commercial leasing, [music] property values, real estate taxes, and government-owned assets.

They expect higher [music] occupancy rates, premium rents. Yeah, I would just remind hopefully we can get a copy, but I would remind everyone that we all have emails and we we love emails, too. Um, all right. Thanks. Hi, I'm Robbie Jones. Um, 65 over 65 year resident of Santa Monica. I I have a little different take on things. I hear what you guys are saying. It must have been rumored. I don't think it was rumored cuz I've been here a long time and I've seen I've seen the smoke screen. I've seen it all. I I think your hearts might have been in the right place, but I don't know. Something was different for me. It hit different. They did the harms report. You've seen all the data. You've seen all the things. Now, you choose to put money towards something that we were all work working very well at. It just needed some minor adjustments. And I think maybe you all, you know, could have talked to the DI team and asked them what exactly that was. Everybody knew that we were ready. We were ready, but there was no money. There was nothing to help us to propel and to keep going. I think you abandoned. I say you abandon reorganizing and all that kind of stuff that

that's just a smoke screen. We know that. Uh Jonathan Foster C or Yeah. Great. Hi, council. Jonathan Foster. We're down to a minute. I was uh going to talk about the beer outdoor bar stuff, but uh have to do it at the next meeting, but maybe I get two minutes. So, I was going to talk about the Tongva Native Americans. Do you remember when you used to be able to walk out the front door and look at the ocean?

Do you remember those days? Now, it's a park over there. And under this declaration that you keep, you know, starting the meeting off with, you seven or nine people ought to get the f out of here. This is Tong the land. They did not seed the land. So you are not elected. By the way, the police department, they have to get out of here, too. I'm part shocked off. We're doing Native Americans, you guys are gone. United States of America is no more. You never got elected to anything. It doesn't exist. This is Tongva land. If what you're saying is real, you they did not seed the land. You didn't get to anything.

Katherine Jentelli, Stan Becker, Harvey Eder, uh Jillian Gomez, and Ael Gomez. Okay. Thank you. Katherine Gentilly, 40-year resident of Sunset Park here in Santa Monica. I am here to speak about the agreement that the city made with the uh restaurant that took the place of Rusty's on the pier, California Roadhouse. I urge you to stand with the workers to retain the work. I'm so sorry. Uh madam city attorney, can you just clarify why we can't hear that right now?

Um yes. So that um that will be heard under um consent calendar. So that will be the next round of um public comment. Can I talk about something else then? Sure. Anything that's not on the on the agenda. Never mind. Don't worry, it's it's coming up. Just this is general public comment on non-aggendaized items. Thank you so much. Stan Becker, Harvey Eder, Jillian Gomez. Yeah, feel free to come. Yeah.

Um I'm going to start and then my daughter's going to finish because we um my name is Jillian Gomez. president of AASSG, which is African-American parent support success group. Um, I want to begin with gratitude because of your support. Over the past three years, 82 students have the had the opportunity to grow, lead, and f um truly were feel truly seen within the community. Sorry, I'm nervous because I only have one minute. Um, I want to talk about the black student union, black [clears throat] student union rights of passage at Santa Monica High School. Black students make up six to 7% of the student population. That means the students are navigating as a small minority. For many of the students, this is not just another school event. It is a moment to of culmination of high school. And it's a chance for them to be seen, heard, and felt. And um the Kente stole that we give them symbolize heritage, resilience, and achievement. It's where they can not just graduate but also feel that like themselves and fill [clears throat] Sorry. As you may know, the school only provides three graduation tickets per student and additional tickets are often sold creating limitations for families. For many of us that

are real. Yeah.

Many of us Hi, my name is Aubreel Gomez and I'm BSU president at San Law High. Um, just to finish my mom's speech, for many of us that means not everyone who helped raise, guide, and support our children get to be present at that milestone moment. But at the rights of passage ceremony changes that as a Oh, um, sorry. It truly takes a village to get all of us, me including myself, um, to this point at a time of our lives. I can say that this matters more than words can capture. In a school experience where most of us don't always feel represented, this ceremony creates a space where we all belong, where we're honored, and where we can look out into the audience and see our full community reflected back at us. And then um tonight I'm asking if we can get $6,000 to ensure that this year's graduating students receive that same powerful experience to fund our stoalls, the cultural elements and the community celebration that makes this moment so meaningful. Um that's all the time I

Great. Just for a point of clarification, is sir is Sergio here just to explain to people how the like discretionary funding process works? I just want to make sure because it seems like we have a few people who are asking for funding. Um, so maybe we can just put that online. We can certainly do that. Great. Um, all right. So, we have Alisa Nayen. So, sorry if I pronounced that wrong. Um, oh, yes. Stan Becker, Harvey Eder, or do either of you guys are come forward. Stan stand. Okay, great. Thank you very much. How much time do I have? One minute.

Okay. I'm not going to really get to too much with one minute. I'll have to come back. Um, I have bilateral pneumonia. I've been in hospital three times since Valentine's Day. What I came to tell you is you give $10 million a year to the uh nonprofits of people's concern, which is Julie D. Rose from St. Joseph's. Judge Carter's court finding and federal investigation found that massive fraud. you keep on insisting on giving tens of millions into hundreds of millions to these corrupted nonprofits. And um that's was going to be the beginning of what I was going to discuss with you tonight. Um [snorts] you know, like maybe this is one of the cops that dropped off the your criminal vagrants to Venice like all the other towns did for no services and hundreds of millions into now billions in HUD fraud. You know 1 million seconds is 11 days. You know not even a vacation a week and a half. One billion

37 years into the next generation. So you're thank you very responsible tax Harvey er and then we will have Thank you Elisa Nayen John C. Smith n thank you for that minute. I've been here since 1979 creating jobs in the real economy.

Uh hello, good evening. My name is Harvey Eder protesting a minute. Uh I'm the founder director of public solar power coalition. Uh we were evicted illegally on the April 17th at stepup by the sheriffs and uh also from San Shell the 15th of of January. All right. Now, we give you uh the nut of a complaint and s give it to you and the city attorney and uh and uh and manager. Okay. Nobody's got a copy. It was nine pages. It was it was a statement of facts. That's the nut of the case. An affiliated declaration and notice. Okay. Also, we followed up. We filed against uh uh so three times they threw our stuff out over three years uh stepup and then uh over over the last six months, three times at Samos shell. This is work product etc. Okay, this is retaliation against truthtelling. We've been doing environmental law and stuff like this for for 40 50 years.

Alisa Nayen, John C. Smith, Nol Gold, Erica Lesley, Zoe Montiner.

Good evening. My name is Alisa and I'm here to urge you keep Santa Monica airport open. This is not excess land. It's critical infrastructure. It supports National Guard operation, law enforcement, emergency respond, and medical access. in a crisis. This airport is a critical lifeline for humanitarian aid and emergency supplies for the region. It's also a training hub for pilot scaling back transportation infrastructure ahead of a global events like the FIFA World Cup 2026 and the summer Olympics in 2028. in it's economically it supports local business and generates revenue for the city. That's a real measurable value. And once you remove airport zoning, you don't get open space, you get death.

Thank you. Um it appears Yeah. Can we just make sure Mr. Becker is not blocking the view? Um John C. Smith, Nol Gold, Erica Lesley.

Good evening, council mayor. Um, I'm John Cyrus Smith, a recreation and parks commissioner and a member of the Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition, speaking on behalf of myself. Well, now that the mayor and the former mayor and uh have officially entered the race for city council, the Wilshire Wilmont.org or would like to invite every all of you and uh every council candidate to speak for up to three minutes at our next meeting one week from tonight via Zoom at 7:00. Um each candidate will get up to three minutes to speak. If more than five candidates sign up and respond, we'll have to cut you to two. Uh everyone who's running has an equal chance to participate. I had to throw that in. Um so I'll be emailing all candidates tomorrow with information. Everyone is always invited to our meetings and our events. By the way, AB1740 would only apply to Santa Monica, a state bill that would only apply to our city. Be wary. Thank you very much.

Thank you. N Gold. Yeah, you can just come up if you've heard her name called. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Null Gould, and I respectfully urge you to withdraw Santa Monica's sponsorship of AB1740. Santa Monica has had decades to complete its local coastal program and was close to doing so before that effort was paused during CO. Instead of finishing that work, the bill proposes a special carveout that would allow Santa Monica to bypass key coastal act protections. That's not a solution, it's a workaround. The Coastal St. Peter Neighborhood Council has firmly opposed AB740 because it would allow a broad range of projects including housing, transportation changes, parking removal, building expansions to proceed without complying with the coastlac public access and resource protection policies. Even more concerning, the bill allows cities to self-certify themselves using vague criteria that require no approval from any regulatory agency. That's not oversight, that's self-regulation. The Coastal Commission stands ready to help Santa Monica complete its local coastal program now. Withdraw your sponsorship of AB1740, complete your local coastal program, and uphold the coastal act. Thank you, [cough]

Erica Lesley. And then we have Zoe Montinire, Robbie Jones, Abon, Aonicia Fiser, Eonicia Fisher, my apologies.

It's okay. Good evening everyone. Um, I'm here because today because what is stake is not just about policy. It's about a pro promise to our community. Diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, they exist because opportunity has not been equally dispersed amongst all the zip codes here in Santa Monica. [clears throat] But DEI doesn't lower the bar, it widens the door. And when we invest in diverse hiring, our city government better reflects the people it serves. When we ensure equity and contracting, local businesses in every neighborhood get a fair shot. When we build inclusive workplaces to retain their people who might otherwise leave. The data is clear. And diverse teams make better decisions. Inclusive institutions earn more public trust and equitable cities are more economically competitive, not less. This moundling DEI doesn't create a level playing field. It simply removes the referee. Our city doesn't get stronger by serving.

Thank you. Uh Zoe Montineer. Hello everybody.

I'm Hi everybody. I haven't been here in a long time. And Oliver, I've never met you before. So I'm speaking about a situation that I have with my roommate. I moved to a new apartment on January after a traumatic tenency with Sean Basser's illegal operation and I thought that this was going to be different and unfortunately it's not. I have called the city rent control. I have emailed several times. Um can you put the pictures that I sent and the harassment has been escalating for three months. I moved on January. I paid my rent on time. Apparently, uh the manager of the building is telling me that my roommate was not allowed to rent the uh part the room. This is the first [music] email that he's that text that he told me, you know, congratulations, you can rent. Please, next. Um the second one, he told me to move out by April 30th. He continues sending me texts harassing me to move in April 30th because he's in violation of his uh tenency and then please next

okay you can email that to us. Um Miss Jones already spoke. Ebeneanishia Fischer, Aaliyah McGee and Amiia Flanigan.

Good evening, Santa Monica City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Ebonyia Fischer and I'm here on behalf of the AfricanAmerican Student Staff Support Group in support of the Black Student Union at Samuel High School. The BSU is more than a club. It is a space where black students feel included, seen, and supported after growing up in a school district where there's not many students that look like them. Today, I'm asking for your support in funding an annual rights of passage ceremony. This ceremony is an a transformative experience for for our students. It brings together elders, mentors, families, peers, and honors to honor and guide young people as they prepare for their next stage of their lives. For many, it is one of the few moments where they feel deeply connected to their culture and community and their own sense of purpose. to offer this experience at the level the students deserve. We

did you did you two want to go?

Yes, they are next. They have their own turn. Um, good evening. My name is Oyia McGee and I'm also here in support of the Black Student Union at Santa Monica High School. I'm the vice president. Um, and I've been a part of BSU all four years and it shaped who I am and so that's why we're here today requesting funding. Our BSU creates a space where black students feel seen, supported, and proud in a school where not many people look like us. We host movie nights, theme meetings, and mentorship for younger students. But doing this work without financial support is extremely difficult. We're asking for funding for two key events. The first is our rights of passage, our BSU graduation ceremony. It honors students s honor seniors for everything they've overcome and it celebrates students in a cultural way especially since actual graduation tickets are limited. The other event we're asking for funding for is our United Black Student Union State Conference. And I've served as the second vice president on that board for two years now. And I really think it's an event that as many people as possible should get to experience.

Um, good evening. My name is Amiia Flanigan. I've been been BSU since my freshman year. And now as a junior, I have the pleasure of ser serving as our sergeant-at-arms. And I'm also here in support of the BSU students. Um BSU has given me a really strong sense of community, especially because like they've said, a lot of students don't look like us. Um so we're we would like funding to support our annual UBSCC state conference, which allows us to connect with other black students from a bunch of different schools so we can share experience and feel a true sense of belonging. And to continue this, we would also like to see funding for our um rights of passage um for the seniors. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you all so much. Appreciate it. Um okay, so that concludes public uh input on agenda items, not excuse me, on non-aggendaized items. Madame Mayor, before I wanted to make an announcement to the audience, um, for those of you along the wall in the back, the TV outside is now has now has audio and their chair set up so you can go out and sit in the in the lobby and watch the watch the the meeting. Thank you. Um, and just to be clear, did we hear the city manager's report already? Okay. Um, so we will now um move to proclamations. What about the travel announcement? Did we hear that, too? over that already. Did you have anything you wanted to add? No. Um, travel. I'll do it after.

Okay.

Sure. Okay. So, now we're going to move on to the proclamation for Asian-American Native uh Hawaiian Pacific Islander Heritage Month. Um, if I could call forward our library director, um, our recipients, uh, and from the Venice Japanese American Memorial Monument to the podium. Um, and I'm g Do you want me to read the proclamation first and then you say a few words? Okay, fantastic. If only I had that. Hold on. Okay. So, um, I'm of course going to invite you guys to say a few words, but, um, I will just declare officially declare it a HPI Heritage Month. uh whereas Asian-Americans moved uh to the area in the 1870s right at the founding of this city when Chinese laborers worked alongside Japanese laborers to build the long warf and Japanese fishermen built their new village there at the foot of the Santa Monica Canyon. In 1882, Senator John Perl Jones, co-founder of this city, wrote in support of the Chinese Exclusion Act to prevent further migration of Chinese to United States, an act that was not repealed until the Immigration Act of 1965. And after 1945, when is evacuees returned from the federal concentration camps in west in the west and Arkansas and given just $25 to rebuild their lives, they created Nay Hall, a gathering place at 1413 Michigan Avenue in Santa Monica to help their community restart businesses, assist those in need, and celebrate holidays and observances. Um, and today, AANHPI residents and city staff in Santa Monica include Cambodian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, um, Iranian, South Asian, Central, Asian, West Asian, and Pacific Islanders. And the 2026 Asian-American Native Hawaiian

Pacific and Pacific Islander Heritage Month theme, power and unity, recognizes the collective strength, resilience, and solidarity of the AANHPI communities and call upon uh to foster connection, understanding, and shared purpose across cultures and generations. Um, sorry, I'm just I'm continuing here. And whereas in celebration of ANA HPI uh Heritage Month, the Santa Monica, sorry the font is really small, public library joins them in the I'm going to get my glasses. Do you mind reading the rest of this? Sorry, starting there. Uh whereas in celebration of a HPI Heritage Month, the Santa Monica Public Library joins more than 130 library systems across California, Washington, and Oregon for One Book, One Coast, a regional initiative that unites communities through a shared reading experience, promoting literacy, dialogue, and civic engagement. And whereas the inaugural one book, one co- selection, they called his enemy by George Tai, is a powerful graphic memoir that recounts Tekkai's childhood experience of incarceration alongside more than 120,000 people of Japanese descent following executive order 9066 in 1942, highlighting the importance of remembrance, justice, and unity. And whereas the city council welcomes the Venice Japanese American Memorial Monument Committee back to its chamber after completing their monument in 2017 and continuing their mission honoring the 10,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry forcibly relocated at the start of World War II from their homes in Santa Monica, Venice, and Malibu to the Manzanar War relocation camp in the Owens Valley, losing their homes, businesses, and liberties. Now therefore,

we we uh hereby proclaim the month of May as Asian-American Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander Heritage Month in the city of Santa Monica and encourage all residents to honor the enduring contributions, rich cultural heritage, and continued resilience of a hpi communities and to advance unity, understanding, and inclusion for generations to come. So, we'd love to hear some comments and then we'll come down and take a photo.

Thank you. Thank you for that. Good evening, Mayor Terosis, Mayor Prom, Council members, city staff, and members of the public. America Kayugan, director of library services, and the executive lead for Cape SM, the coalition for AsianPacific Employees here in Santa Monica. I have the honor of introducing members of the Venice Japanese American Memorial Monument Committee, otherwise known as VJAM, of whom I met for the first time a few weeks ago at the annual VJ Memorial event on the northwest corner of Venice and Lincoln. That day, while listening to the stories and experiences of Japanese Americans who were wrongfully incarcerated because of the way they looked and because of ignorance and fear, many of us sat there thinking the same thing, that we have not come as far as we had hoped from these experiences that today our neighbors and fellow community members are still enduring these atrocities. This year, the A&HPI Heritage Month's theme of power in unity recognizes our strength and resilience despite these atrocities. It is a call to action for everyone to say, "Yes, we acknowledge the pain and mistakes of the past. But more importantly, we must foster understanding and connections across cultures for our future. We must listen and be curious and keep sharing our stories. Santa Monica is participating in one book, one coast, a program where over 130 library systems up and down the west coast read the same book. They called us enemy by George Teay. Through graphic graphic memoir, Teay recounts his childhood experience of incarceration alongside more than the 120,000 people of Japanese descent. Following executive order 9066 in 1942,

I invite you to participate, listen, and share your own stories at our book discussion on Wednesday, May 13th, 11:00 a.m. at the main library. And now, it is my honor to introduce to you Phyllis Hayashiara, charter member of the Venice Japanese American Memorial Monument Committee, and her colleague, Santa Monica resident and charter member of VJM, Suzanne To Thompson. as well as member Nikki Gilbert to accept our 2026 A&HBI Heritage Month proclamation.

Thank you, Erica, and thank you very much, Santa Monica City Council. [clears throat] It's the second I've been here um to receive um something that we appreciate very much. We were here in 2016 when the Santa City Council granted us $5,000 towards the completion of the Venice Japanese American Memorial Monument. Thank you very much. And I I hear that a lot of people ask you for money. So, we're very appreciative that you were so generous at the time. and it's still standing um on the northwest corner of Venice and Lincoln where those thousand people of Japanese ancestry from Santa Monica, Malibu, and Venice were they were supposed to amass there with only what they could carry and they took a a 6 to 8 hour bus ride from that corner to what became the Mansinar um American concentration camp. Many people lived there for 3 years um for the duration of the war. Thank you so much.

Thank you, council member and and um mayor. The Vettis Japanese American Memorial Monument Committee also has a grant opportunity for students, college students to receive a $1,000 grant to go to Manzanar and to work with the Mansinar committee uh while they're here in in Southern California and then to take the pilgrimage, the Mansinar pilgrimage. which happens at the end of every uh the last weekend, the last Saturday of April every year. And we just attended the 57th and I encourage all of you to go. It'd be great to have a contingency from Santa Monica, especially our elected officials and also um the audience. And uh with that, the grant that we have for the Arnold Mida uh Miata uh grant to go to P uh Manson Arts, $1,000 grant. The application is due in January and you can go to our website that Nikki will talk about a little bit and you can apply on online and uh Arnold was incarcerated at Manzan when he was 17 years old and he's our inspiration. He's no longer with us, but he's our inspiration for founding the committee. Well, okay. The website's www.venenjamp.org and Nikki's our web master.

Thank you. Let's take a picture, guys. Thank you so much.

Sorry about that. I could like barely read it. It's very small. [clears throat] Yeah, Are you sure by the way? [clears throat] phenomenal. Now we are moving on to preservation month and I would love to call for Nina Fresco and Ruth Anne Lair. I'm going to read the proclamation. Our proclamations are very long. So thanks everyone for bearing with us. We appreciate it. But they're very important. Um you're here. Okay, great. Come on up. And while you're making your way up, I'll read the proclamation. Whereas 50 years ago in 1976, the city of Santa Monica adopted a landmarks and historic district ordinance establishing a landmarks commission uh and setting forth an excellent program to protect

significant historic places in the city. And whereas the Santa Monica Conservancy was established in 2002 to promote an understanding and appreciation of the benefits of historic preservation through educational programs, advocacy, and partnerships. And whereas in 2002 two again, the Santa Monica Conser Conservancy worked with a coalition of community groups and the city of Santa Monica to save a remarkably intact 1897 shotgun house from demolition by having it moved off of its original site and stored on city property. And I'll just editorialize, you all should visit if you haven't. Uh and whereas the shotgun house was a rare survivor of the first type of housing built close to the beach in Santa Monica, elevating its importance as a historic artifact with city assistance, it was moved twice to temporary locations. And whereas in 2010, the city the Santa Monica Conservancy entered into a lease agreement for the [snorts] shotgun house with the city of Santa Monica and began a search for a permanent site on city land, the conservancy led a successful capital campaign to restore and adaptively reuse it as a conservy's headquarters and as a preservation resource center. and whereas in 2014 the shotgun house was moved to its permanent home at 25202nd Street where the rehabilitation work began. The site was just two blocks from its original location. And whereas 10 years ago in 2016, the Santa Monica Conservancy celebrated the grand opening of the preservation resource center at the Shotgun House where residents and visitors can learn about the history embodied in Santa Monica's historic places and how historic preservation benefits the city. And whereas on the 10th anniversary of the opening of the Preservation Resource Center at the Shotgun House in 2026, the Santa Monica Conservancy continues to offer educational programs and events that illuminate the city's historic places and the stories they embody. Now therefore, I, Carolyn Terrosus, on behalf of our entire city council, hereby proclaim the month of May 2026 to be preservation month in the city of Santa Monica and encourage Santa Monica

community to gain awareness and appreciation of the city's designated landmarks and other historic resources by visiting the preservation resource center at the Shotgun House, a model of adaptive reuse and sustainability. So, I would be honored to bring you forward if you uh ladies wanted to say a few words. Hello, city council. Thank you so much for acknowledging preservation month this year. Um, before I talk about preservation month in general, I just want to congratulate once again my colleague Ruth Anne Lair who is the winner of the California Preservation Foundation's lifetime achievement award for over 45 years as a guiding force in historic preservation. She is our Ruth Anne Lair and has a lot to do with why historic preservation is such an important part of our city and we should always remember that. Um so uh in the theme of what you were saying 250 years ago we signed the Declaration of Independence in the United States. 150 years ago the city of Santa Monica was founded. 60 years ago the National Register for Historic Places was established. 50 years ago, the city of Santa Monica adopted a landmarks ordinance and landmarks commission. 24 years ago, sorry, that one's not a round number. Uh, in 2002, the Santa Monica Consery was founded. And 10 years ago, in 2016, we celebrated the grand opening of the Preservation Resource Center at the Shakun House. We are so proud of what we have accomplished at the Shakun House. Between all our regular tours and special events, we've already engaged almost 2,000 people in 2026 in learning about local history and how it is embodied in our local environment. On Sunday, May 17th from 2:00 to 4 pm, we're going to be celebrating the

anniversary of the Shotgun House grand opening with a block party celebration open to everyone with live music, a retelling of the story of the Shotgun House. And we will giving be giving an award to local land use attorney Ken Kutcher for his years of support for historic preservation. And there will be cake. On June 7th, we will be launching a new tour called the coast called Coastal Crossroads that is an exploration of Santa Monica's coastal landmarks, public arts, and cultural sites. Black history and local his eeries are also featured. This program is partially funded by a city of Santa Monica CAP grant. So, thank you for that. Uh we have six tours that we offer on a regular schedule around the year and you can find about all of them and many of them start at the shotgun house which is one of the tours at www.smconservancy.org. We have a lot of fun doing this work and I think we do a lot of great things. Uh we encourage everyone to come to the shotgun house and see how a little house can really tell a big story and see how a building that is really old and managed to stick around past its first useful life found a new useful life that is an incredible public resource. We have a lot of fun doing it, like I said, and we encourage you to come to the house, become members of the conservancy, and best of all, volunteer so you can be part of all of the things we're doing. Uh, happy preservation month, everybody.

Okay. Will you take a picture with my phone, too? Yeah, wonderful. Okay. Um, we are now moving to public input on items under the consent calendar and uh close session. and we have uh

45 comments it appears. So, everyone will receive one minute in accordance with our council rules. I will call you up and let's just uh try to be as expeditious as possible. Um so, with that being said, Daquin Mueller, Christina Navaro, Eli Kenyonz, Kathy Gentily, Lewis Wantonab, and we'll we'll take it from there. What's for dinner? What's for dinner? Oh, hot. Yeah, I know.

Um, good afternoon. My name is Daycoin. I had the privilege of working at Varsities until it closed last year. Um, when Rusty's closed, I didn't just lose a job. I lost uh stability and a sense of community in Santa Monica that I didn't have before. And today I've heard a lot about how many people have lived in Santa Monica for decades and how there's a legacy we want to preserve. And I think preserving that legacy also means bringing back the rest of these workers um no matter who the new operator is um on that lease. Um, since last year, I've been proud to stand together with community to ask for something that I believe is simple and fair, the right to return to our jobs when a new operator takes over. Any lease agreement should be as strong as a Santa Monica worker retention law and bring all workers back. Every workers must have a clear, protected path to return to work. Thank you.

Thank you, Christina Navaro. Good evening council member. My name is Christina Navaro and Ollie I want to say please bring it back a workers for the rustic is many months to people stay out and you know people's when they don't have a job is a families going to affect it too and if he all owners buy the same restaurant he know the people fight for for justice or better like thank you bring it Thank you. Eli Kinones.

Uh, good evening. My name is Eli Kinones. I work on Mammar for month for 37 years. And I want to ask you, please return all the recall. If any lease, please return the old people that used to work there. Recall protect them, please. Thank you. Thank you, Kathy Jatelli. And then we have Lewis Wanami, Deacon Joanne Lesley, Pastor Brady Roberts, and Michael Atinello. Hi again. Hi.

I'm still Kathy Gent, Katherine Gentilli legally. Uh, and I am here to speak about the worker recall and retention law. And I hope that council will recognize and honor the fullness of the worker recall and retention law to apply to the California Roadhouse employees. Thank you. Great, Mr. Watinab.

Yes, madame mayor and members of the city council. So I'm Louis Watinab and I'm a member of St. Monica's Catholic Church as well as a member of Clue. So I'm I'm here in support of the workers and hope that 100% of them will be rehired. Um, and uh, I'll I'll just uh mention my family has had a hundred-y year history in Santa Monica with my uncle Kay having retired as the your city treasurer. And uh, uh, and my my grandfather, Razoka, actually built uh, who who started living in Santa Monica here in the 20s uh, was uh, actually built the two stone century post and the cemetery monument at Mansinar. So yeah.

Wow. Thank you. Deacon Joy Lesley.

Thank you very much. I'm a longtime resident of S uh Sunset Park and uh retired clergy at St. Augustine's by the Sea Episcopal Church in on Fourth Street and a member of Clue. Um, I've been proud uh to stand with the Rusty's workers as they've um tried to lay the foundation for getting jobs back over the course of the last year. And I've been particularly impressed by the leaders who have spoken out not only for themselves but for their fellow workers. And honestly, I didn't expect to be back here speaking to the council again about this because I thought we had taken care of the issue when we passed and I was very proud that we had passed in February the worker recall and retention ordinance. Um, but it's been brought to my attention that possibly that's not going to govern the new lease with the uh California Roadhouse. Thank you so much, Pastor Bry Roberts. And then we have Michael Atinello, Max Brown, and Enrique Munoz. Good evening, mayor and city council members. I am Pastor Bridey Roberts. I'm the community organizing director at Unite Here Local 11 and a former longtime organizer here in Santa Monica. As the council considers a potential lease at the former site of Rusty's, we urge our council to ensure workers have all of the rights of the worker retention law. The council should reject any applicant's attempt to avoid full compliance. We see in the summary that was released text that is consistent with the spirit of the law and we are glad. We are concerned about the reference to interviews. Santa Monica's worker retention and recall law requires that formers workers be offered jobs not just interview. The same is true of the worker retention all other worker retention laws of all of which require job offers not just interviews. We are concerned that the proposal falls

short of guaranteeing the same rights that the law and every other worker retention law provides and might create a loophole to disenfranchise workers who have exercised their rights in the past. We urge that any agreement that is made follow the law and bring back all of the workers. Thank you for all of your work and attention. Thank you, Michael.

Yeah. Hi, my name is Michaelo. I'm here to uh support the opening of the California Roadhouse. Um I have two points. I'm a current um employee of Sean A House. I've been working for him for two and a half years. He's a wonderful owner. He treats his employees great. Um all of his staff and customers love him. Um he's been in the industry a very long time and knows what he's doing and knows how to run the restaurant. My second point is I love the actual idea of the Roadhouse. Um I think having live music back in Santa Monica or just in the west side is a really fun and great idea and I think it'd be good for for everybody. Thank you. Thank you, Max Brown.

Yeah, Max Brown, this is my first time up here. It's a little nerve-wracking for everybody, but so I'm also speaking in favor of the California Roadhouse. Um, I'm not a worker at Veto, but I've been a customer of Veto for 20 years. I knew the previous owners and I was like actually a little nervous when Sean and Melissa bought it because you never know what's going to happen when somebody [clears throat] buys a restaurant you like. But it's been phenomenal. Um, and I got a chance to get to know Sean just like hanging out at the restaurant. Awesome guy. Like you can tell he like really cares about what he's doing, right? When he starts talking about the Roadhouse, he's like passionate about like how cool it's going to be and he's going to bring live music back. And it's like, you know, I I understand the union's points. Unions were created to protect workers from really unscrupulous companies. That's that's not Sean. That's not Sean at all. I mean, he he wants to build something cool for everybody around. and you know I've seen what he can do and execute with a restaurant. I'd say I'd say give a chance.

Thank you. Enrique Munoz.

Hi, good evening everybody. I'm Enrique Munoz and I've been an employee at Veto's restaurant for 26 years. When my first bosses sold the restaurant, I was hesitant. I was telling my wife I was going to look for another job because I was so secure there. It was just comfortable. But then when I met Sean, he's he's fair. He treats you right. As an employee, as an employer, as an employee, he treats me uh like my other bosses. And if I were to work for anybody, I would work for him. So, I think it's really asset for you to have him at the pier, and he's going to treat everybody the same equal way. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. I'm going to call up some more folks. Um, Ephraine Melendez, uh, Stu Smiley, Cooper Brower, Debbie Jeff, Jeff Jeff. And if you heard your name, you can just come up and say your name and we can get started.

Hi, my name is Stu Smiley. I'm a local resident who lives on Palisades Beach Road about a mile from the pier. I'm here to show support for the California Roadhouse in Shawn. I'm also an entertainment executive having produced for HBO for over 30 years. I know Shawn for about the same time when he was working on the original Palm restaurant on Santa Monica Boulevard. I've always always admired his work ethic and became a new fan when he took over Vetos on Ocean Park Boulevard in Santa Monica. Vetos has become a clubhouse of sorts for us, eating there weekly. I look forward to what Sean will do with the California Roadhouse, drawing in the local community as well as visitors. As a local res resident with a local vested interest in this project, this would certainly be a step in the right direction for the Santa Monica Pier. We'd be lucky to have a dedicated successful restaurant tour. And Sean, thank you.

Appreciate you. Thanks. Um, is I don't know if Ashen Melendez is here. Cooper Brower.

Oh, great. Go ahead. Yeah, I've known Sean for a long time, too, since Palm. And then uh you know, uh he's just an incredible uh restaurant person. Him and his wife Melissa, they run an incredible restaurant. If you guys I think I told you last time, if you haven't been to Veto, you're you're missing out. It's a great establishment. It's open seven nights a week and uh some lunches, too, I think. But anyway, uh they're just uh really uh great people. They're very warm and friendly and and they take care of their their restaurant employees. They're really good to work for. Uh I work I work in the wine business and restaurant business and I've sold the Sean. I mean they're just really good people. They know what they're doing. I think they're going to be a a real asset to the city of Santa Monica and the pier and I think it'll be good and they're gonna going to bring in bands. I I used to book bands too. So I'm already talking to Sean about some of the bands I know and everything. I think that it'll be and so you're going to be employing a lot more people and it should be a great uh fun place. It'll be

Thank you. Um I Debbie Jeff come together.

Great. And then we have Jennifer Ordonz, William Thomas, Fred Crossall. So I'm Debbie. This is Jeff Jeff. And we are big uh we we go to Veto's at least once a week and Jeff goes every day for lunch. So, I would say that we love Veto's restaurant and we've gotten to know Sean and Melissa very well. They're awesome people. We knew the old owners. We're still good friends with them. And I think that they are so passionate about California Roadhouse. And I think the pier needs something like California Roadhouse. Live music, good food, and fun because the pier seems to be not doing so well. Sean's vision with these bands and hopefully just band will play there. you should all come see is just perfect with the food and the beverage. I just think that we've seen what he's done to with Veto and uh he's only made it better. So, I suggest that you guys go for it. It it's going to be great. We can't wait to go.

He'll make that pier come alive. uh to have um Santa Monica is starving for live music and support of local bands. You know that uh that we need to build that up and the food is going to be incredible. If you guys all eat or vetos, you know, he can cook, he can eat. So, I'm in uh full support of getting this thing moving. California Roadhouse. Yeah. The Roadhouse. California Roadhouse. Excuse me. Thank you. Thank you. Let's get it moving. Appreciate you. Thank you. Um, Jennifer Ordonius. Yeah. Great.

Hi, I'm Jennifer Ordonius. Um, I support the proposal to open the California Roadhouse. I've known Sean and Melissa for years. I've lived in Santa Monica for 15 years, and it's rare to find a restaurant owner like Shawn. He knows the community, understands what local customers actually want, and shows up in a way that builds real loyalty. I visit Veto often and absolutely love the ambiance in food. Shawn is not just opening a business, but he's creating something people will keep coming back to. Thanks. Thanks. Um, William Thomas.

I'm William Thomas. Uh, I support the, uh, opening of the California Roadhouse. I've already seen the commitment that Shan and Melissa have to the community at Veto, where they have incredible food and they foster a welcoming atmosphere and make every guest feel welcome. Uh, they understand what makes a place special and I'm sure having live music at the California Roadhouse will add to that sense of community and quality. So, I'm looking forward to it. Thank you. Um, and then I'll call up some more people as Fred is coming up. Sean A House, Mohan A House, Melissa A House, Thomas Matteo.

Wow, the family. Um, hi, I'm Fred Crochell, and I want to say a lot of good things about Sean. Can't do it all in a minute, but uh, I've had the pleasure of knowing him for 30 years. Uh going back to the palm, I've been in the music industry for almost 50 years and I've seen him grow as a bus boy, a waiter, an owner, and uh I have nothing but great things to say about him as a human being. Um I can tell you that I believe the whole concept uh for the California Roadhouse and you know, his work ethics are second to none. So, I support this fully. Thank you.

Thank you. I believe Mr. A House is next. There's several of them, it appears. Good evening, council. I'm Sean Ahos with the California Roadhouse. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank each of you and city manager Oliver Chi for considering our proposal to open our exciting new restaurant and live entertainment concept on the Santa Monica Pier. We believe our proposal will bring a muchneeded outlet for live entertainment and job growth to our community while simultaneously considering and balancing the needs of a small business such as California Roadhouse together with those of our local and much appreciated workforce. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, Mohan.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Thanks for taking the time. Uh, I wrote a bunch of stuff, but we only have a minute. So, I just kind of wanted to speak from the heart. Um, there's jobs and there's dreams, right? Like, and and I think we all have jobs and we all have dreams. There's a lot of opportunities to get new jobs. I'm always looking for a new job, too. I'm a musician and a marketing director also. But not a lot of opportunities come to make our dreams come true. This is Sean's dream. You know what I mean? And so this is a perfect opportunity to make that dream come true. There's not a lot of opportunities. And it may seem that like we're, you know, uh, business people, soulless business people, but that's not the case. I'm Sean's brother. He grew up without the benefit of having my dad there. And he started from the bottom, really literally worked his way up to the top. And I'm so proud of him. And I'm And it would be so cool to be able to partner with him on this venture, bring live music back to the pier. I'm a musician in marketing.

Thank you. Thank you. Is Melissa here? Okay. No. Um Thomas Oh, Melissa's here. Okay. Good evening, council and mayor. My name is Melissa. I am Sean's wife. Shawn was born and raised here in Santa Monica, and his ancestry goes back eight generations. He doesn't just want to open a business. He wants to do things right the right way for the right reasons. Santa Monica isn't just gaining a new storefront. You're gaining a neighbor who has integrity and who was born to do this. It's going to be so cool.

Thank you. Um, okay. Thomas Matteo. And then we also have Daniel Peterson, Patricia Kepler is what it says. Steve Cohen, Gail King. Okay. Yeah, I'm mate and uh I can speak Spanish. Oh, do we have a translator available? You can speak Spanish and the people that can understand Spanish canate. [clears throat]

We should really have one. [clears throat] He's coming from Victor. Vito's restaurant.

He's in support of opening Sean's restaurant because he works for him and he's a good boss. He's so manager and that is everything that he wants to say. Okay. Gracias. Thank you. Um, Daniel Peterson. No. Um, Patricia Kepler, Steve Cohen, Gail King. If any of you are here, you can feel free to approach the mic and just state your name.

Good evening. My name is Gail King. I'm speaking on behalf of Shawn A House and California Roadhouse. I've known Shawn for several years and I'm eaten at his restaurants. I know him to be a man of great honesty and integrity and the California Roadhouse would really be of benefit to the city of Santa Monica and the pier. It's going to be a huge success. Thank you. Thank you,

Steve Cohen. Thank you for your time, everybody. I was here two weeks ago in support of Sean. I support the Roadhouse and everything everyone has said prior to me saying it. Um, in the words of Barry White, let the music play. And in the words of the Duby brothers, do you know the song? Let uh Sean go, I go back with Sean many years, 20, 25 years. I'm a restaurant guy, 31 years, multiple restaurants. When somebody wants to do this, you got to really think about it. A lot of people go to work and they have to go to work. He wants to do this. And I think it's a perfect venue for him, for live music, for musicians, for the workers who have been I'm sure he'll give a very fair chance for them to get back to work. I hope that you support this project.

Thank you. Um, was Daniel Peterson or Patricia Kepler here? If not, I'm going to call up some more names. We have Tiffany Walker, Billy Olsen, Diana Cook, Linda Wilks. Feel free to if you heard your name, just come straight up and you can state your name and start your comment. Hi, I'm Diana Cook and I'm here to support Shaun Ahos. I can promise you the Roadhouse will be the talk of the town. This kid knows what he's doing and I know this kid quite well. [snorts] I can tell you every restaurant he has ever worked at, they have asked him to come back anytime. He not only has integrity, he's kind. He's very kind. And full disclosure, he's my son.

A Hi, I'm Tiffany Walker. I was here last time and um I do feel Sean can bridge the gap between the union all these little these things that need to be kind of working in symphony together. But I forgot to say that I worked for him and I've worked at the pond since for 20 you know whatever. I've known him a long time and worked with him and if every boss was like Kenya you wouldn't need a union. And I've actually worked in unions. I've worked at a hotel union. I was at the airport. They were bringing on Union uh 11. There are positives and negatives to both sides. But if anybody can do it, it's Sean. And right now, we are all feeling disenfranchised. Speaking of that, and nothing like music and a pub can bring it together and create this village. And Sean brings the hospitality factor that's just forgotten. He knows it because he's I mean again like it's old school palm to masters to you know all these places in veto like it's in his soul and a GM actually the energy of a GM is

Thank you and feel free to come and state your name.

Hi, I'm Linda Wilks. I'm here on behalf of Shawn and the Roadhouse. Well, I don't know him socially. I've known him over the years at the Palm. Didn't go to Mastros Vetos definitely. And I I I would have to agree with what everyone is saying about his integrity, the way he treats his employees. But but a thing I would like to add to that is he has a way of making where whatever he's running feel good and feel like home. And like I love to go to Vetos, not just for the food. It just feels good there. And I feel really confident that he could do that at the Roadhouse and we need music. It's the music venues are far few and far between now. So I hope you choose to support him. Thank you.

Thank you. Um I were any of you all called? Yeah, feel free to come forward.

Council mayor, thank you. Whoa. Council mayor, thank you for your time. Um I'm a resident of Venice. I also work in San uh Santa Monica. I've known Sean for about 20 years. Uh we started together as waiters as co-workers and he has since been a boss or a uh a manager of mine at Mastros, [clears throat] the Palm Beverly Hills, the Palm West Hollywood and now I bartend for him at Veto. I cannot attest this man's character is unbelievable and he is the man to do it. Tiffany nailed it in every way. That's one point. The second point is the Westside needs music. Do you remember how many music spots there were for local music just 15 20 years ago? It doesn't exist anymore. And he is the man to run that place. And I forgot my third point, but

what what's your name, sir? What's your name? Oh, sorry. Billy Olsen. Thank you. Um, okay. So, I will call up a few more names. Christine Fisino, Tom Chris, Elizabeth Newman, and Steve Stevens. Hello. So, good evening, council. I feel

um so my name is Christine Fazino. I'm a resident of Los Angeles for 28 years. I've known Sean A House for 26 of them. I am here to talk about how great Sean is. Blah blah blah. I love the state of California. 18 years ago, I spoke in Beverly Hills for my previous employer, Soho House, which now we have West Hollywood and we have Malibu and we have downtown. It generates jobs, tax, everything that this city needs. So, yes, Sean is great, but I'm here to speak for the behalf of the state of California, and I really hope you approve this. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Um, I'm sorry. Yeah, feel free to say your name cuz I don't Tom Chris. Hi. Thank you for your service, guys. Uh I'm part of the tribe here. I'm sick of hearing about how great Sean is, actually. Um no, known him for a long time. Worked with him at the Palm. Longtime restaurant employee myself. Uh if anybody can figure all this out, I don't know why anybody wants to own a restaurant myself, but if anybody can do it, he can do it. So that's my word. Thanks. Thank you. So, um, is Elizabeth Newman here? And then we have Steve Stevens, Antonio O. Aar E.

I'm Steve Stevens. How are you? Um, I'm not a a restaurant uh uh worker. I'm a restaurant patron. And I can tell you, I've known Sean for 30 years. and um when he was a bus boy, the tallest bus boy I ever seen in an apartment in in on Santa Monica Boulevard and I watched him go to become a server and a host there and move on to Mastros and um Vetos is just amazing. I think live music on the pier and uh and I'm a business owner so I know what kind of a person he is and I know he can run it and I know he can make it happen so I support it. Thank you.

Thank you Antonio O. Oh, I'm sorry. Did you did I call your name? Oh, feel free. Come on up. Come on up.

Good evening everyone. Aar Elhu. I'm a criminal defense lawyer. I live in Beverly, West Hollywood. I love the ocean, the water, the music. So few weekends, per month I drive from West Hollywood to go to Miramar uh hotel for their music. They claim to have live music. is a pianist just on weekends. It's a tiny spot. They hardly can accommodate everyone. And so I strongly urge the council to approve the root house because we need the live music that they are providing. There are very few I don't know very any hubs that provide roundthe-clock music and Santa Monica needs that. I would appreciate that if both houses are approved. Off the record, respectfully I have a of the subject recommendation. Uh city of West Hollywood, city of Bing Hills, all the they have uh walked through detector and I didn't see any with the pandemic violence in the country, the gun violence. I respectfully asked the city council to provide detector at the door.

Okay. The criminal defense attorney said it. Um, and [laughter] did we get her name? Uh, uh, she was your name. She was pretty high up there. What? Are you Elizabeth? No. As n A last name E L I H U. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Oh, 37. Okay. Thank you guys. Oh, okay. We did just call you. Antonio is Antonio here. Elizabeth Newman, Vance Sadler, Sadler, Zoe Montineer, Harvey Eder, come on down. Jonathan Foster, you can feel free to come up and state your name. Good evening. My name is Vance Sadler. Um, I've bartended in Santa Monica off and on for a number of years. The last time I listen listened to a live band play in a bar restaurant on the pier was at the old or house some 30 years ago. I think it's time for a restaurant like the Roadhouse to uh bring back live music to the pier. Sean Ahos would be a great uh proprietor of the California Roadhouse on the pier with his years as a manager and owner of successful restaurants in Los Angeles. Thank you.

Thank you, Zoe. Okay. Um can you put the pictures that I had before? Um it's the picture tells a better story. This would have to pertain to calendar.

Yes. is for the issue of the police to the escalation because I had an incident. So, um can you go further down? Further down? Yes. Um I am in favor of the grand of the deescalation for police. Can you go further down the pictures? Um I had an standing in front of my building, this gentleman. And can you go down to the next one? Yes. He was in front of my building when he saw me taking picture. He's wearing a hoodie, a black mask, and a black baseball cap. When he saw me taking pictures, he started walking away. Um I think it's part of the harassment from the building and that's why I had to call the police on Saturday. So this deescalation um grant is a great addition for service because it's not the first time that there have been tragic consequences because the police doesn't intervene on deescalating an issue that can be managed on time to further a criminal activity. So I in support of this incredible

Thank you. Thank you. Um Harvey Eder, you're next. And then Jonathan Foster, then Thomas Matteo and Sam Rod Shannasa.

Hello. Hello. Good evening. It's not on. Hello. Good evening. My name is Harvey. I'm founder director of public solar power coalition. I want to talk about SQA. Not about rusties and whatnot. Um and four and five. They want SQA exemptions on a bunch of things. Okay. I think that we have to use SQL to do ownership and control of all the businesses we interact with that we have to redistribute wealth. The two-thirds of the country seen no increase in income or wealth in the last 40 50 years and productivity's gone up has gone to one 1% one10th 100th percent. So we need locallyowned and controlled businesses vertically and horizontally and set up worker co-ops or joint ventures partnership franchises and this is required under socioeconomics through SQA and political economics and that's you should not give exemptions to that and that's required by law. Thank you. Bye.

Thank you Jonathan Foster.

Hello Jonathan Foster. Don't I get 19 and a half minutes? Just kidding. Um, I wanted to for 4 on the farmers market just to prove that it's a beautiful thing. Uh, I unfortunately uh got connected to it when I saw the farmers market crash, George Russeller going through and I saw the girl spinning in the air and coming back down on the ground. So, um, but I can't [clears throat] imagine what it's like to be a farmer at this time trying to sell stuff with gas at six bucks. So please uh media and awareness it just comes down to a uh advertising package you know by the federal government which is awesome. The farmers market is awesome. I wish I could go more. So thank you for doing this. Have a good evening.

Yeah. Thank you Thomas Mateo. Are you here?

Sorry. Sam Rod Shinasa and then Heather Thomasson and then Joe Nicolleti. Hey folks. Hi. Welcome back. All right. I'm not going to blow hot air up Sean's ass again. People have done that enough [clears throat] and I don't think he needs that. Um, but you union people, I think you really want jobs, don't you? And you want your jobs back. I think they should have their jobs back. I think the Roadhouse should be allowed to open, but not just open. It has to be allowed to thrive. And to thrive, a business has to be able to run the way a business runs without burdensome clauses. That means a union doesn't get to dictate how people run a business, but at least hire all you guys back. I'm sure you guys want your jobs back. I'm sure you guys are great workers. You want to get in there. You want to be able to get promoted, get jobs, get paid. Unions can make a business. You can unions can also break businesses. They broke Rusty's. Rusty's is gone. And we're here because we want to start that again. And we want to have this business to be run the way you can run a business. And not

Thank you. And and then Heather Thomasson.

Hi Heather Thomasson. Good evening you guys. Um I am so excited for the California Roadhouse. It sounds amazing and Sean sounds amazing and I love vetos. Um, I'm also uh a proud union member of the writer's guild and I had an experience when I was first getting started when I got my very first job. We did it for a year and then it's so common for bosses to turn over there and the whole group gets fired and um and you're starting all over again with a job search and um and I had the great fortune that the new boss of my very first job decided to hire everybody and it was really life-changing for me and um and created amazing community and so I'm just here in support of the um workers being retained and the uh the health of the new business and I'm so excited for it. I can't wait to patronize it. Thank you.

Thank you, Joe Nicolleti. And then if you have comment, if you put your name on for comment and I haven't called your name, please talk to our clerk because I've called everyone at this point. Yeah.

Hello, council. Joe Nicolleti. been living in town for about 30 years and uh seen a lot of businesses come a lot of go and uh I think that uh I'm completely in support of the the roadhouse because it'll really revive the arts and the spirit of the city live music. So, uh I think it's well needed and well overdue. So, I also think Sean is couldn't ask for a better person to design and engineer the uh success of this business. So, let's do it. Thank you. Okay. Uh so again, I didn't I didn't see anyone else coming up. So that would conclude public comment on the consent calendar in the close session. Um do do we want to um I know that one item was pulled in advance of the meeting. Two items were pulled. Uh city manager, which ones are those?

Items 4 A and 4 I have been pulled from the consent calendar. Great. Um do we want to entertain a motion to approve the rest of the consent calendar? I'll move the rest of the consent calendar. Second. Council member Zarncaya. Yes. Council member Snell. Yes. Mayor Pompwick. Yes. Council member Rascin. Yes. Council member Hall. Yes. Council member Negrete. Yes. And Mayor Terosas. Yes.

Okay. The first item is 4A is authorization to accept oh I'm sorry authorization to accept grant from the office community oriented policing services fiscal year safer outcomes enhancing deescalation and crisis responses training grant program and council member hall pull this item.

Thank you mayor and uh madame clerk. Um, I just had a question for the city attorney's office or uh I don't see any representatives police department. Um, but so I I understand the court issued a preliminary injunction in Chicago versus DOJ. Uh, but the case is still moving through the courts. So is there any risk that if we accept this grant under the current injunction that later if the courts rule that the administration is okay to reimpose those conditions particularly around our DEI programs um or if we're required to cooperate on immigration [clears throat] that we have to accept those conditions because we accepted the grant or is there some sort of like clawback that would potentially happen?

Correct. So, um, in accordance with council previous policy direction, um, the city would not accept the, um, the grant if the conditions were attached. So, given that the preliminary injunction is in place if council were to approve the grant this evening, the city would um, send a cover letter with the acceptance to make clear that the acceptance is pursuant to and contingent on the preliminary injunction and the inapplicability of the challenge provisions. If the challenge provisions somehow become applicable to the grant, again, the city would um pro likely be approached by the DOJ to ask the city to affirm those grant conditions, in which case we would return to the council for further direction. They would not automatically apply

and then would so they'd be requiring us to affirm under the False Claims Act. They may. Okay. They may if if although I will say we are we are hopeful um that we would be successful in getting a permanent injunction because the court did determine the likelihood of success on the merits um at the preliminary injunction phase. Okay. And I I think I heard something from the city manager earlier today uh that those terms have been removed from the grant language. Is that correct? Believe that was the

they they have been removed to the extent the preliminary injunction is currently in place. So the court has prohibited the federal government from imposing the conditions on the grant at this time and we are waiting we are waiting a further hearing on the on a whether or not the court will enjoin those provisions permanently. Okay. So let's just play this out. If if the appeals court or on on appeal uh DOJ prevails and we are banned from DEI programs and we are required to cooperate with federal immigration policies and sharing of data, what happens to the city?

Right? So our position would be that the any grant monies used during the period when the federal government was enjoined, those conditions would not apply to that period and we would return to council for further direction on what would happen going on a going forward basis. Why why would you feel like you need to come back to council if we've already given direction on this? If we have not expended all the grant funds and the and the um federal government is is asserting its uh right to impose the grant conditions on a going forward basis because right now they can't. But if the court were to rule that in the future they could and we haven't expended all the funds then we would need to return to council.

What if we expend all the funds before a hypothetical ruling that they they would not apply during the period of the injunction. And when do we expect to expend these funds? The uh the training funds we expect to expend within the next fis within the current fiscal year upon receiving the dollars as in like current fiscal year that ends in July or June 30th.

No, I um it would be expended within the year that it's received. I'm not clear if it would be expended fully within this fiscal year. We can check on that um certainly and get back to the council. When is this application due? I guess in short, do we need to take action on this tonight or can we continue this and have y'all return with more clarity? We can certainly return and bring it back at our next meeting for additional review. Okay. Am I the only person with questions or don't see anyone in the queue.

Okay. Uh mayor, I would move that we continue this to the next meeting uh so staff can come back with clarity around uh some of these questions. Thank you. Second. I have a question. Sure. Is that going to impact the funding for the police department if we move this item to the next meeting? No. one um meeting, we we'll still have time to come back and um have the approvals granted. It'll give us a couple of weeks to work through all the issues and be able to answer the questions the council has in more detail.

I mean, I would just say why did we bring it to council if we didn't have these questions answered? The um the reason that was brought forward is given that um the way that there is an injunction in place there existing prohibition. There are no existing prohibitions on utilizing the grant money for any DEI re we don't have a requirement if we accept the grant money to cooperate with the federal government or discontinue DEI activities. Therefore, it was appropriate to bring it forward. Some of the additional questions that have been asked though, if we don't expend the dollars during the period of time, right,

prior to the courts finalizing the decision, um, we're not clear, but we can certainly find that out and come back to the council with more information. And, and if I may, I while I believe we have an additional two weeks, there will be a deadline in which the city will have to make a decision on whether or not to move forward with the grant. So, that is part of why it was brought forward at this time. Okay. rather [clears throat] than waiting until a permanent injunction which probably wouldn't come until sometime later in the summer. Great. Council member Hall.

Yeah. I just want to make it clear that my position and hopefully council will join me on this is that um we are committed to continuing our DEI programs. We do not want to make a uh have a false claims act issue. Um and we will not be cooperating with the federal government on immigration issues. Thank you. Agreed. Um so there's a motion on the floor and a second. So it looks like we can vote on that. Is that a voice? Sky has her hand up. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see you, Natalia.

Um, I just had a quick question and the city attorney may have answered it, but I just want to make sure I'm understanding. So, this is going to come back, assuming this motion passes. It's going to come back in two weeks, but uh, we won't know about a permanent injunction or any potential outcomes of the court until no earlier than this summer. Is that accurate? or when do we expect the court to um continue deliberations I guess on on this topic? So the briefing on a permanent injunction should be done in early July and the court will set a hearing date sometime thereafter. We don't know yet.

So so even if the hearing is set in early July, we won't know if there's a permanent injunction. And until we know whether or not there's a permanent injunction, the temporary injunction stands. Is that accurate? The preliminary injunction will remain in place and and we are hopeful that the court would issue a permanent injunction based on success in other similar matters and also because the court in issuing the preliminary injunction did rule that the city had a likelihood of success on the merits. Okay, thank you. Are we ready? Great. We're ready for a vote. Okay. Council members Erneskaya. Yes. Council member Hall. Yes. Council member Rascin,

yes. Mayor Tim Swick, yes. Council member Snell, yes. I think you meant to start with me. I'm sorry. Council member Ngrete, yes. Reverse. Sorry. And Mayor Terosas. Yes. Great. That carries. Um, it looks like we will now move on to 4 I. Item 4 I is approval of lease agreement with California Roadhouse, Inc. for 250 Santa Monica Pier and both council members Rascin and Hall pulled this item. Great. Um, do we would we like to hear a staff report or do Yes, please. Okay, great. We would love that.

Denise, would we be able to pull up the uh report? [clears throat]

I do not. Thank you.

I don't know to search you. I can do that. Apologies for the technical difficulties. Uh Denise, um should we hear one of the public hearing items while we're waiting or No,

it's not there. Correct.

Oh, you did. Great. [clears throat] Hey, there we go. Thank you very much. Um, apologies for the delay, too. We have a um fairly brief overview um of the um California Roadhouse lease. It's before the council for review this evening. First, by way of background, as the council is aware, after more than 30 years of operations, um back in late 2024, the former Rusty's Surf Ranch restaurant closed. Um following the

closure of Rusty's Roadhouse, uh excuse me, Rusty's Surf Ranch restaurant. City engaged a brokerage group in 2025. Um through that process, we um coordinated a review of possible new restaurant type uses for that particular facility. We received nine proposals for consideration and after working [snorts] its way through the process, the California roadhouse concept was identified as the best fit. Um, and the city um, in working through those issues has for the past couple of months been working through proposed lease terms with the selected operator. Um included in the staff report are the proposed key lease terms related to the lease for the roughly 4,000 square foot um facility on the pier. Um we have base rent set at roughly $27,000 per month set to increase 3% per year. Our standard CAM charge is also associated with the proposed lease. Um some of the additional um terms in the lease include a $500,000 tenant improvement allowance that we provided to the operator as part of the agreement. There's also some additional considerations related to building improvements that are estimated to cost about $125,000 to make certain um repairs to the building prior to turning it over to the tenant. Um, in addition, there are some additional waiverss um of lease related costs, including two months of rent and CAM related charge waivers and in order to line up patios um a waiver rent costs associated with extending the back patio so it matches with the other patios adjacent to this proposed facility. As the council also knows, um earlier this year, the count we did adopt here at the city worker recall and retention protections for any hospitality

businesses operating on the pier with five or more employees. Um we have been working to align those regulations with the lease um and through the lease agreement with the California Roadhouse. Um there's been a um a lot of work on from the attorney's office and helping us think through how to get the applicable terms embedded into the lease agreement given that um currently no business operation exists to transition to California Roadhouse. The business the former business Rusty's Roadhouse was shuttered prior to the adoption of our recall retention regulations. Um, and what we've done is draft language in the lease that mirrors or recently acted recently enacted worker retention regulations. In general, here's how those um provisions would work. Um, every employee that worked at the former Rusty Surf Ranch restaurant when it closed in 2024 would have worker retention provisions that apply. There would be a 90day excuse me um within 90 days prior to the opening of the California Roadhouse tenant would be required to have a hiring window be open. During that hiring window and consistent with our existing retention regulations for the rest of the pier all of the former employees who worked at the Rusty Surf Ranch that apply for a job during that hiring window will be offered a position with the roadhouse. The reason for that provision again is given that there's no existing business operation to establish a list of former employees who are interested and able to work still at the new facility. There was this hiring window that we um identified. All of the former employees that are um and do apply during that hiring window process will be offered a position. They will be retained for no less than 90 days. And at the end of the

90-day period, again, consistent with the city's existing retention related um regulations, the Roadhouse will be required to provide every worker with a written performance evaluation. The lease terms also require the Roadhouse to consider offering employment, continued employment beyond the 90 days for all those employees who receive a satisfactory evaluation. Given those provisions, um, what and the negotiations that have been engaged tonight, what the staff is recommending is that the council authorize us to negotiate, finalize, and execute the lease agreement with the roadhouse pursuant to the terms that have been outlined in the report. The council has any questions about this matter. Um, we are here and available. With that, we'll turn it back over to you, Madame Mayor.

Thanks so much. We'll do some questions first and then comments if folks have them. Um, I don't see any questions, so I Oh, okay. Council member Hall, then Raskin. Uh, thank you for the report, M. Uh, Mr. City Manager. Um, the staff report referenced an interview process. Could you please explain what that means?

Um, certainly. The way that, uh, again, um, we established the hiring window, I think it was characterized in the staff report as an interview process. really it's a hiring window to um ensure that anyone who previously worked at Rusty's if you apply during that period provide proof you previously worked at the Rusty's um Surf Ranch restaurant. You have to be hired pursuant to the lease agreement. There's no interview terms per se. Everyone who previously worked at Rusty's is required to be hired if they apply during that hiring window period. Got it. Thank you. Council member Raskin,

sorry for not asking this question in advance. So, pop quiz. Um, I understand that the lease is going to have a definition of eligible worker. Uh, it is that definition going to track the definition that's in the recall retention ordinance? Um, yes it does.

Okay. Are there any other ways in which the uh lease would deviate from the recall and retention ordinance? The only um provisions where it deviates is again um pursuant to the current retention um regulations that we have an existing business um upon a transfer of control has to provide a list of the employees. Those employees have to then be retained for 90 days by the new employer. The um differentiation here is because there was no prior employer. There's a provision in the retention regulations um that require the new operator to comport with all of the prior related rules um for hiring. We don't since we don't have a prior operator that provision is not included. Um that plus the hiring window are the two deviations.

Got it. Okay. Uh I'll reserve the rest of my thoughts for discussion. Negrete. Oh, I think we're still in questions. Okay. Um, I just I have a quick question since I don't see my other colleagues. Um, I just want to be clear from reading the staff report that there were over 100 inquiries in this space. Is that correct? Um, there were over a hundred inquiries received um before we received ultimately nine um proposals that were vetted.

Okay. Um, and have have you talked with the California Road or has staff talked with the California Roadhouse to determine what steps are going to be taken to notify all eligible Rusty's uh employees about the potential of coming back?

Yes. Um, pursuant to the discussion and the negotiated lease language that we're working to finalize right now, um, the tenant, the California Roadhouse, will have to, um, first put up a notice, um, at the facility outlining the hiring process um, prior to opening and prior to finalizing their staffing plans. they need to um finalize that hiring window process to determine how many prior Rusty's workers are going to apply. Um outside of the in the lease agreement, there's a requirement that the notice be posted. Um that's the only technical requirement in the lease is currently contemplated

and that comports with our recall and retention ordinances for how we notify people. Okay, great. Um, and then just to put a finer point on it, the interview process is really immediate, correct? Because if someone was a former employee and they come to the interview, they're guaranteed to have their job back for 90 days. Is that correct? Correct.

Okay, great. Thanks. Um, all right. I will, um, it looks like it's time for comments, Council Member Negrete. Um, so tonight I want to be clear, um, about what concerns me here. I support workers being treated fairly. I understand that the role labor unions have played in protecting workers and I'm not someone who believes that their voices should be silenced. In fact, I was a part of a union at my first job at Vons UFCW Local 1440 and I stood on a picket line just two weeks after joining and and getting hired at my at my job there. But I also believe our job as elected officials here is to apply policy fairly and legally. The situation concerns me because Rusty's Surf Ranch is no longer operating. The business is closed as we heard earlier. The space sat vacant. The city went through a process to identify a new operator and that operator is hopefully now going to be the California Roadhouse. That matters because this is not simply a continuation of a prior business. This is a new business taking a risk in a challenging economic time. When we say we want investment, not only in the pier, but in the city in Santa Monica as a whole, what makes me uncomfortable is the idea that we're bending lease negotiations and serving hiring requirements that may not actually apply here because of outside political pressure. That is a very dangerous precedent that we are setting. A business owner should absolutely be encouraged to interview former workers if they are qualified people interested in looking for work at this establishment. That totally feels reasonable to me. But forcing a brand new operator into predetermined hiring decisions before they've even opened their doors feels inappropriate and potentially outside the intent of these policies. I'm especially concerned that we are now discussing roughly $800,000 in tenant improvements as a part of this negotiation. This is public money tied

to a public asset. We should be asking whether is this the best use of these funds or whether we are creating an environment where future operators will simply just walk away. I have to say that I am encouraged that they are still willing to negotiate. But it is costing the city this negotiation. If we say we want economic recovery and we want our peer activated, if we say we want businesses willing to invest here, then our actions need to reflect that here. We can protect workers while also being honest when a policy does not fit in the facts in front of us. Tonight there were some questions about clarity which I heard here as to whether these hiring requirements are even legally required. [snorts] Workers deserve fairness. Businesses deserve fairness. Our role is not to pick political winners. It's to create a system that people can trust. So, I hope that the California Roadhouse can open. As a business owner myself, I trust in the process that they will hire the people that

[clears throat] um you know want to work there and and and earn that right to get hired. But I think this pressure that we're putting in telling them who they need to hire and the audacity to request that they don't even go through an interview process is just it doesn't feel good for me up here. Great. I see council Zernitzkaya and then council member Rzoick. [clears throat]

Thank you, mayor. Um, so I really appreciate all of the work that staff has put into this. I really appreciate all of the work that members of the public and Mr. a house have put into trying to find a balance in um working out the terms that get us to have a thriving business on the pier uh once again and to be able to get the workers back their jobs. Uh our roles up here can be there and challenging sometimes because we are tasked with finding that balance. Um, and I believe that the terms that are laid out in the staff report, given all of the clarifications that we've received, do strike that balance. And I'm very much looking forward to visiting the Roadhouse once it opens and celebrating with uh the workers who are able to come back in Mr. A House uh with some really wonderful live music. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Rwick.

Thank you. Um this was a tough process. There was um competing interests. Um business and labor weren't initially on the same side as to what exactly uh this deal should look like. Um business and labor are not always on the same side of different deals, but they do share a common interest in a successful economy that can employ workers and provide good wages. Um and um I'm proud about the fact that actually I think we did get to a solution that that I heard comment from both sides. people. Uh we have an operator that is excited to open a space that seems like uh it will be a vibrant part of our community and we have workers who will be rehired. So uh I really appreciate the efforts of people on all sides here and the efforts of city staff to mediate between these different issues. But I think this is a great example actually of how we can in fact have uh a thriving uh economy and um a protected workforce and I'm really excited to see this be a successful venture on the pier and in our community.

Great. Council member Hall.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I too am super excited for live music on the pier. Um I love going to music shows. I love going to locals night and particularly seeing local local bands playing on the pier. Um so, Mr. A House, I'm really excited for your concept. Uh I know that this has been a long and drawn out process. I'm glad that we have uh this whole process has brought us to a place where I think we have a stronger and healthier peer community. Um but more importantly where our values are being put into action. You know, I'm I'm fine with the investments that we're making in tenant improvements uh here. Um they're improvements that will stay with the pier as public property. Um, and finally, I think I'll just say like I think for too long this city has told businesses that they had to live out our values. And when we force the cost of those values on the business community, um, or sorry, and then we force those values or the cost of those values on the business community. And tonight, we're actually putting our money where our mouth is to protect the workers and to bring the workers back um and and to ensure that uh the the process aligns with our ordinance that we recently passed. Um, so thank you both sides for coming to the table. I'm glad we got to a point where um we can open uh an exciting business and respect the the workforce that previously worked there and bring them back in accordance with our ordinance or uh in parallel with our how our ordinance is structured. So thank you

council Rascin.

Thank you. Uh, and thank you to our staff team has put in a lot of a lot of time on this. Um, you know, I'm excited for this opportunity. Uh, you know, last, uh, time we were here in Castle, my friend Scott Camarada came out and talked about how excited he is to play live music at the Roadhouse. And, uh, we've heard from a lot of musicians who are excited about that. And, uh, I think that this could be a great opportunity for our city. Um, but speaking about values, you know, we've always been a city that stood up for our workers, that stood up for the people that make up the lifeblood of our city economy. And in fact, I think it would be a very dangerous precedent to not stand up for our workers, to not take a stand when folks have been put out of their jobs. And uh I'm proud that we've uh reached a point here where I think we can get a win-win. And um I'm I'm very excited to see that uh Mr. A has agreed to rehire uh well at least for the terms here to bring back all the workers per the terms we've got here. Um for the sake of developing consensus uh I'm going to make a few points that I would I would make an emotion if I were making it, but I'm not sure we have consensus over it. Um I would just say that the recall and retention ordinance speaks for itself. I don't think we should be taking a position on retroactivity. Uh but it's really important for me that the workers who uh are the former Russians workers would get no fewer protections here than they would under the retention ordinance. Um and uh with that, you know, I can make a motion now, but I think some other folks want to share some thoughts.

I mean, feel free to I'm in the queue. Okay. Council member Snell,

I I just want to say that [clears throat] um this particular u item was one that was very difficult for all of us to to work through, but I I think that we have seen uh this council that cares about workers. So my statement to the workers uh that are going to reapply Ruskies or I think that um or Roadhouse now I think that you see that you have a business owner that really cares about its workers. We heard that this evening. I also to the owner, I do believe that you have workers that will be committed and uh this this is exactly what we uh on council because I care much about the workers and being able to have uh their their jobs back. But I also want to uh iterate that having a business that cares about doing uh great service in our community, which I believe uh this owner is, is one that we should be proud of. I want to thank the staff for it. I want to thank my council members for for their work on it. Um this is a win-win as you heard from many of us on this this level. I being an owner myself understand um the difficulty of being able to keep employees um to um support the uh workers but also I understand from the workers position to have uh a community and have a business that will will support them. So, this is this is exactly what we're here for. And uh for those businesses that want to come and do work in Santa Monica, uh I think they need to understand that we care about our workers. We care about the the value of workers, but we also are very uh sensitive to understanding what it takes to run a business, particularly a restaurant business during these particular difficult times. So, from my position, I think that we uh did the work. I think staff did the work and I

think everyone should be uh should be very thankful that we came to this uh this position that we have tonight. So I'm if you're ready to make a motion with some I'm here to support. Yeah, I I would love to say something, but Council Member, go ahead.

Um I [clears throat] was in response to Council Member Raskin's uh position. I just want to be very clear and I this was not a hard decision for me when it came up in terms of the proposal of the business. It makes perfect sense. It brings back live music which Rusty's did have at one point um on the pier and to be very clear that operator wanted tenant improvements of which we denied. Um in fact they were asked to put in over a million dollars to maintain the business on the pier. We are now in a position where we have allowed outside forces to enter in lease negotiations and force a right to recall ordinance that is not applicable legally to this entity. So I think it's great that this person who Sean Aaus wants to offer jobs back to everybody who worked at an establishment that was there months prior. I just want to be very clear for anyone in the public who doesn't understand right to recall works when there's a takeover of an existing business and it changes hands. Similar to like the restaurant that Mr. A House took over, which is Veto's restaurant. If he took that place over and it was subject to right to recall, all of those employees would be offered their job back. If there was a new establishment that took over an existing business that was still operating, that's how that works. That is not the case here. So, we are going above and beyond. And the only reason for everyone who came up and said, "Oh, you should really say yes tonight because this is going to be a great business." Yeah, we know that. That's not why we're here talking about this lease, multiple council meetings back and forth. We're here negotiating now, giving $800,000 in tenant improvements as a way to say, "Hey, we are going to force you and tell you who to hire, and we're now potentially asking you not even to interview these

people, but you have to hire them no matter what." And apply a policy that doesn't technically apply legally to this business. So, while I understand protecting workers rights and the folks that worked there months ago who are apparently waiting for a new business to come in to apply there, which he's agreed to hire them back, I do think we need to point out that this is not even legally applicable. and we should just move forward, approve this lease, and not put any more due pressure on this operator because quite frankly, I don't even know why they would want to continue to do business with us if we put any more pressure or strings attached to this to this um potential lease.

Okay. Um I would just like to make a couple of comments and then um council member Raskin, if you wanted to make a motion, that's fine. Um I would just say the Santa Monica Pier belongs to the people of the city. It is publicly owned land. Uh and we are the landlords and we have made a policy determination as council that it is important to us to protect workers who help to appreciate the value of our assets, to protect workers who work in our hotels and our restaurants who make the city what it is. And to me, um, we can't have an economic recovery and a comeback unless we're doing right by businesses, but also doing right by our workers. So that that is front and center in my mind. And and you know, this is an individually negotiated lease and we we as the landlords get to set the terms. Um and and so to that I would say um you know if we have this publicly owned asset and we have tools in our toolbox to ensure that we are upholding our values here as a city and that people are able to get back to work. That's important to me. Um I would also just say that this is a good lease for the city and it's a good operator. Um you know I I think we've heard time and time again um that Mr. A House is perhaps the second coming. Um, we've had every every positive testimony about him. So, I'm exc I mean, I'm I'm um you know, very enthusiastic. Uh, obviously there were strong competition. Uh, there were this was rigorously vetted, very excited about the live music, very excited about a a great menu, very excited about the fast activation. And I'd like to say, um, from my understanding in in the lease terms, we own all of the improvements to, uh, the leaseold. Once those improvements are made, uh the $500,000 city advance is structured very responsibly. Um it it has stage dispersements. We're not just giving a blank check for $500,000. Audit rights, a 5-year clawback provision, and all the

improvements, again, like I said, become city property at the end of the lease. Uh so I think that that's how you invest in a public asset, and I'm really proud of it, and I and I thank everyone here for for sticking with us and um coming to the table uh in good faith. I think hiring experienced peer workers is not a concession to the California Roadhouse. It's a head start for them. Um these are people who know the space, they know the clientele, they know the um operations on the pier. And I think that an experienced workforce is an operational asset. Um and I think, you know, I appreciate that, uh Mr. A House has come and worked with us. Uh, I also think, you know, we're excited that all of the workers are going to be hired back. Uh, and and I'm excited about this deal. I'm not opining uh on the legal applicability of an ordinance because again, um, just as Council Member Raskin was was alluding to, the lease should do what our ordinance requires because this is what the law says on a going forward basis. Period. Uh, and so, you know, with that being said, I'll I'll be happy to hear from a motion if you had one. Uh, all right. I'll go ahead and make a motion. Um, I'm going to move that we uh adopt the SQL findings about the exemption uh and authorize for city manager to negotiate and execute a lease agreement with California Roadhouse for 256 Monica Pier uh with the following instructions. Um, one that the terms of worker recall and retention should be consistent with those in our ordinance. Um, and that the city Well, I'll just say that the the terms of our recall and retention ordinance speak for themselves.

I'll second that. Great. Okay. Are you ready? Council member Degrete. Yes. Council member Hall. Yes. Council member Rascin. Yes. Mayor Pompewick. Yes. Council member Snell. Yes. Council members Arniskaya. Yes. And Mayor Terosas. Enthusiastically. Yes. Congratulations.

We'll allow the clapping this one time. Um okay. Uh I I believe Mayor I apologize before we finish with the consent calendar. Um oversight on my part related to item related to mute yourself. Council member Zernaya, [laughter]

there's there's noise. Um I apologize on item 4A related to the grant. Um there actually is a deadline that we have to meet prior to our next council meeting. Um staff just sent us a note. I misread the staff report. My apologies. Um wanted to see if the council wanted to reconsider the particular matter. Um we do believe at the staff level it's um perfectly acceptable to take the grant funds now given the provisions that are in place and the protections that are in place that do not require the city to coordinate or cooperate with the federal government on any immigration related activities. Further, there's no prohibition on DEI activities. Um we're not not um ready to articulate how quickly we could expend those funds, but we can certainly if the council was comfortable have an additional motion to say that if the existing court rulings were overturned and that um the issues that we are concerned about are re-imposed that the grant funds then would not be expended. The grant would in through those conditions um be rejected is one way to consider it. The other way to consider it, it's about a $487,000 grant um for deescalation training. The council feels like um we should consider and contemplate a different way for assessing the issue um we can continue to um we don't have to reconsider the item in that instance.

So, uh Council Member Zwick has a comment. Um, just for clarity, uh, would there need to be a motion to reconsider? I would recommend it is both a motion to reconsider the continuence and to reopen the item since the item has been closed. Got it. Um, you know, respecting um, both Council Member Hall's valid concerns, but also the diligence of staff at this point in time and the deadline as as required. Um, I would move that we um reconsider the item and reopen the item.

Second. Do we need to vote on that? Yes. We need to do everything today. Council member Grete. Yes. Council member Hall. Yes. Council member Rascin. Yes. Mayor Timwick. Yes. Council member Snell. Yes. Council members Ernest Gaya. Yes. And Mayor Terosas. Yes. Uh, great. So, now we're reconsidering it. Does anyone want to say anything? Council member Raskin. Ben Hall.

Yeah. First of all, I want to thank uh, Council Member Hall for your really good questions and diligent work on this item. Um, I I suppose this is a question for a city attorney. I'm wondering if we could put some guardrails on this where um you know in the event that the preliminary injunction is dissolved or I don't know I'm trying to think of things that could potentially happen in advance of a hearing uh that we could have some guardrails on this where it would come back to us.

Um sure. So I mean I think we can certainly we are definitely keeping an eye on the case right because we are a party to it. So, if um you want to direct um staff in the city attorney's office to continue monitoring and return to council if um if concerns are raised, we are happy to do that. Do was that a motion? Oh, so I'm my apologies, Council. Yeah.

Sorry, just one additional question. Do we know when the last time we've had this training uh in our police department? Um there is consistent deescalation training. The specific training module I'm not clear on though. Um when the last time we engaged um this specific training and are there alternative ways to fund this training? There's always alternative ways to fund the training. Yes. Okay. Are we okay to do comments now? Yeah. So working in Sorry, I had a question. I didn't see you council member Zern guy. Apologies. Go ahead.

No worries. Um, thank you, mayor. So, um, if what I'm hearing is accurate is the worst case scenario, if we were to accept the grant today, should the preliminary injunction be dissolved or um or a permanent injunction not be granted before we are able to expend the funds. We may have to we may choose to return the remainder remainder of the non-spent funds, but we wouldn't have to reimburse the federal government for any of the monies that are expended.

That would be our position. Yes. Okay. um and or what have other cities in this position done? I believe the grant deadline is the same for all of the cities. So, I believe that they are operating under the assumption that they're going to be accepting the grant funds and and again, I mean, these these conditions have been routinely overturned and and the judge did recommend that. I mean, the judge did determine that there was a likelihood of success on the merits through the preliminary injunction. So, while nothing's ever certain with litigation, that's that's where we are.

Okay. Thank you. And I should I should clarify too that that the other jurisdictions that are accepting they are accepting with the reservation of rights that we discussed earlier where we basically would place the cover letter on the acceptance of the grant and say that you know this is subject to um the preliminary injunction and um make the city's position clear that it would be conditioned upon you know the uh the continued removal um and inapplicability [clears throat] of those conditions. Um, council city attorney. Sorry. Were there more questions? Council member Zerna. Great. Um, council member Bahal.

Um, so I fully support deescalation tactics and alternatives to the use of force. Of course, safety responding to folks having mental health crises and and training on how to safe interactions with people with disabilities. Um, however, I cannot conscably accept any risk of conditions that require us to cooperate with the Trump administration on immigration or capitulate to the removal of our DI programs. Working in corporate DEI, um, as I do [clears throat] in this industry, like we've seen the federal government enforce false claims acts in this space, um, particularly around federal contractors. And I don't want to put the city in a position where um we may fall under that risk uh or um courts ruling that we are required to share this kind of data with the federal government uh because we accepted any portion of the grant. So I'll be voting no on this.

Um if I could just make a comment. I think uh in my professional capacity, we're dealing with this same issue on a number of different grants and I feel comfortable uh in us setting guard rails that we would give back the money or not proceed should we uh have to agree to any terms uh that fly in the face of our policy objectives here in the city. So, um while I I respect and appreciate what you're saying, Council Member Hall, I am I'm comfortable uh to to go forward. Council member Negrete, I just wanted to second the mayor's comments. So I I'm happy to move the item. Council happy to second it. Okay. So I'll move and council member Snell seconded.

Sorry. Could we just make clear that we're that the motion incorporates guardrails for second? Right. and and that our city attorney would immediately return to us and we would have a um a plan to return funds uh should we even be asked to agree to any of these terms that we clearly do not agree with. That's what I second. Council member Sariskaya, sorry, point of clarification. Um when council member Negrete said she seconded the mayor's comments, were you seconding the motion or you were you just agreeing with the comments? Both. Okay, fine. I made the motion and council member Negrete seconded it, I guess. I don't know. Sorry. Sorry, Barry.

Yes. [laughter] Okay. All right. Council members, thank you. Yes. Okay. Council member Snell. Yes. Mayor Pro Timwick. Yes. Council member Raskin. Yes. Council member Hall. No. Council member Negrete. I don't know what happened to my mic, but yes, that was a yes. And Mayor Terosas. Yes. Yes. Okay. Um, great. That carries. And we are now moving on to the public hearings. Uh, you know, unfortunately, we did some agenda management before I got here. I don't know. We need to do public We need to Are we doing public?

Well, we're going to open Are we opening the public hearing? We're doing public hearing. Are we doing public comment? [clears throat] Public comment. So there's public comment on the remainder and then there's Oh, are we doing I thought based on the agenda management, it was my understanding that the public comment on the remainder would would occur after we return from close session. Yeah. So let's do public comment on the public hearing items. Okay. Um which sometimes we do the staff report and then the public comment. So we will hear 12A

and we're council member How is it already 8:22? Let me pull up yours.

Can you hit exit over? I need to hit exit over there. There we go. If you need to know about the hested payments, I know a lot about them. I've had to file several payment reports. Oh, I can probably find it for you.

Go to slideshow. Good evening, mayor, council members, and members of the public. My name is Mark Amarell, and I am the city's acting CDBG home coordinator. I'm here tonight to hold a public hearing and seek approval of the proposed 202627 CDBG and home annual action plan. But first, a bit of background. In order to receive federal CDBG and home funds through HUD, the city must prepare a five-year consolidated plan identifying community needs and the response of goals, strategies, and resources anticipated over a 5-year period. The consolidated plan is then implemented through annual action plans prepared and adopted each year which outline projects and activities to achieve the goals established in the plan. The city is currently in year one of the 202529 consolidated plan as approved by council in June 2025. To inform development of the 2627 action plan, staff solicited direct public participation at regular meetings of the recreation and parks commission and the housing commission as well as tonight's city council meeting. The proposed plan was also made available for a 30-day public review period and opportunities to participate were promoted in the Santa Monica Daily Press through the city CDBG homepage and via email to service providers, neighborhood associations, and HHS boards, commissions, and work groups. In early April, HUD formally announced CDBG and home allocation amounts for the 2026 program year. The city's CDBG award is 1.12 million, representing a small increase of 1.5% over the 2025 award, and home came in at just over $486,000, a decrease of 3.3% from the previous year. Based on those allocations, staff has developed the following funding

recommendations for CDBG and home activities in the proposed 202627 action plan. $500,000 in additional funding for Virginia Avenue Park playground replacement. This project will replace existing playground equipment, minimize and contain sand, and install shade covering to create a clean and safe play area for children of all ages and abilities. $319,000 for park improvements in CDBG areas. This is a new ongoing capital project supporting targeted improvements to CDBG eligible parks. Proposed funding would support replacement of the Gondara Park basketball court and possible addition of a small dog park at either Gondara or Virginia Avenue Park a community outreach process. $50,000 to continue a small business assistance and tenant improvement program that provides funding for facade improvements for Santa Monica small businesses serving low to moderate income areas. $170,000 in funding for public services to CLA matrix for the continued operation of an outreach program for people currently experiencing homelessness as well as those recently housed. and $400,000 in ongoing tenant-based rental assistance which provides subsidies to rent burden households at risk of homelessness. And finally, a combined $358,000 for CDBG and home administration as well as the HUD required set aside for community housing development organization reserves. Tonight, staff is recommending that council approve the 202627 action plan and authorize the city manager to execute all necessary documents to receive CDG and home funds. If approved, staff will prepare the plan for submission to HUD prior to the upcoming June 1st deadline. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to receive any feedback or take any questions.

I have a question, too. Okay, go ahead. Um yeah, uh thank you for the work on this. I'm This is really really important money and uh I'm also excited about the Gondar Park uh basketball court uh repaving that uh it's an exciting place to play basketball. Um in light of council member Hall's questions about previous federal grant funding, have we vetted this to ensure that there are no conditions that could potentially be problematic?

Yeah, there are there are similar concerns with federal funding from all sides. Uh when we executed our grant agreements for the consolidated plan last year, this came up. We worked very closely with the city attorney's office to redline any terms and conditions included that we would not uh be complying with. It made that very clear in our response back to our local field office that our acceptance of these funds was contingent on those fund those requirements not apply. And that adjunction, as I understand it, remains in place. Um and our strategy at the moment is to continue uh with the same strategy for the grant agreements for the acceptance of these funds. I just have a quick question. So obviously I know at the beginning of the year there was a um an issue related to continuing resolution for the the HUD funding and I know that the Trump administration had had proposed to zero out all the CDBG money and then um an agreement was reached to maintain like not increase for for any sort of like CPI adjustments but to maintain level funding. Um, are we concerned like do we have a contingency plan if something happens to this funding or are we feeling confident that it's coming through and there shouldn't be an issue?

I would say for for this particular allocation, this is coming. So, this is approved in part of the federal budget. If we look forward to the future and consider the implications of these programs were to go away, I would say for on the CDBG side, predominantly we're funding capital like fixedterm capital improvement programs. So, if money were to disappear, we would be able to adjust very quickly. The remainder of the funds go to things like staff time and grants to uh public service organizations. It's not a very material amount of money. We'd be able to figure out how to adjust there. Uh the real concern I think would be on the home side where we're funding tenant based rental assistance. There's $400,000 going to keep 40 people housed there. Uh there are always are concerns there, but our housing team is very plugged in um to fluctuations in that funding and in fact it's gone down 20% just in the last three years. Right. So, we are working on a strategy to transition folks to more stable housing voucher programs where we can um and have contingencies in place, you know, should this funding run out.

Yeah, I'm definitely concerned about the voucher programs. I would also say I hope that we are working um with our city manager's office and our federal lobbyists that we have to ensure we are. Okay, great. I just want to make sure. Um, and then I would just say, you know, I I think CDBG is an opportunity to plug into like our economic development priorities. And hopefully in the future, uh, city manager, we're just making sure that, you know, these are the highest priority items, um, specifically with like the economic recovery work that we're trying to do and also economic opportunity, particularly for people in our um, highest opportunity areas, which is the Pico uh, neighborhood. So, I just I want to make sure that that, you know, funding is directly targeting people in the Pico neighborhood, which it does seem like it is, but I think more information on outcomes is always better. Uh, and it looks like council member Zaya has a question.

Um, yes, sorry. So, um, I thank you for asking your question. Sorry, I just grabbed a a cough drop. Um, I just wanted to clarify on the kind of facilities for the park. uh the upgraded playground at Virginia Avenue Park. I uh really appreciated that it included shade covering. Um but as the key priorities do include accessibility inclusivity, could you confirm um whether the plan will the plan for the upgraded playground will include a variety of seating options including seats with backs for people including those who are breastfeeding or folks with disabilities or who may need um that kind of seating. I can't I can't confirm that tonight. I will say that the question comes a bit in front of things. So, uh the public works team will be coming to council with recommendations for design build contract and there's still a long way to go in terms of community engagement and input on those sorts of details. So, that is all forthcoming and part of the timeline. What you're approving tonight is just funding for those initiatives and not any specific details associated with that, but that will be coming your way.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Okay. Um, oh, go ahead, Natalyia. I mean, council member Zern. Nope, sorry. Nope. Just saying that was uh that was my one question. You asked all the other good ones, although I'm sure others have other good questions as well. Great. Council member Ras. Uh, if no one else has questions or comments, I'll move the staff recommendations. I'll second. I'm sorry. We have to actually We have to have a Thank you. Um, council members, we have to have a public hearing. Do we have any public comment on this? Um, Madam Clerk,

those are the remaining agenda items. Looks like we have um Harvey. Yeah, Harvey Ed. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you, Harvey Eder. My apologies. Let's hear from you before we take a vote. I didn't see him there.

I'm I Thank you. Keeping us honest. Council member Snell. I I got two minutes on this, not one. I signed up for two. Okay. Uh my name's Harvey Eder. I'm the founder director of Public Solar Power Coalition, etc. Incorporating comments I made previously tonight. um is extremely important that uh we make uh provisions for home ownership for low and middle income. There's supposed to be 2 and a half million uh units built in the state in 23 24 25. A million of those 40% is supposed to be low and middle income and that's the high is 80k. All right. So that's got to be incorporated in there and it's it is the goal of home ownership for housing and community development uh agency of the state. Um I'm not familiar with a lot of this stuff. this home ownership is also a term used by a program with uh the department of mental health. Um so this is extremely important that that home equity we're incorporating also reference we referred to no increase in income for twothirds of the people uh for income or equity and it's gone productivity's gone to the top and uh the goal of is is also for firsttime home ownership. All right for for housing and community development and uh so this has to be reflected in all of this. It is state law. You're violating you're doing you're doing market 90% and 10% low income. That's illegal. All right. And the the recent letter you got by Santa Monica for renters rights is in the paper over the weekend uh that that says they want the the the park to have uh 3,000 units. Okay. Now they went to housing community development

incorporating their comments. They use the term co-op. That means actual ownership. And the definition of what is permanent housing has to include home ownership. That's the way it is. There's a thousand programs using section 8 vouchers been on for 30 years in this country and nothing's being done in the state. Very very legit. Six units in San Francisco about 68 years ago and a couple dozen down here. This this has got to change. It's got to change now and they should be incorporated in

Thank you, Mr. Um, I think now we're ready to hear from Council Rascin. I'll move the staff recommendations. I'll second. Okay. Ready to vote? Okay. Council member Negrete, yes. Council member Hall, yes. Council member Rasin, yes. Mayor Po Timwick, yes. Council member Snell, yes. Council member Zernaya, yes. And Mayor Terosas, yes. Thank you. Um, we will now hear or do you want to announce it? We have another public hearing. Okay. Yeah.

And this public hearing an adoption of resolution to rename a portion of S of the Sente Terrace as Silus White Street. Um, good evening mayor, council members. I'm Alex Nzertchuk. I'm the acting assistant director of public works. Uh, we're here today to conduct a public hearing to rename the street on November 2025. council um made a commitment to rename Vicente Terrace from Ocean Avenue to Main Street to Silus White Street and um pretty much we're [laughter] here to uh open a public hearing and uh do this. So, I brought a propped uh one of the signs. So, uh is that a real life size? It might be a little bigger.

What are you do? What are you doing with that sign? Yeah. So, we we ordered some extra signs. So, this is just one of the extra signs. So, I think council member Negrete asked a good question though. Can we send it to the family? All right. So, does the family get it? Yeah, we have two. So, we can definitely share one. Very cool. Any questions, comments, or concerns from my colleagues? I'd like to make the motion. If there's no more comments, council member Hall and then Rasin.

Uh, I'll just say that I'm really proud that we are here today. Um that was um a momentous night uh back in November and uh this is just one step of many that we are taking to um repair uh a situation that happened with a very wrong and harmful situation that happened with the White family. Um and I look forward to continuing this work with our new restorative justice commission that we are uh instituting soon. Thank you. Council member Rascin. Yeah, Ditto. Obviously, this cannot make up for the generations of uh lost generational wealth and the harms that have happened to the white family. Uh but I'm glad that we're making this motion today.

Um uh city attorney, you're in the queue. Do you need to say something? I just want to confirm for the record that there were no public speakers. There are no public speakers.

Okay. Uh Council Member Swick. Um, yeah, I was here uh a few years ago with Mayor Terrosus when this issue was first raised at city council. Um we've we've gone through it now for several years and um uh I'm just proud that um in addition to this sign which will accompany some of the other recognitions and plaques that we have made throughout the city that we are the first council that has found um real dollars to place behind this um both for the White family and for many more that have been wronged um through uh actions um taken in our city in in decades past. And uh I'm very excited to to get to work later this year in programming that money. uh moving forward. Um but I'm also very happy that we'll have this commemoration uh in our city. So, thank you,

Council. And I too proud at what we've done on council. Uh this is a very small step with uh recognizing the the wrong wrong done to the White family and to other uh families in this particular situation. And we're a council that committed to uh restoration for this. And uh I'd like to move this item. Do we have a second? Second. I'll second. Oh, let's give it to Natalia. I'm sorry. So, which of you is it? Council member. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Council member Zarniskaya. Yes. Council member Snell.

Yes. Mayor Tim Swick. Yes. Council member Rascin. Yes. Council member Hall. Yes. Council member Nete. Yes. Emmeritosis. Yes. Fantastic. Great job, guys. We're excited. But this is just the beginning. Okay. So, now we'll go to our the next 11. Oh, well, I think we're moving to close session now. Yeah. Aren't Are we going to close session now? Yeah. Okay. Well, first So, we're going to go close session and then we'll do public comment. Okay. Go ahead, mayor.

Oh. Um, okay. Well, we will now move on to our close session items. I don't City Attorney, do we need to read those out? I Oh, I'm sorry. I'm reading them. It's okay. Have too many pages going. I understand. That's I apologize. Agreed. [laughter] It's confusing.

Okay. So, you have several close sessions. The first one is um John Doe. It's existing litigation with um several a lot of a lot of names, a lot of John Doe's. Next you have an existing litigation and this is city versus ICSOP. Next you have a significant exposure litigation. It's one case and I'm sorry. Then we have a real estate negotiation and this is for 200 Santa Monica Pier Sandbox South and um then the next item is another real estate negotiation. And this is 1450 Ocean Avenue. And what's being negotiated is price and terms of payment for license. Then we have another real estate 1450 Ocean Avenue, Camera Obscura. And again, this is price and terms for payment for license. Then we have another real estate 200 Santa Monica Pier, Sandbox South. Um and this is again negotiate ESPN under negotiation price and terms payment and lease. And then finally the last one again is another property. It's sandbox north and this one is the city of Santa Monica negotiator is the city manager party is negotiating the living library of nature inc. And under negotiation is price and terms of payment and license. And council member um Zarna Skaya, did you want to state your recusal?

Yes, I will be recusing myself from item 5C due to a potential conflict of interest under government code section 8710. Um and I think council member has something I think something very similar. I will be recusing myself from item 5C due to a potential conflict of interest under government code section 871000. Great. And I believe that with agenda management, we agreed to be back at 9:45. Agreed.

Okay, great. We will be back no earlier than 9:45. Thanks everyone. [clears throat] Tuck

I'm going to see some

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Oh. Okay, we are back from close session and madam city attorney, do you want to report any action? Yes. Items 5D through 5H were heard with no rep reportable action taken and council will reconvene after uh the remaining portions of open session back to close session.

Great. Um All right. So we have uh public comments on the remainder of the agenda items. So I'll go ahead and call uh our names and then after those public comments are heard uh we will move on to uh the staff administrative items and the reports of boarding boards and commissions. Uh, all right. Denise Barton, Harvey Eder, Jeff Halpert, Denny Zayn, Heather Thompson. Good evening. On item 11A, I have several questions about your interpretations of SP79. First, why are you including stops a half mile away? Due to our city having a population over 35,000, making request in the map included. [clears throat] Next, put stops near bus lines. You need rapid transit lines, which the blue bus has none of presently. And it also states that not all projects are SQL exempt. Then on the environment, doesn't California have a drought frequently? If so, couldn't all of these new units require additional resources? If so, would this be the city's way of increasing demand equally in higher cost? People are not going to stop driving their cars, even with the city trying to make it as hard as possible to do so. So, do you not think that additional traffic will equate to more pollution, making it look like you really don't care about the environment? Or what about the coastal commission height regulations or building large properties on an unstable bluff, not thinking that will have a negative effect? I ask only because the NRDC building is sinking and pulling away from the foundation of the building I live in or the outdoor dining area on

the street pulling the sidewalk away from the foundation. Showing environment the environment is is is really not a concern to you. Also, [snorts] have you submitted a map yet or are you going to wait for the state to make one for you? I just hope you don't submit fraudulent information. Thank you.

Great. Uh Harvey Eder, not seeing Jeff Halpert. Hi. Good evening, uh Madame Mayor, mayors of council, city staff. My name is Jeff Halpert. I was recommended to come by and introduce myself. I'm an applicant on the building and fire life safety commission. Um so I just wanted to say hi and um just by way of introduction uh spent most of my life in the city of Glendale Fire Department in the fire prevention bureau. I'm a fire protection engineer licensed in California and for the past 5 years I've been I've left the city of Glendale retired and I've been working with a a company called Turp Consulting which is a fire protection engineering code consulting and design firm. Um we have offices all over but our LA office is in Burbank. I live very close by in LA just a few miles down the road and that's pretty much me in a nutshell. happy to help or answer any questions if there are any.

Thank you. Thank you, Denny Zane. Heather Thomasson.

Yeah, I know.

Hi, good evening again. Heather Thomasson. Um I'm speaking on 11A and um I wanted to uh first of all thank the planning commission for their uh for taking it upon themselves to look into this implementation issue and for their very thoughtful report. I want to recommend to you guys that you adopt their recommendations and that our single most important goal be to minimize displacement that is going to take place because of SB79. Um, also I wanted to just draw your attention. I I mentioned this in my written comment, but I think it's really really critical for the city that we get answers from HCD to the question that the planning department has now posed to them about whether we are going to end up in a situation where bus stops that exist but change in their nature could end up becoming SB79 stops. We don't want to be making, you know, upzoning land use decisions based on bus policy changes. And so even if the answer turns out to be that yes, new SB79 [clears throat] stops can be created by way of changing bus policy, I think we need to do everything we can as a city to ensure that we are not doing that and put protections in our own code to prevent that from happening. Thank you so much. and you know protect the Pico neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Um okay, I'll just one more time Harvey Eder and Denny Zayn and Mayor, we have a caller on the phone. Oh, that's right. Jacob Wasserman. Great. Uh well, let's move to the callers. David, we're ready for the caller. Hey. Uh, how much time do I have for this item? You have four minutes. Are you speaking on two items? Okay. Uh, yes. Okay. Go ahead.

Thanks so much. Uh, yes. Hello. I'm Jacob Wasserman. I am planning commissioner, but speaking for myself tonight. Um, yeah. About SP79. So, the first thing I want to draw your attention to is you're going to look at a map tonight that uh staff drew up shows the four expo stops. Um, it's important to know though that that map is really preliminary and probably doesn't include stops um on the dedicated 24/7 bus lanes downtown that are going to qualify. So that's um Santa Monica Boulevard near Fourth Broadway near Fourth and the Fourth Street bus lane right outside of Samo High by Pico. Um those have 15-minute frequencies. They're dedicated bus lanes. They qualify by any clear read of SB79. And when the SCAG maps come out, those probably will be included. And if they aren't, they should be. Um, and I say should be because if you are sort of supportive of SB79, it means it covers more area. If you are skeptical of SB79, you should also be supportive of these stops being included, to be frank, because it just provides more area for entity from other areas that may not be as well suited to SB79 projects to be shifted to under a local alternative plan. Um, and that gets to a point that the planning commission agreed on is that alternative three that you're going to consider tonight, a local alternative TRD plan, I think, makes a ton of sense for Santa Monica. I would love to see the corridor right on top of the expo line. Um, you know, Colorado Olympic really densify into mixeduse housing. Um, but like the letter said that we don't want paper density. We don't want to just count the density that's already there. Um, we want to actually increase above our current zoning. Um because obviously our current zoning is not really turning that corridor mixed use yet. Um and I think I'm a little more skeptical than my peers on the planning

commission of the need for delay in the interim while it's develop that alternate plans developed in part because the expo bundy stop that folks are worried about in the Pico neighborhood isn't even eligible for delay under SP79. It's only the other three. Um but in any case, I hope you adopt an alternate plan. Um, I thank staff for all the work on it and I think we should focus on the positives as well. SB79 has the potential to allow for midsize gentle density um, courtyard units and that's what our city really needs and so I'm looking forward to it. The greenhouse gas reductions that will come from building housing near and in some cases virtually on top of transit um, are really going to transform um, the way people get around Los Angeles. and our city's already done a lot of that work. So, the good news is we're pretty well positioned and so I look forward to you taking the next steps on this. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Wasserman. Um, with that being said, I those are all of our public

Oh, Harvey's back. Okay, great. Uh, thank you, Mr. Uh howdy. Uh thank you. Uh my name is Harvey. I'm speaking for myself and public solar power coalition etc. Incorporating by reference comments made other items uh this evening. Um also in reference to I think it's very important that we look at equity home ownership and different forms of doing that in the 79 and that it be integrated into these other plans and whatnot. Also there's a prop uh one passed it's 1.104 billion a year for 10 years. All right. uh in there there's all kinds of stuff that could be used for this and it follows up 355 million17 Prop H. Okay. So, and included in there and I got this from clerk and I'm incorporating by reference a 20page copy of the actual uh law as passed. All right. And and in there they have uh right to a there was there's an issue the definition of permanent. I said if you don't own a place you can be evicted a bunch of times it's not permanent. Uh anyway, um [snorts] so this is important also the right of first refusal for people in places and there's tension between and groups that that serve uh those that are in houses in in places to keep them from being homeless or if they were or from people on the street to keep get them off the street. And I say the latter is getting the slight and that's got to be re-evaluated. That's like a structural thing. 70% of guy wrote a book was in book TV a couple years ago that it go money that goes to homeless and whatnot goes to the infrastructure and the consultants and nonprofits and stuff. Anyway, so uh it's very important and the right of first

refusal if you're in a place to to buy a unit that we need that right etc etc and to integrate this in the plans we had we went to office of planning and research and you go about the solar energy conversion element in the plan and also public solar power we're not going to meet our climate goals that was discussed incorporating by reference to meetings on that and and we're not going to Thank you Mr. er. All right. Um, okay. So, we will move on to item 11. Uh, and I believe there is a staff report. So, let me read let me read the title first. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry.

That's okay. 11A is the overview of implementation options for Senate Bill 79 and an adoption of a resolution of intention to direct the planning commission to initiate the process of amending the text of the zoning ordinance to implement Senate Bill SB79. And I have a question for the city manager. Were the I understand that 11A and 13A are going to be heard together. Correct. Is the presentation going to be done together as well? Um the staff presentation will um start followed by um questions from the council followed by the um item 13 discussion from the planning commission.

Okay. So I'm just going to think it's probably appropriate to jump in now um and just say that uh I'll be recusing myself from item 11 A. Does that include 13 as well or? Yeah. Okay. Uh due to my employment as a Southern California director of the Housing Action Coalition, which advocated um which advocates for housing production and specifically uh for SP79. [snorts] Great. Um we will call you back. Thank you.

Uh Ross or J. Okay. Great. Evening council. Um so tonight we're going to give an overview of the SP79 um state law um and also walk through just some options uh that we'd like to share with the council in terms of choices the city has on how the state law um is implemented. So, Senate Bill uh SB79 um with becomes effective July 1, 2026. Uh what it does is it upzones housing development projects within a half mile of a major transit stop if the project complies with certain requirements. We'll walk through what that is. Um the major transit stops are divided into what's known as tier 1 or tier 2 DoD stops. We should note that Santa Monica does not have any tier one to stop. We're really only dealing with tier 2. Those are the three expo light rail stations in Santa Monica. As you heard during public comment, um there is some questions, you know, that we have with respect to some bus stops and we've submitted that question to HCD for clarification. Um we would know that there is the Bundy Expo station that is actually within the city of Los Angeles, but the halfmile radius does dip into Santa Monica. Um you know, so it does we are impacted by that city of Los Angeles station. Um and what the the bill does, it provides guaranteed height density and F um for eligible projects near that TOD stop. Um for the benefit of the public, we do have a new SP79 web page. Um that's the QR code up there. Um just to kind of lay out um all of this given the interest um in the bill. Um this is a map uh showing all of the stops that cover Santa Monica um and the parcels that would be eligible for use of SB79.

Um so you can see those are the three metro stops um in Santa Monica and then the one the Expo Bunny one outside in the city of Los Angeles. Um just big disclaimer this is a preliminary map um and it's definitely subject to further refinement. Um the state law actually defers the responsibility of creating the map to SKAG um in this case and they have not yet adopted the map but they do have to do that before July 1. Um and I think just a piece of technical um you know information is that the distance from you know a parcel it's actually from a site measured uh in a straight line from the edge of the parcel to a pedestrian access point for a to stop. So although we've drawn these these circles the eligibility is actually determined on the parcel like when you go to implement itself you go from the parcel and then you do that measurement you know to the access stop. So um you know the bill itself really and its implementation is sight by sight right um in order to be uh eligible to use SB79. So just you know several preconditions. Um obviously the site itself has to be located within a half mile of a to stop. Um the housing project can't include any uh hotel uh use in it. has to be at least five dwelling units and there's a minimum density um greater of either 30 units per acre or the minimum density allowed under local zoning. We do not have minimum density in our zoning code. So that minimum 30 units per acre would be what would apply. Um an average unit size maximum average total flare of 1715 square ft. Um there are uh displacement anti-displacement protection. So what is automatically excluded in the bill um is any rent controlled units um with uh more than two units um that would require demolition or any deed restricted affordable um occupied by tenants within the last 7 years. Um

there's also an affordability requirement if there's 10 units or more. So it's either you know what the bill requires in terms of you can see the percentages there or if there's a local ordinance that mandates higher that would apply in Santa Monica's case Santa Monica's our inclusionary ordinance would apply because ours is 15% inclusionary so that's higher um than the state bill and then there's a deed restriction required for the 55 years and then for any project that is over 85 ft in height it must meet labor standards. So these are all of the preconditions for a site to be even eligible to use the law. Um SB79 does work together with state density bonus law. So eligible projects would be able to use state density bonus law which allows increases um you know in density allows incentives and concessions uh which modifies standards. Um, and you can see there that SB79 actually allows for up to three additional concessions. Um, depending on affordability that is in the project. Um, and there are also waiverss under state density bonus law. Um, a project can request an unlimited number of waivers. What's important to note here is the city is not required to grant additional height increase through density bonus law beyond what SB79 already provides. So to the extent SB79 provides elevated height limits, the city's not required to grant more um beyond that that unless it's 100% affordable housing project modified parking ratios. The SB79 um densities become the base density for the purposes of state density bonus and um you know so that's that's really how these these two state laws would uh work together. Um you [snorts] can see here um this is a summary of the guaranteed standards under the law. The blue we've highlighted here because again Santa Monica you know has these tier 2 stops. Um and I would highlight um largely

within the half mile and the quarter mile. You can see there the the majority of parcels are in that half mile the 55 ft uh 80 dwelling units per acre and 2.5 um F. Um and then you can see there that final column additional concessions you know the additional three you can see that it's regard with respect to how much um uh affordability is provided for extremely low very low or lowincome households. Um so now jumping into kind of the options that the city has the choices you know in terms of how the state law is implemented. So what we're calling just approach one this is just state law implementation. This is if the city city does not have to do anything, state law automatically takes effect uh July 1, 2026, which you know as of that date would automatically upzone um you know any eligible housing projects um who choose to use that state law within the to zone. Um the city can adopt an ordinance, but it's not required. Um and again, parcels with three or more rent controlled or affordable units um are ineligible um for SB79. We've done a preliminary assessment. There's approximately 2700 eligible parcels um in Santa Monica's to zones um that would be that would be eligible for to to use a state law. Um to summarize the impacts on Santa Monica um you know really kind of on a high level in terms of non-residential zones Santa Monica standards because of the implementation that we did through the housing element update um they are generally similar to SP79 height and F um you know we'll highlight later just a capacity analysis you can see that you know we're pretty much there um in terms of our non-residential zones um we also took a look at recently approved um housing projects and they show that heightened densities are actually generally larger um that wi-i which means that developers

using just you know code compliant projects that meet local um standards and also the use of state density bonus lots actually exceeding um the the standards under SB79. Um where we do see the most potential impact is in the residential zones. So in the R1, R2, R3, R4 zones, um there is a substantial delta um between what's in existing standards for heightened density versus what HB79 um would allow. Um, I think it is important to note that, you know, that would very much be inconsistent with the city's adopted growth strategy, our land use and circulation element, what we've implemented in the housing element, you know, which really is to preserve our residential neighborhoods and to direct development pressure to our commercial zones. Um, we're highlighting here just pico neighborhood impacts. Um, we just did some quick analysis. Um, approximately, I just want to emphasize the approximately because this was done pretty quick, but about 856 parcels within the TOD zones identified by SB79 and about 2/3 um of those parcels would be eligible um to use SB79. Moving on now to option two. Um so this is kind of the middle ground. Um, we would describe this as it allows the city to exclude uh certain sites until 2030, which is one year after the seven cycle housing element adoption. Um, in order to do this, the city would be required to adopt an ordinance identifying individual sites that meet each of the criteria. So, what we've sort of divided here is uh criteria relevant to Santa Monica and those that aren't really. So you can see there the ones that are relevant to Santa Monica is that a site could be excluded if it's located in a TOD zone that has 33% of

the sites offering 50% of SB79's density and F and 75% of overall TOD density. Um secondly, a site could be excluded if it already allows at least 50% of SP79's density and F. Basically, every non nearly every non-residential parcel in a TOD zone in Santa Monica would meet this um qualifying criteria. Um any locally designated any site that has a locally designated historic resource that was designated before July 1, 2025 could be excluded through this option too. By our estimation, that's 43 um um sites. And um finally um if the site is located in a TOD alternative plan, we'll walk through that which is in option three. Um site criteria that don't really apply to our TOD zones. Um none of our TZ TOD zones do not extend into a very high fire hazard severity zone or into areas that would be vulnerable to sea level rise. Um and none of Santa Monica um none of our census tracks are considered um low resource areas. [snorts] So this is just a preliminary analysis of uh option two and you can see here look at the columns downtown the uh 17th street um Santa Monica College stop the Bergamont stop and expo Bunny. So those are the four tiered estops that are in the city and based on staff's preliminary assessment. If um the city adopted approach two downtown basically all the metro stops um in Santa Monica those to zones could be you know the sites within them could be excluded until 2030. However the Expo Bundy zone you can see there it doesn't meet those um those criteria. We're only at 21% of sites with 50% of SB79 standards

representing only um 21% of permitted capacity. Um so that is the only TOD zone that would not meet the exclusion criteria. We do have a question um that we uh sent as part of a technical assistance letter to HCD with respect to the expo Bundy site. Um, just to ask the question, you know, because when when this bill was was written, you know, was there consideration for TOD stops that span two jurisdictions, the vast majority of that expo bundy to zone is actually in the city of Los Angeles. To the extent that that zone in the city of Los Angeles, you know, those parcels could be excluded, but the Santa Monica ones are included. We just have a question about whether the capacity in the other jurisdiction could be included. So it's it's a clarific clarification question we think would be helpful. [snorts] Um this is a visual showing um this preliminary analysis just focusing on the Expo Bundy zone because it is the one zone where um we don't believe um an option to um you know that the parcels within it in Santa Monica would would uh be able to be excluded. And what we've highlighted here um is the residentially zoned sites would appear to not meet that um criteria. Um the non-residential sites would because again of our existing zoning standards, you know, are are they're able to be excluded in that way. But you can see here that um out of this zone, you know, we've got about 249 uh R1 parcels in that half mile, 27 R2s, two R3s, and seven um are parcels with affordable or uh two or fewer rent controlled units. So that's a total of 278 eligible parcels. Um, and you can see they're the colored the the yellow um and the kind of like light orange. Uh,

the yellow represents all of the R1 zone and then the red outlines are the seven uh rent control parcels with the two units um or less. You know, that um there's doesn't appear that there's a pathway to to exclude them. [snorts] Um moving on now to option three. Um, this is what's called a TOD alternative plan. Um, and uh, essentially what this is is that it does allow the city to either adopt an ordinance to affectuate this alternative plan or include it as part of the seven cycle housing element. Um, it's important to note that inclusion um, of this kind of TOD alternative plan, you know, could would facilitate better comprehensive planning. Um, you know, one one of the the the things and you know that the recommendation before you really is there's interest and it's aligned with the planning commission's recommendation in order to be aligned with the city's adopted growth strategy. Um, and to facilitate, you know, not not knowing all of the rules that might come out of the seventh cycle housing element update. you know, definitely hit us like a ton of bricks with the six cycle housing element and being able to reconcile um you know, the RENA numbers, all of the rules um developing siteby-side analysis, it would you know certainly make a lot of sense to do it comprehensively if there was interest in pursuing a TOD alternative plan to do that all together. Um what this is, it's very similar to a transfer of development rights um concept and what it allows is a transfer of density across TOD zones or sites, but there are three major rules to follow. Um and so we'll go through those together. So rule one is that uh the the is is that we must maintain the same total net zoned capacity across all to zones in terms of both total units and floria as what's

available. So net zone capacity what that means is existing capacity like so our our capacity is calculated by our existing uh units minus SB79's capacity. what that is right now is 251,000 total units across four uh to zones, right? Um so whatever alternative plan you know that that is adopted um if there's interest in that, it just can't be lower than that total 251,000 units. Rule number two is that the capacity of any one to zone cannot be reduced by more than 50%. So there is no instance here where a to zone could just be zeroed out. Um, you know, it's important to understand. So, you can see this is just an illustrative example. You know, in to zone 3, you want to reduce it by 2,000 units. It's a zero sum game. It's got to be moved over to another another zone in the same amount. And then finally, rule three. This one's a little a little interesting. Um, it's got extra here, is that the capacity of the site. So, we've gone through the zone rules. Now the site rules any individual site cannot be reduced by more than 50%. Except for local historic sites very high fire severity zones. So we got none of those sites vulnerable to sea level rise. Again none of those provided that no site within a to zone has a density of less than 30 units per acre in a residential FR less than 1.0. So regardless of how much moving on happens on a site level there will always be that minimum guaranteed density or F and in addition the site that it gets moved to so the receiver site it cannot be increased by more than 200%. So you can see here it is a push and pull and it is a very very complex site by sight analysis you know in order to affectuate something like this. So this is a very simple illustrative example. You know, site one has 200 units, site two has 100

units. You could lower site two by 50 units. So you're not going below that 50% threshold and you shift the 50 units over to site one. That checks out because site one's, you know, maximum increase could be 400 units, right? So um that's just kind of how how that works out. Um this is just in table form preliminary analysis of how approach three might shake out. You can see there across all four TOD zones affecting Santa Monica SB79's capacity and the existing number of units. You can see how we arrived you know preliminarily at the 251,000 net new um capacity across all TUD zones that has to be maintained in any future TOD alternative plan. And then you can see in rule two there the minimum capacity you know that you you in any event you have to maintain at least 50% um or no no you can't remove you know any any more than 50% of what is in the SB79 capacity. So that's um the assessment there and then finally we just wanted to summarize the technical assistance letter that we sent last Friday. um you know five key questions with respect to as I said the city of Los Angeles how that applies that expo bundy to zone to Santa Monica you know can we use the LA portion um in calculating permitted capacity for that to zone we had questions around the definition of a bus service to stop as you heard in some of the public comment um we do definitely have some bus stops with uh dedicated bus lanes full-time dedicated bus lanes that are you know a handful of blocks long we wanted, you know, for clarification, do those count even though the rest of doesn't really connect to something that's that that's full-time? Um, number three is, uh, a question that we've heard from the community and was certainly a topic of discussion at the planning commission

was the applicability of additional TOD zones as a result of changes in transit frequency. So where there's an existing bus stop, you know, as transit service changes in the future, what is the impact in creating a TOD zone or removing one? Um the law is very clear with respect to planned uh to zones. You know, there is definitely a cuto off date there that it has to have been an adopted RTP before January 1 uh 2026. Um so that that part is clear about what it's there's a little bit of ambiguity around what happens with existing stops that are already there but service frequency changes. Um question four with respect to you know clarification around affordability requirements to access additional concessions. Um it appears to read like even providing one extremely low-income unit for example would grant get you one concession. So we just wanted a clarification point there. And then um our last question was whether SB9 and SB123 which are other state laws could they be factored into calculating permitted capacity um with respect to some of those residential parcels. Um so you know we await I think that response and then finally I'll close with uh just a recommendation here which is adopt a SQA finding um and direct staff to implement approach two immediately um and then subsequently approach three um ideally you know I think our professional recommendation would be as part of the housing element but I think we would welcome um council's direction you know with respect to that and then adopt a resolution of intention to be able to initiate this process. happy to answer your questions.

Thank you. Um, do my colleagues want to get in the queue? Council member Hall. [snorts] Thank you, Mayor. Um, so with regards to your recommendation here, um, specifically for option three and that you're recommending we align the development of an alternative to zone with the seventh cycle housing element. Can you tell us about your staff's capacity to do it sooner? Um and if we did do something sooner, you know, what are some other potential projects that might get pushed in the priority?

Sure. So in terms of uh approach two um you know because we we have done some pine analysis but in order to have an ordinance the ordinance actually has to list every individual site and um you know so I think we're estimating we could be back to council probably about mid July with an approach to um as an adoption. Um if we wanted to advance approach three um we would we could estimate probably by the end of this year we could be back with an approach three. Um that would be the only things we won't be doing. Um you know in terms of we we have some other things we're trying to advance in terms of realignment plan. Um we'll just have to figure out a little bit about how we balance um you know this effort with the realignment plan efforts. Um,

sure. And just for the public's benefit, can you remind us what those realignment plan? Yeah, it it had to do with um uh driving value for city-owned sites in the downtown really addressing um you know the gateway area and downtown um downtown zoning with respect to supporting the city's economic recovery, but importantly also taking a look at um kind of a incentive, you know, for lowercale development um in the commercial boulevards elsewhere in the city. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Negrete.

Um, so obviously you already looked at you already showed us where it's focused and I know there's probably not a real answer for this, but when you're doing all this um analytics, do we also take into the impacts to infrastructure, water, sewage, all of those things?

That's not part of the calculus in the bill. Um, I will say that as part of the housing element, we did assess all of those infrastructure impacts for the addition of I think it was close to like 15,000 additional units. Um, so we did we did look at this kind of like overall impact on utilities and infrastructure as part of the housing element EIR um process. Do we also look at I mean I know this may not be part of it but how many deed restricted and affordable units we think we're going to get versus market rate that's something I think if there was interest in doing that we could but it's pretty speculative because it depends on

you know any individual proposal that might come forward we could do a speculative guess on like you know if you did a max buildout and it was 15% across the board right you can do that you know do 15% of 251,000 that's but I'm not sure that's meaningful. Um you know it's uh it's it's pretty speculative because all this depends on a developer opting in to even using this law and where it's located how many units they propose. So it's really hard to know. And then lastly, just so we can be clear on like what what would happen legally and are we compromising ourselves legally by slowing down the process? You mean

I mean I'm just saying if we slow down the process as we're discussing like what is the legal ramifications of that? I don't know that there are any particular legal ramifications. So until HCD approves an ordinance that the city has adopted that has implemented either approach two or approach three, um the fallback the fallback provisions of SB79 will apply. So approach two will slow I I guess you could consider slow things down until approach three is put into place because approach three will take longer. So without approach two, your fallback provisions of SB79 will be in place longer. Yeah. Okay. Does that make sense?

Yep. Thank you. I think it's also important to note that you know just the timing of it is that it's very similar to the housing element. Let's say even if council adopts an ordinance, you're required to send it to HCD. They have up to 120 days to review it and the ordinance isn't considered certified and effective until HD approves it. Um you know, so it's it's similar to the housing element process. So there's certainly going to be a gap regardless of how we approach this, you know, where as the the sort of, you know, uh, baseline nature of SB79 will be in effect come July 1. That's unavoidable. Thank you. Um, council member Rascin,

thank you. Yeah, picking up on um some of the questions we from, uh, council member Hall. So the seventh cycle housing element process is going to start not that far in the future, is it? I mean it the the draft reallocations are or maybe you could just talk through a little bit more about when the draft reallocations are going to come out. Yeah, we would expect uh typic I think we got ours about gosh was a year and a half I think before the the due date. So, you know, you're looking at 28, like beginning of 28, late 27 maybe, like we see that process starting to spin up. Um, so you're looking kind of like, yeah, maybe sometime late next year, early 28. Um, so yeah, it's not too far away.

Yeah, I did the backwards math in my head and I was calculating the uh draft arena to land in October 2027. Yeah. Um but um uh yeah, I mean it it sounds like there we would essentially be pressing pause on everything else happening in the planning department to work through this.

It's it it is incredibly just uh do get preparing you know the preliminary analysis. Um and this was done pretty quick. Yeah. In order for as we're looking at the rules of the ordinance and recognizing you actually have to list every single site that is excluded, you can't just say like everything in this town like you have to list the parcels. It's very similar to handing I'm thinking the parallel would be like our suitable sites inventory for the housing element. It would be that level of detail. We would have to be meticulous about showing our math um you know in terms of how each and every site met the rule and the zone. You just have to show all of that. So, you know, it that that takes time,

right? Yeah. And and even then a TOD plan would have to be approved by HCD, right? Yes. Yeah. Okay. So, uh I'll I'll ask this next part in the form of a question just to inform our further conversation. So, I I read in the rent board's uh August uh staff report from last year that there would be 550 total rent controlled units in all to zones within a half mile. Uh and of those there are 51 properties that are the two-unit

rent controlled properties. So 102 units total and uh by my math there are um little under a hundred or so rent controlled units that are either in single family homes or converted condos. It's probably Yeah. Um okay that sounds about right. [laughter] Yeah. So, we're we're we're still talking at, you know, the ballpark of nearly 200 rent controlled units that could potentially be subject to this. Yeah, potentially. Okay. Thanks. Oh. Um, Council Member Snell, or do you want to take yourself? I have a couple questions.

I just have one question. Are you you said you um are asking ACD uh regarding the Bundy site. Do you have any idea what the effect would be? Um I I know you I'm kind of speculating what the effects would be with two cities being involved. Would there be uh something where we would have to would it reduce the amount of of sites with respect to within our city or is there something as to how do you can you speculate as to what that would ramifications would be with respect to as

Yeah. So with respect to the expo bundy site um you know what we're aware that city of Los Angeles has taken actions to you know try and effectuate essentially something akin to an option two and an option three. They actually did some strategic upzoning it appears um in their residential zones to kind of you know increase the capacity so you know more more of the more more residential properties could be um could qualify for exclusion right

um we we we didn't get a chance to take a look at like everything with that TUD zone but knowing that you know there's it's it's it's obviously most of that bubble you can see is in the city of Los Geles and you know not a lot of it is in Santa Monica, right? There's only I think it's like 13,000 right

um [snorts] uh units you know potentially are are kind of in there. So that's our question is you know can we account for LA's capacity because you know in a situation where the the portion of LA's LA that's in the bubble was able to be excluded but Santa Monica was included it's a bit of an odd outcome. Um, and I think that's why we're asking the question, you know, whether that was contemplated by the by the bill's authors, what, you know, what's the meaning? It's the state law doesn't give any direction or information about that. Um, it does have language about, you know, parcels in the jurisdiction, but I think we, you know, I think we're doing our due diligence and asking the question

and would you anticipate maybe getting some kind of direction with respect? We hope soon. We will check. Um, we have some upcoming calls with HCD, so we'll we'll try and advance a discussion, but it is it is their it's their timeline. We don't control, you know, when they get back to us. Okay. Thank you. Um, Council Member Zerna has some questions.

We can't hear her. You guys hear me now? No, can't hear you at all. But your background looks cool. Okay. Can you hear me now? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I moved to a different spot cuz I it was it Yeah. Anyway, um so questions. Um so I know you already said this. Just to reconfirm, regardless of the outcome of today's vote, would the law go into effect as written effective July 1st? Yes.

Okay. Um, and I know you mentioned that there are limitations with what we currently have as the mapping because we don't yet have a map issued by SCAG. Do we have an idea of the timeline of when they'll be able to issue that? Uh, we it's supposed to be sometime before July 1. So, um, we're monitoring the agendas, but we have not seen it yet. Okay. And to follow up on that, um, how long will it take us to analyze the map issued by SCAG and then make further decisions based on that?

Um, I mean, we would to the extent we've done our own preliminary analysis, it wouldn't take much, you know, to to take a look and ask questions and how it matches up to to our analysis. Um, I think if we were given council direction, we, you know, in and I, I think that's a policy decision with respect to how quickly it comes back and all of that. Um, you know, we we could we could obviously move pretty quickly. We would advance it based on our preliminary understanding. You know, that's really what would happen. And then when Skagg's map comes out, then we might have to course correct, you know, to account for anything different that's there. Um, you know, I I I would expect that once they release a draft map that we'd have the opportunity to comment on it, make sure it syncs up, you know, to understanding, you know, of of how the laws apply.

Okay, cool. Yeah, I mean, it's there's basically two months left until July 1st if my math is correct. And it's it's past 1:00 a.m. here, so perhaps. Um, and then let's see. So, if we were to go with the planning commission's recommendation, and I know council member Rasin touched on this, uh, but how long roughly would it take to develop a local ordinance pursuant to a combination of approach two and then subsequently develop a local implementation plan under approach three?

Yeah. So if given the direction tonight, we we would be able to return because we we it's a regular ordinance. So we'd have to go back to the planning commission for their formal recommendation return to council. So we believe we could be back to the council roughly like mid July 14th. I believe your July 14th meeting is where we think the earliest we could get back.

Okay. Um, and given that kind of timeline, would we hypothetically, um, in kind of following up on C another of Council Member Raskin's questions, um, since the staff report did identify a number of parcels that could potentially be impacted that have fewer than three rent controlled or deed restricted homes per parcel, would we be able to um, ask planning commission to consider excluding these under approach two and three you um so that SB so that we would move the density Mhm. to Yeah. from from the ones that

Oh, okay. So, well, so for the for the parcels that rent control parcels that are three units or more, those are already automatically excluded by the law. You're talking about for the ones that are two units and fewer. Well, I think one thing to understand is that under option two, under approach two, the three metro stops in Santa Monica, so downtown, 17th Street, and Bergamont, right? Every parcel within those, regardless of whether it's rent control or not or whatever, because th those zones collectively meet the criteria already, that's our preliminary assessment. So that you know the all of those zones would essentially like all parcels in them would be excluded right until 2030. The zone that we have questions about is the one on the furthest east end the expo Bundy the the one that's in LA that dips into Santa Monica that captures a number of parcels. I think we could take your direction. We would honestly have to look parcel by parcel. We took a very quick look at it. We're not sure there's enough parcels. I it's going to bring up some choices about how you do how you shift things around. It's it's it's a little hard to know because I think if you're asking about implementing, you know, shifting some density here or there, we we'd have to look at it, but we could take that direction without guaranteeing an outcome, I guess. [laughter]

Okay. Yeah. And um and I mean would that also be dependent on what HCD's guidance is regarding the kind of Yes. Um yeah any any further guidance

and then and actually digging into the numbers you know going parcel by parcel within that to zone how much could move but you know always remember like even if you did some sort of hybrid approach like that um you know there's no instance where you can kind of zero zero out you know capacity on a site um that's [clears throat] just you know following the rules of the state law. Got it. So, I mean, if it uh my concern, and I know we're not in comments yet, but just to try to protect as many tenants who might not be protected under the current um under SB79 as written. And I understand that's a limited number um and it depends on a number of factors but I I think you know

um anyway yeah just wanted to yeah we did an assessment of like the expo but that's that's what we showed in the presentation just a preliminary assessment focusing only on the expo Bundy TOD zone and just you know is is there even enough parcels to get there right if they're mostly R1 you know if you want to take an approach like an LA approach where there was a sort of like strategic upzoning of R1 to build capacity to allow them to be you know that that's essentially what LA did but it just you know we didn't really have the time to get get into all of that a little unclear how that would be accomplished it just doesn't appear like there's enough parcels to even get there um so

of course yeah and and I assume that as you mentioned it would also depend on kind of the jurisdictional split and if we're able to kind of I don't know, I'm sure it's a double-edged sword of whether we could potentially use the LA portion or not in our calculations. So, that's that's

something the planning commission is probably going to have to do a pretty deep dive on um with your team. And then final question. So, regarding the minimum permitted density requirements uh under SB79, would you be able to confirm um whether these are similar to the minimum guaranteed square footage that we had adopted for lot splits where you know we'd be required to allow a minimum density as defined in the law. that wouldn't prevent a home builder from building at a reduced density as long as it's no less than that minimum of at least 30 dwelling units per acre or whatever the the specified minimum requirement is. Is that accurate?

It's pretty similar. Yeah. Okay. All right. Cool. Thank you. That's all my questions. Appreciate all of your work on this. I know it's it's been a lot. Thank you. No, thank you to the team. I have a [laughter] couple of questions and then perhaps we can I think we want to hear the planning commission's report before we give comments. Um so I just want to get a put a finer point on this. Um approach three if we take it has to be approved by HCD correct? Yes. Okay. Approach two as well. And of course and uh SB79 default applies starting July 1st. Yeah. So, realistically, what's the like HCD review? Let's say you do all this work.

Mhm. You give like our our um TOD alternative plan to HCD under option three. Mhm. What's like the realistic HCD review timeline? Like after you've already prepared something, they have up to 120 days, right? Yeah. And so are you I mean even if we say move full steam ahead, there's going to be some sort of period of time. Yeah. Can you give us like a your best guess? I'll use uh Beverly Hills I believe is the only city I'm aware of that submitted something to HCD in I think is January. Okay.

I don't know that they've heard back yet. Um should be around now actually. Um you know in terms of the 120 days. So, you know, if you think we return to council with a with approach to July 14th, right, HCD in theory would have up to somewhere in mid- November, you know, to give us comments back. We then have, you know, up to 60 days to provide a response. They get another 60 days 60 60 days, right, to respond back to that. So, that's why I was like, it's very much akin to the housing element process. There's just back and forth. Um, so you know, realistically SB79 full steam ahead is going to be implemented July 1. Like I just want to give everyone realistic thoughts here.

Yeah. No, I I think that that is important to clarify that, you know, come July 1, there is nothing the city can put in place to not have SP79 go into effect. And you know, you mentioned Beverly Hills. I think we knew that this was coming. This bill was signed. This was not a surprise. M what took so long for us to only now be talking about it at council?

Um I mean we were going through the leg legislative up I think honestly it wasn't direction on there. We we we had anformational study session with the planning commission you know doing the analysis kind of understand it's a pretty complex law. Um and you know we just had the study session with the planning commission about 2 3 weeks ago. Um my understanding is that the planning commission delayed that study session. Is that correct? They canled their prior meeting? No. No. No, I don't think so. No. Okay. I I was told that that was pushed.

Um, so the planning commission asked for an AFFH or disperate impact analysis. Um, if I'm not mistaken, specific to the Pico neighborhood. Has a city attorney started that? So, we would need to um work with planning staff on how that work. But yes, we will. So, just to be clear, so AFH and fair housing rules, they apply to anything that we do. So, as that process unfolds and the analysis happens, we will be working closely with them on that process. Okay. Um Okay. I don't have any more questions at this point. So, let's go ahead and hear from the planning commission.

Did you have

[clears throat]

Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Sean Landris, designated by the planning commission to speak on its behalf, and my colleague Leslie Lambert uh wrote to you earlier this evening. The commission appreciates staff's responsiveness to our request for a briefing on SB79 in April. And no, it wasn't it wasn't pushed. We wanted it as quickly as possible. That briefing was the foundation for our unanimous recommendation now before you. And I hope the urgency of action is more than apparent to council. SB79 takes effect automatically on that date, July 1, whether or not the city takes action. And so the window to shape implementation rather than absorb it, as we experienced with the builder's remedy, is impossibly small. The commission voted unanimously on April 15th to recommend the two-track approach to SB79 implementation. I'm pleased to see staff recommendation tonight aligns with that approach. I'm going to try not to take all of my time, but want to underline four points the commission considers essential to making the two-track approach work. First, the case for approach 2 plus approach 3 together, not either alone. SP79's practical impact on Santa Monica is uneven. As you heard, our commercial corridors already meet or exceed SP79 standards across most of the buffer area. The staff report confirms this. The real intensification falls on residential parcels in the quarter to half mile bands, particularly R1 and R2 in the Pico neighborhood. Approach two lets us protect those specific parcels as a scalpel not axe interim measure, while approach three builds a comprehensive TOD plan that shifts density toward areas where it can feasibly yield housing. The exclusions under approach two should be deliberate, not reflexive. This is the second point. Uh we ex specifically recommend that staff identify sites inside the quarter to half mile range that have genuine development capacity

without gentrification or displacement concerns and that those sites not be excluded. The exclusion list should be built vulnerable parcel by vulnerable parcel as as Jing mentioned where we can. And if necessary, we sec we support securing clarification from HCD about moving density between neighborhoods within the same TOD zone such as from Exposition and Delaware up to the Bergamont area. And it's not clear to us uh immediately that that's actually allowed. So we need to be clear about that. We also strongly recommend that all existing landmarks and historic districts as of the date of adoption from SB79 uh as of the date of adoption be excluded from SB79 application. And we not we need to draw that line as quickly as possible. Third, when approach 3 shifts density, the shifts must be real. If units are moved out of R1 and R2 neighborhoods, they need to land in places that actually yield housing near transit, even up to the 200% density cap where it's appropriate, rather than being transferred to parcels where existing zoning already accommodates accommodates them. The Bergamont zone, for example, already has significant capacity. Adding paper density there may not produce a single new home. Approach three should test every density transfer against this uh standard. Will it yield real units or is this just performative zoning? Fourth, and it should have been first, but I'm I'm getting to it. Fourth, the Pico neighborhood deserves dedicated legal and planning analysis, not treatment as a footnote. The commission heard substantial concern at its April 15th meeting about the disperate impact and fair housing implications of applying SB79 alongside our affirmatively furthering furthering fair housing obligations. PICO has the highest concentration of ethnic and racial uh diversity and lower income houses in Santa Monica. It's the neighborhood with the highest displacement risk under the

six cycle housing element. The constitutional and general law conflicts that could arise from applying SB79 here are not hypothetical and the commission recommends that they receive dedicated analysis. The commission also recommends that staff study a right to return provision as part of the approach 3 work even though that sits somewhat outside the scope of SB79 itself. Um but given the displacement concerns that attend intensification in sensitive neighborhoods, we we really need to do that. A few specific items to fold into staff's work. The commission recommends that staff study interparial development rights transfers within zones, not just between zones, as well as how transfer development rights mechanisms currently used for historic preservation could can be protected so those sites don't lose that tool. Uh, looking ahead to June 9th, the commission does hope you will consider creative ways to achieve SP79 density inside the R1 form that produce home ownership opportunities, affordable teachers to teachers, administrators, city employees, and others. But the missing middle housing recommendation is not on tonight's agenda. And finally, on major transit stops, the commission asked that staff investigate the precise location of major transit stops as defined by the statute and whether a charter city can be effectively upzzoned or downzoned by an outside agency, whether it's big blue bus or which is runs under an enterprise fund rules or metro, including potentially the forthcoming LAXRT connector on Lincoln unilaterally increasing or decreasing headways. That said, new TOD zones could help absorb density from Pico if additional downtown bus stops qualify as major transit stops. Downtown is where housing near transit actually pencils. And adding TOD zones there with real increases in housing density could make approach 3 work with fewer paper increases and materially reduce the urgency of a fair housing legal challenge by giving the city a concrete alternative pathway for the density that Pico cannot absorb. To recap, the

commission is asking council to treat Pico's fair housing exposure as a first order legal question. Adopt the twotrack approach. Approach two now. Approach three in parallel as the comprehensive plan. Build the exclusion list deliberately parcel by parcel protecting PICO and historic resources without freezing development citywide. And test every test every approach three transfer for real production, not paper density. and investigate downtown bus stop eligibility is a tier 2 TRD zone. Um we are ready to meet. I think we have like four meetings before June 30th. Um and uh we are um we're we're happy to do whatever you need uh to get this moving. So any questions I'm happy to answer.

Even though it says there we go. Really appreciate that. really appreciate the entire team and obviously Commissioner Lambert. Um I I think I don't have any questions. We've all been discussing this since the planning commission met, but I don't know if my colleagues have questions for you, but again, just a lot of gratitude because you guys did the heavy lifting. So, thank you. Appreciate it. Um okay, we'll if people have questions, let us know. But, um we'll take some comments to get in the queue. Okay. Commission. Um, council.

All right. Sorry. Give me a second to pull up my notes here. Sure. Oh, Council Member Hall wants to go now.

Sorry. You were just talking about having your notes pulled up, so I have mine ready if you want.

Oh, yeah. Okay. [laughter] Um, while you pull it up. So, uh, I will be quick here, at least for my first round of comments. Um, I am not interested in approach one. From the first night we've discussed this bill, I've expressed my desire to leverage the alternative to TOD zone option to protect renters in the Pico and Mid City neighborhoods. Um, for approach three to implement the alternative TOD zone. Um, that option is is why I supported the bill. Uh, I personally think we should do this as fast as possible. Um, but I'm in absolute agreement with the planning commission that we should not be papering over density and I recognize that takes some capacity uh with staff. So, I'm curious to hear what my colleagues have to say, but generally I would say that uh I think this is a really important planning uh priority. Um, and I'm supportive of immediate implementation of approach two uh to protect those sensitive sites. [snorts]

Great. Um, Council Member Raskin,

thank you. Uh, yeah, thank you to the team and, uh, Commissioner Landers for coming out here, uh, late at night. Um, yeah, I mean, I think that SP79 is taking a lot of people somewhat by shock uh, in its the pace of change. Um, and it it's it's it's difficult to react, I think, in our our planning process. And um you know as far as I understand it uh you know the planning commission began with the ROI on on March 4th came back with a recommendation on April 15th. Um if we were to come back with implementing this we would have to do our own ROI start the reading process of an ordinance. Uh it's in the noticing process then the reading process. It's going to take a while and um you know in the meantime this bill could have uh you know this bill is going to go into effect and it's going to have real impacts. Um the last time that that we really had a substantive discussion about SP79, it was when we were considering whether to endorse the bill. And I'm glad that we had urged for the addition of anti-displacement protections. And really the thanks goes to folks like Assembly Member Haney who added in really strong anti-displacements protections into the bill. Um but the bill really does threaten unprecedented displacement and gentrification in the Pico neighborhood. Uh as our fellow housing authority board member uh Ajar St. Clair reminded us earlier tonight, the 10 freeway has already cut through the Pico neighborhood and has stolen generational wealth from uh thousands of families. Um, and we're really at risk of seeing generational wealth taken away uh again or or opportunities for families taken away yet again in what is really the last uh concentration of black and Latino families in Santa Monica. So, as I mentioned before, while SP79

exempts many multif family rental units, there are still hundreds uh nearly 200 households in danger of displacement through this bill. Um, I referenced earlier that the data from a rent control agency says that there are 102 rent controlled units that are not exempt from the bill at all within a half mile uh of these stops. Um, and that's not even to account for the single family homes and other uh um rent controlled units that are not exempt, you know, and and to make things even more complicated, uh, you know, it's it's really well known that uh, you know, displacement pressures don't only come from direct displacement but also from the development and uh, vacancy of neighboring properties. Uh I was just reading uh some studies coming into tonight talking about how uh the redevelopment of neighboring properties is a direct causal factor of gentrification and displacement of those in the surrounding neighborhood. You know the the frustrating part about all this for folks who work in the housing world is that folks have already developed a game plan in California of how to speculate based on these types of laws when they have robust protections for for tenants. The game plan is this. simply evict the tenants and then wait. We've seen this before with the Ellis Act and the Housing Crisis Act. You kick out a family, keep the units off the market for 5 years, seven years, 10 years, whatever. Uh housing units are unused and buildings sit vacant. They become a blight on our community. We see it in the PU neighborhood all the time. And I'm really concerned that that's exactly what's going to happen here. Mass evictions, even from those units that are exempted from this, people keeping them off the market and then speculation a decade or more later. Uh and crucially crucially in Santa Monica, we have very thoughtfully focused developments in the non-residential parts of our town in the the areas that are are zoned for for commercial to keep the displacement pressures off of those residential zones. SB79 doesn't care

about that at all. Uh and instead what we're seeing is we're what we're going to see is the displacement of our mom and pop businesses that are renting in the commercial zones that uh you know have no protections from displacement, no rent control for businesses, nothing like that. So um we've got a lot of work to do to make sure this is effective. Uh I'm I'm going to support uh moving as quickly as we can towards an option two delaying until uh 2030. uh in the meantime uh work really strongly towards uh a a thoughtful uh TOD process that should be aligned with the seventh cycle housing element process. Um but we should take all the time that we need and uh delay implementation the full amount of time that we can. Um our our planning staff is working literally around the clock. uh the amount of priorities that we've put in your department over the past few years has been uh tremendous and um I we really appreciate the hard work we're doing, but uh we can't do everything. Um meanwhile, I also think we it's really imperative for us to work closely with our friends in the legislature to make sure that cleanup bills fix the problems that we're seeing here. uh we need to uh make sure that we're we're dealing appropriately with jurisdictions like Santa Monica that have already zoned for the capacity of SB79 and to modify the TOD zones to allow for greater flexibility uh in dealing with situations where there are real risks of displacement. Um I'll have more direction to give when we get to the point of making a motion, but those are my comments for now.

Thank you, Council Member. Yeah, I just I took my name out by accidentally. Council No, it's me. Oh, no. Council Negate. Okay.

I just clicked my name out. Well, um I'm gonna cut what I was going to say in half because um I echo everything that council member Roskin just said. I think this is a place where maybe some of us um agree when it comes to housing um up here maybe and um I appreciate that. I do think that um I'm not comfortable rushing into these one-sizefits-all approaches. Um our community is unique. My story being born and raised in this city and feeling grateful that I still get to live in a city because of rent control and raise my family here. Um, speaks to a lot of the issues we talked about tonight. Um, I think we need the opportunity to take a phased path, study the impacts, come back with something that reflects our city, not just a state mandate. I'm not interested in performative zoning or checking a box. I'm really interested that we get this right. I think we owe it to our residents, to the generations of family that are trying to stay in this community. We've done a lot of work to preserve um deed restricted stock, including spending tons of money to um rehabilitate it. Um I would be fearful that we did all that work just to potentially lose similar families. I think we owe it to our residents to plan growth in a way that's realistic and not theoretical. And that's why I definitely support this phased approach and a locally driven plan that allows us to meet these state requirements without giving up our responsibility to think through impacts. Um I think you know the biggest thing is when we make these decisions we can't take them back. So being thoughtful is probably one of the most important things that we can do. So I echo um my colleague Mr. Rascin over here. Thank you, [clears throat]

Council Member Small

and um Council Rascin and Negrety took most of my comments. I also agree that we need to take a very thoughtful approach with respect to it. U approach one I'm not supportive of at all. Um I think uh we need to take a look uh with approach three. I like to concentrate density near the actual transit stops and not disperse it if possible. Um I think we also should avoid uh density increases in areas with high freeway proximity and I you know I want to thank u the um commission for their thoughtful approach on this. I think uh you know I was very supportive of SP79 but I displacement uh is something that's also very important for me and I think that we uh on council understand that um and Councilman Raskin has probably said it very eloquently that um you know property owners take people you know dict people from homes and then don't put the the items on the market again for for a longer period of time. And that's exactly uh one thing that we don't want to see happen. So a very thoughtful approach, one that really takes into consideration of displacement and those uh people affecting the people neighborhood u directly is something that I'm very concerned about. So thank you for staff and also for the planning commission for their thoughtful response on this. Council member Ernesga Gaya,

I will try to be as brief as possible. I agree with um much of what's been said. So, thank you for uh saying it very eloquently to my fair uh fellow council members. I'm also supportive of the planning commission recommendation of a combination of approach two and three and I agree with focusing on protecting current residents and and uh asking the planning commission to um to be very focused on anti-displacement measures including but not limited to right to return where appropriate. uh and taking it parcel by parcel to be as intentional as possible to pro protect our existing tenants. Um and I also agree with the intent of avoiding paper tens density and um really focusing the increased density as close to the actual transit stops as possible. Um, admittedly, yes, I actually am very lucky that I currently live within a 15-minute walk of um of a train, but it's, you know, I'm also 3 minutes to a bus stop. And I feel like the closer people are to transit, the easier it is for them to use it. And that is the entire point of SB79 is to make it easier for people to use these really um excellent strong public transit um I don't want to say opportunities sorry but basically the public transit that we've already as invested as um as taxpayers billions of dollars and we want as many people to use them as possible. So, um that's that's basically it. Agree with all what's been said and planning commission recommendation. Thank you.

Can I um before you go for another round, can I just ask a question for the planning staff that I neglected to ask before? I just we haven't really spent that much time differentiating between this quarter mile versus half mile. Um Oh, did you Okay. Is it okay if I ask this question? Um, so distance from a TOD stop was not one of the exclusion criteria like enumerated in the statute. And from my understanding, the drawing drawing a line around a quarter mile of the transit stop, not the half mile, would be going beyond what the law authorizes and and would have to be approved by HCD. Correct.

That's right. Yeah. And and what what do you think the likelihood is uh that HCD is going to approve any sort of special consideration on a quarter mile? I mean, in terms of an alternative to like the alternative to TOD plan, I I I don't know that it doesn't allow that because I think that was something that we were discussing that was discussed at planning commission. Could you do um a sort of a quarter mile, you know, a concentrated quarter mile option um if you will. Well, so it's something we could for sure uh take a look at because it does allow like transfers between sites because you know the rules is like between zones but also between sites,

right? But you still have to I mean you still need to do this very intensive by personal analysis. So So like for example, if you you know imagine there were like more residential properties around like non non-residential the own properties that were within the quarter mile you know could you you'd have to do that site by sight. We're going to click from here here. But like, you know, we we look at it. I mean, there's obviously a lot less a lot fewer parcels in the quarter mile compared to the half mile. Like, at some point, you just run out of capacity in land. You know, you probably do, right? So, I think but but without going through that sort of exercise, you know, you you don't really know, but it's not completely out of bounds, right? I mean, I appreciate how the planning commission really tried to thread the needle. I'm just not sure that it helps us that much.

It might. I mean, it's all on the table. So, um Okay. Okay. And then if council member Hall had questions about that point, like go ahead. I'm I'm done. Thanks. Um yeah, I ju I just wanted to make sure I understood the PC planning commission's recommendation correctly. It's that Sure. Uh if that's okay, Commissioner Landers.

Um it it is planning commission is recommending pursuing approach one immediate implementation within the quarter mile ring. Is that correct? We're recommending pursuing approach two and approach three. Approach one is being thrust upon us whether we like it or not. What we did though was in the context of our conversation, we looked at the maps and what we noticed was that within the quarter mile, I mean a/4 mile is not a long distance in certain in in certain areas, right? So, if you go a quarter a quarter mile um southeast from uh roughly say from Bergamont Station, right, and we're looking at the neighborhood Delaware Exposition, there are only two parcels that are that touch on the quarter mile. Um and those parcels both have more than three units. So, and they're presumably rent controlled. So, I'm assuming I'm guessing that those are excluded parcels to begin with, which means that inside the 1/4 mile around 26th and Bergamont, I don't think there's any other housing at risk. Um, and I think those two parcels are excluded under different uh criteria. So our thinking was as we're navigating this, allow the look at the quarter mile at specific sites and say if we have to let it happen, let it happen here sooner or first while we while we explore what's happening at the half mile because when you go out to the half mile, then you get all of that neighborhood, but then you also get all of Bergamont. So you've got somewhere to move that density um pretty quickly. The other thing I would point out just on this in the same uh in this in the same vein is the question of individual transfer rights. We had um public commenter who said why not sell density rights? Why not let property why

not incentivize property owners with density rights who otherwise might be incentivized to sell their properties and redevelop them and displace people. Why not give them the right to sell their density to somebody inside um a a zone where we want more density? Uh let the turn the market into our ally. I I think it's not something we could recommend tonight, but it's certainly something that we could ask staff to study and explore. Um, and then immediately Commission Commissioner Fresco pointed out that um, you know, historic preservation properties also have have those kinds of transferable rights. And so we ought to look that if we're looking parcel by parcel, we ought to look at what rights could be transferred in order to essentially disincentivize the owners of the properties that are vulnerable from selling them. We have a lot of tools. I don't know if that's I hope that's helpful.

Yeah, it's certainly an interesting idea. I'd be amendable to exploring that in our direction. Um, are we going in [clears throat] the comments? Yeah. Or Yeah, I thought I thought we were in comments.

Okay. wherever we are. Sorry. Thank you. I'll I'll just uh I'll I'll close my comments by saying um my first night on the dis up here, I asked staff to trust us. Uh and in exchange, I would trust you all. Um so I appreciate the recommendation that we um due to staff capacity take this thoughtful uh approach and delay implementation um and align with our seventh cycle housing element or at least a delayed implementation for a little bit later. Uh, so curious to hear thoughts from my colleagues on what we feel the appropriate timeline would be. I have thoughts, but council member Rascin, go ahead.

All right. Uh, I'll I'll give this a shot at making a motion here. Um, I'm going to move that we uh proceed with developing an option two ordinance as quickly as possible to uh delay implementation until the maximum time allowed uh up until I suppose it's whatever the 2030 deadline is uh the statute. Uh in the meantime um let's work on preparing our own to plan pursuant to option three. Um, I think we're going to need to check in periodically uh to figure out what's going on pending the guidance we get back from HCD given that there are a lot of unanswered questions and given that there's some work up that's going to have to happen at the planning commission level. Um, but uh I have a few pieces of direction that I'd like to see in this. Um, in particular, uh, I think it's really important for us to partner with the rent control agency to, uh, disseminate information to households that could be affected here. Uh, I'm really concerned about the possibility of folks just just hitting the start button on the eviction process and starting the clock on a, you know, seven-year countdown or whatever. So, uh, to the extent that we can publish and disseminate information and get it out there, inform people the rights, I think that's going to be really important. Uh I would also like to see us work uh closely with our partners in the legislature on a cleanup bill that'll fix a lot of the concerns that we're seeing here. Um and uh uh in particular working on a on options for greater flexibility in the implementation of TOD zones. Um, and uh, you know, we've talked in the abstract before about increased renter protections, but if we are going to see a wave of evictions here, I think we're going to need to see some options of what's feasible locally in terms of

increased renter protections, I have some ideas, but obviously it's contingent upon feasibility and available resources. So, I think we'll need to see some options for what's possible and get that back to us. So, those are the general contours of the motion and um I desire city attorney jump in the cave here.

Um so, I just wanted to clarify because there is actually a resolution of intention before you this evening as well that will allow you to um direct that actually directs the planning commission to start the process of amending um with respect to either um with respect to both approach two and three within within the time frames that you're suggesting and also um a secret determination. So, just wanted to confirm whether that was part of your motion.

Yes. Um, [laughter] yeah, the the go the goal is to kick off the uh ordinance process through an ROI uh based on the direction here uh and to make that secret determination. I'll second. I'm sorry, who second? I did.

I like before. I'd like to have like a friendly um alternate. Could we also look at flagging this and discuss the right to recall with respect to that motion also um going forward and have have it included in the motion to have some kind of u dedicated legal planning with respect to that? I know that's not part of SB79, but I would like the staff to be able to take a look at that and bring that back with respect to the motion. Right to return. Right to return. Right to return. Right to rec. Right to return. Yeah. Yeah, that's right to return. Yeah, for sure. I think we need to do that. Yeah. Okay, then.

Okay. What about flexible cash assistance? Oh, I'm sorry. I was asking a question at the Yeah. No, I mean I I I would just say that I I don't necessarily want to I think we should put every option on the table to help the potentially displace renters.

Um so I see Natalia in the queue and then um I think I I might want to make a comment. Um, I just wanted to confirm whether the motion includes the concept that Commissioner Landress um presented about potentially allowing uh folks to sell the density if allowable under SP79 and just uh letting giving planning commission the um the latitude to explore all options for uh tenant protections and the the best outcomes for existing um tenants and renters.

I mean, is that legal? I mean, I just to explore whether it is legal or not perhaps. Sorry, that was me under my breath. Yeah, I I I I' think I think we're we still need a lot of answers from ACD about what's feasible. Um I I you know, I'd be curious to hear what staff says. I I have some questions to my mind as to whether that's good policy. Um but I think we should, you know, keep it on the table. Okay. Apparently the second uh council member Hall,

uh I'm just curious, council member Raskin, your thoughts around pushing to 2030 for approach two, uh as opposed to aligning it with the seventh cycle housing element. Uh, I mean, if if we adopt, you know, general plan amendments and zoning per the seven cycle housing element update, I think it would naturally incorporate the DoD plans. So, I I just want to give us the longest runway possible. Um, but if we align this with the seven cycle housing element preparation, then it would be implemented faster. Well, well, not that much faster than 2030, right?

Yeah. So, what October 2029? You you could fashion an ordinance where basically the pause stops when the TOD plan gets adopted, right? You could do it that way, but yeah, it is it is October 2029. Um, that would be totally reasonable for us because we'd be going through a massive comprehensive planning process anyways. So, this would just it would fit right in. Yeah. Um, I I guess I would just say that I would prefer we align it with the seventh cycle housing element so we can get things moving faster um than just a a blatant delay until the last possible moment.

Well, I mean I think I think it would accomplish the same thing, right? I mean, you know, even even if we we did the option to pause for SP79, it doesn't really matter because our our local zoning would would incorporate it anyway. Yeah. I think one way to think about it is like you're giving yourself a runway to cover a longer time period, but it does not um preclude you from adopting an ordinance that would take effect that would override that other thing. Got it.

Yeah. Can um Okay. I I would just say I'm a little bit concerned. I'm going to give some some feedback. I'm a little bit concerned that this is just kicking the can down the road. Um if we say yeah, delay till 2030. Um and and do not move forward as expeditiously as possible with the to alternative plan. Um we're basically trying just trying to put the brakes on this. And I understand I mean again if you read through the staff report we've pretty appropriately zoned for the for the density that SB79 requires um in the majority of the area. But uh again I think to me um this feels unnecessarily long and I'm wondering again to Council Member Hall's point about trusting staff. I I do implicitly trust you and and the realignment plan is extremely important to us and the economic recovery is extremely important to us and I do believe that we should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Um so I'm just wondering if we wanted to say you know move forward immediately with getting the ordinance to HCD for option two but come back to us with options for option three within the next year. Would that be reasonable? I mean I understand you're tell us why you would not like that. So I mean yes from a feasibility perspective absolutely. I'm coming at it from the perspective of you're going to end up doing some pretty potentially major changes twice like within a short period of time right um I think we're just planning ahead for what is I would say just a somewhat unknown around the rules surrounding the seven psycho housing element. We don't know what our arena is. We know there have been changes in state law that will probably increase what those numbers are. They're

going to account for like extremely low income and different [clears throat] aspects, right, of housing need that haven't been the case in the past. And as we know, like it's it's just unknown the kind of rule setting around how you develop and show capacity. So that's a very meticulous process to develop an alternative to plan is a very careful process as well. it makes sense to try and do that together so you can consider like kind of all things. I I think at the end of the day um what the alternative to plan allows us to do is very consistent what we have set forth as a city you know like protection of our residential neighborhoods put you know density where it should be you know closest to transit that's kind of always been our guiding light right um in terms of of of city planning here in Santa Monica so to the extent it kind of all sort of like dives together being able to take a look at all the how all state law that is in effect at the at the time and plan for it makes a lot of sense to me. But certainly if there was a desire to advance that faster and coming back with um I'm I'm hearing some desire for like periodic check-ins like it's not like we just disappear for 5 years or whatever it is and you never see us again. Um, we could certainly put in place with conversations with the planning commission, come back with some draft options with the council or study session or something like that before we dive into detailed recommendations from the planning commission. That's the sort of process I would envision.

Could Could you come back in 6 months? I think we could. Yeah. With some ideas on where where you're headed with this. Um, because again, I I don't want to delay till 2030. And I do think that it is true HCD is still getting their act together to issue advisories. Skagg from our understanding in your presentation has not completed their maps. Um we don't want to demolition Derby in the Pico neighborhood. We're deeply concerned about like who's getting impacted by this. But at the same time,

it does feel a little bit like we're just saying let's kick the can down the road. I I think what's interesting is you know I we talked about the realignment plan and it's you know very much around the economic real revitalization but a key part of it was also developing you know incentives for like kind of an all of above strategy right for housing across the city um and I think as we've been thinking through all of the different direction that we've received you know these things dovetail together um so we will be back you know we're going to begin that process on the realignment plan with the planning commission, you know, coming up pretty pretty soon at their next meeting so that we we're able to consider all these things together because it really is kind of addressing all of the housing needs in the city and trying to reconcile that with state law. But yeah, I I I think we could certainly be back to you within 6 months with at least options, not not an ordinance, but the ideas around things we're considering.

Yeah, I would feel more comfortable if we had options within the next six months. Mhm. And I'll I'll leave it at that, Council Member Negrete. So, I would just look at it from a different lens. Um, for the first time, we have a little bit more flexibility and a little bit more local control than just a slap down mandate. We're already going to be dealing with the gap, which is going to feel like a builder's remedy, so to speak, right, where projects may be going in in July. Well, hopefully not, but

hopefully not, but that is a real possibility. And so to the extent that we give oursel the most amount of time, I just think it gives us more flexibility to be extremely thoughtful while we are doing all the other things around upzoning both statemandated and and the allowances that are already there that are going to be increasing density to sort of catch up with itself. And I think we said here earlier, there's nothing stopping us from coming back and solidifying this if it feels right sooner. But why would we rush it and give oursel a sooner date? I think periodic check-ins are fine, but giving ourselves the full allotted amount of time, which right now with all the state mandates and housing feels like a gift in some regard from Sacramento, we don't have that in we haven't had that in any other statemandated housing bill. So to me, I just think it's better to take the time and the way it was the motion was originally made is what I support.

Okay. Council member Raskin. Yeah, I find myself in agreement with Councilman Negrrete here. I think uh you know while I

No. Well, well, while I understand that, you know, the idea of kicking the can down the road, I think um we still need a lot of answers from HCD and we still have a lot of uh developments to do on the planning commission level. we still uh might have a trailer bill that could potentially address some of this stuff. So, um 6 months feels a little bit rushed in terms of coming back with concepts when we don't exactly know the contours of the planning universe that we're talking about. So, you know, I in principle I'm in favor of coming back as soon as it's practicable, but um I I just don't know if we're going to have the answers like the key technical answers we really need by that time.

Okay. Council member Jetskaya. So, I just had a question to see if maybe we could um come to a happy medium. Um would folks be amendable to um having staff come back in 6 months just to let us know where they're at regardless of whether or not there are any actual concepts. and then question um to staff. No, like not even for a check-in just to status update without any solid concept just to say we're working on it. We haven't heard from HCD or haven't heard from

Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to get you off. Council member Oh, no. Go for it. I was going to say and then I'll ask my second question. I I think I [clears throat] think what probably makes sense is some kind of like progress update to understand, you know, where the where the answers are from HCD and and we can continue the conversation about where council direction is. Absolutely. But I I don't know. HCD is slow, so we'll do the best we can. Yeah. But at least we're not forgetting about it. Yeah. [laughter] That feels fine. Okay. Um council member someone and Yeah, you question. Go ahead.

Yes. Um, oh my goodness. And oh, [clears throat] okay. So, a question just clarifying. Um, you know, I I do think having a long runway is is good for us because we don't know how long the other agencies that are involved with this and um are going to take for all of the feedback and all of the guidance and everything that we're going to need to implement. Um, however, should we find that everything magically falls into place, is there anything stopping us from potentially saying we want to adopt this earlier because all of the pieces have magically fallen into place? That may be a question more for the city attorney.

No, I Yeah, go ahead.

No, no, there's nothing preventing that should that happen. And I think one thing and and the uh planning director can also kind of um help with this as well, but in terms of like we were talking about with the housing element, the housing element actually needs to be adopted in at late 2029 and it doesn't get certified until after that. So you might not get certified until early 2030. And that means that once your certification is done, that's when you start your implementation, which means your amendments to the general plan and the zoning ordinance. So that's how that timing could align if you are aligning it with the housing with the housing element update. Doesn't have to be that way. But just to understand the time frame and and why the legislature seems to have picked the 2030 time frame

and and and just remember for the housing element, you don't wait till October 2029 to the the adoption has to be well before then to account for HCD's review which for sure we'll get comments. So building in that time frame. So come the expiration, you know, of six cycle, we're not in the same situation we were before. Okay. Um, Council Member Hall,

thank you, mayor. Um, so I going back to that chart that has the Expo Bundy stop as not a not uh available for option two. So, I guess this gets to my question earlier about like if if we're doing an immediate implementation of number two and we're kicking or option two and we're we're kicking the development of alternative to zone longer, doesn't that expose that portion of the Pico neighborhood along exposition in Delaware to uh greater development pressures for a longer period of time though? It does. Um, but if it doesn't qualify, it doesn't, right? That's sort of

So, it depends on what HD says. It depends on that. And, you know, there's no pro, you know, even with an alternative to TOD plan, right? Taking a look at I mean, I think that we could certainly take a look at that targeted piece. We are awaiting that direction from HD with respect to that that bubble. Um, it just doesn't look like it qualifies right now. Is there a way to have it? Because I I think it depends what the goal is, right? If it's to sort of exclude it outright, is there a pathway to do that? Doesn't seem under approach to there is under an alternative TOD plan even then, you know, just keep in mind like you can't reduce capacity to zero,

right? There's just not the opportunity to do that. So, you know, it's it I I I think that's that that's really the issue. There's not that ability to like fully fully just say like this this is going to be status quo. Um, you know, even an alternative to plan. It looks like Commissioner Landers has a thought.

I'm sorry. Sorry. I just I just wanted to bring to your attention that it's the the commission doesn't usually raise legal questions but given that this is coming to us whether you know on July 1 and we clearly are not going to be ready on July 1 to protect everybody that is why we posed the question to you about charter city rights about outside agencies doing things to us without our participation and about the f furthering fair housing. So, I just want I'm I'm only standing here to remind you that that could be part of your direction. If you chose to ask staff to explore those options because I think if you are looking for that immediate protection, the city might want to assert some rights or reserve the right to assert some rights um particularly with respect to some of those questions that you're concerned about happening right now on July 1. It may be that they don't pay off, but I would I think the commission is asking you to explore them as a tool to slow things down now. Um, and I would leave it with you and the city attorney to explore and I don't know whether it should be explored in open session or closed, but that the commission did want you to consider those legal questions.

Yeah. And and one additional question, can you add to your questions to HCD whether we're able or if you know the answer already maybe uh if we're able to do mult like break it up into like multiple alternative to zones. So maybe we could focus our entire planning effort on you know that particular zone that particular stop first and then deal with the rest later. Is is that possible or

we're we're happy to ask the question, but based on our init, you know, our preliminary reading of it, I don't think there's anything that prevents that. There's no limit to how many ordinances you could adopt really. Um, you know, as you kind of do it in little chunks like it's that that that's possible because with the alternative plan, you don't have to do it all in one fell swoop. It can be on a site level, you know, or a zone level. That's there's just rules you have to follow, but doesn't appear like there's anything preventing that. So, it seems like we would want to do the stop of Expo Bundy as fast as possible. Yeah. And potentially accept a delay in later and the other stops.

Well, yeah. I mean, we we can only do option two for the other stops and so we're we're Yeah. I from my perspective and you know I'd be curious if council member Geese with this the secondary but I think I think we should keep all implementation options on the table for now um and just you know see what those options are as we get answers from HCD as this gets worked up through the planning commission process and uh you know we'll have to make some policy choices when we come back and implement this but uh conceptually I I agree that there there is a special need for more immediate action with respect to that part of the PA neighborhood in EXO bundy circle but you know we'll know more when we get answers from HCD about you know the interjurisdictional issues

yeah the direction is to like prioritize you know looking at that one whether it's moving things within the zone to another zone um certainly we would be happy to do that that's like more targeted you know than all of it um I think that's something that we could for sure explore that that's a smaller effort than trying to move like everything around everywhere yeah okay Um, council member asking I I think you know we've all Yeah, we've all we have a motion a second. We've all had some comments. Um, you accepted a a friendly amendment to have staff come back within update

an up with an update within the next 6 months. I think you know additional direction could be that just as the planning commission rais these legal questions. I asked a question about it. I assume the city attorney is working on that legal analysis, but would that legal analysis it be incorporated into your motion and the work that's going to be happening? Yes, I'm seeing a nod. Uh yeah, I mean um yeah, I think to your point, we would have to come back and and pivot based on the answers, right? Yeah. But I think to the extent that the city attorney has information in advance of that that we can use to inform our decision, that would be helpful for us.

Yeah. Yeah. Um, so, okay, it sounds like there's a motion. Um, there was also kind of a friendly comment by Council Member Hall to try to expedite the Expo Bundy stop. Is that a direction or something that you want added in? Because I think we are very concerned about just state law taking effect for the Expo Bundy stop without um an alter a TOD alternative. Yeah, I would request that be part of the formal motion to prioritize that stop first. uh pending. Well, let's start work on it and then if we get answers from HCD that indicates we don't need to do work on it, then um we can sideline that effort.

Okay. Is that um Jane possible? Okay, great. So, it sounds like we're ready to vote. Um I wanted to ask about council member Snell's friendly friendly amendment. Right to recall. I think the right to recall. You mean right to return? Uh, council member Raskin mentioned every single tool possible for anti-displacement, including right to return, cash assistance, other legal remedies. Yeah. So, that was accepted. Okay. All right. Are you ready to vote? Yes. Council member Zarnaya? Yes. Council member Snell. Yes. Council member Raskin? Yes.

Council member Hall? Yes. Council member Negrete. Yes. Mayor Terosas. Yes. Great. We will now move on to um item or I had a question for the city attorney. So So since these were heard together, is the one vote enough or do we need to do separate votes? [clears throat] A there the one vote's enough. There's no action necessary on item 13. It's just kind of a receive and report.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, council members Wick or Mayor Proheim Wick, you can return. Thank you, Commissioner Landress, for for sticking with us. Um, I don't know where he might be, but uh maybe as he's walking in here, Madame Clerk, you can just explain what this item is. So we have 16A which is appointment to one scheduled vacancy on the building building and fire life safety commission for a term ending June 30th 2028 and we have one eligible um candidate and it's Jeffrey Halbert yeah I move that

we have voice on everything. Well I move that we nominate him. Great. Let me The second second. Oh, are we Mayor Pro? We're nominating the only eligible applicant to the fire life safety. Second. [laughter] Okay, great. Okay. Council member Grete. Yes. Council member Hall. Yes. Council member Rasin. Yes. Member Tim Swick. Yes. Council member Snell. Yes. Council members are Skaya. Mayor Terosas.

Yes. Oh, okay. Great. Yeah. And so we are going to go back to close session, but before we do that, um I think we have a couple of adjournments. Do you want to go first? Sure. There's two. Yeah. I don't [clears throat] reading the other one. Are you reading the other one? No. Uh he is. Okay. Do you want to do it or do you want her to do it?

No. No. Um, okay. So, I'll start with this one. Um, tonight we're adjourning this meeting and the name of Don R. Macauan and he happens to be the father of Kristen Macauen who served on the city council. Um, more her last position here was Mayor Prom. Don Armckan passed peacefully at home in his native Santa Monica, California on Sunday, April 12th, 2026 after a battle with Parkinson's disease. Don was a loving and devoted husband, father, grandfather, and brother. Don was born on July 17th, 1946 in Santa Monica to Hazel and Jack Macauen. He graduated from Santa Monica High School in 1964. He was drafted into the United States military during the Vietnam War, deployed in Okinawa and served as an Air Force MP. Following the war, Don returned to Santa Monica where he attended Santa Monica College and later California State University Northridge where he would meet his wife, Anna Marie. Don worked as a bookkeeper before joining United States Postal Service in 1985. He spent 23 years with the USPS until his retirement in 2008. Don's true passions were his family and the many years he dedicated to coaching his children's sports, helping helping out at Troop 2 Boy Scout camps, and volunteering and engaging in activities at his parish church, St. Monica's. From 2008 to 2014, Don relished his retirement and being personal chauffeur to his wife and his son, Justin, until Justin's untimely passing in 2014. Don's greatest joys were fishing with friends on Thursdays and being there for his family. Although health challenges from multiple myo myoma and Parkinson's impacted his final years, Don still created memorable moments with his children and grandchildren. Whether he was listening to his favorite oldies, telling epic tales of his childhood

escapades, surprising the room with unexpected Pictionary wins, or simply flashing that million-dollar smile. Dawn's warmth and large larger than life charm will be missed by the many friends and family lucky enough to have known him. Dawn is predesceased by his son Justin Macauen who was born uh in I'm sorry who passed in September of 2014 and his son survived by his wife Anna Marie Macauen his children Don Macauen, Kristen Macauen, Kristen Macauen Dall, Jonathan Macauan and Joseph Macauen and Felicia Macauan from a prior marriage. He's also survived by his daughter-in-law Cynthia Niece Macauan and Emily Greenfeld Macauan, his son-in-law Albert Dalll, and his grandchildren [snorts] um sorry, Taylor Macauan, Sophie Macauan, River Macauen, Charlotte Macauan, Skyler Macauen, Justin Dall, and Brooklyn DL. In addition, Don is survived by all 11 of his siblings, Jerry, Alvin, John, Jackie, Diana, Ronnie, Rosalyn, I'm sorry, I don't have my glasses on. Ather Lee, uh, Montes, Steve, Kevin, and Donna, as well as numerous nieces. Oh, sorry, Tina. Nieces, nephews, and cousins. Thank you. Sorry, I had all the names to read. Very big family, and he will be missed.

Beautiful. Your turn.

Um, we're also joining tonight's meeting in memory of Carl Edwin Shober. Carl was born on June 8th, 1944. A lifelong Santa Monica resident, community supporter, and philanthropist. Uh he passed away on March 7th, 2026 at the age of 81. Raised in Santa Monica, Carl came from a family that relocated from Minnesota in the 1920s and later became significant land owners in the Santa Monica area. His mother, Thelma Schober, was the original founder of the Santa Monica Bay Women's Club, instilling in him a lifelong commitment to civic involvement and community service. Carl graduated from Santa Monica High School in 1962 and continued his education at Santa Monica College, Oregon State University, and California State University, Los Angeles. He remained closely connected to Santa Monica High School through alumni activities and contributions to alumni publications. Known for his kindness and gentle demeanor, Carl was forever curious and deeply knowledgeable about world, naval, and military history. He was a member of the Santa Monica Quanis Club and Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce and quietly supported numerous local charitable efforts. He also owned the historic Mayfair Theater in Santa Monica. Carl will be remembered for his generosity, intellectual curiosity, and enduring love for Santa Monica, its history, and its community. May we honor Carl's legacy by continuing his spirit of quiet philanthropy, civic engagement, and care for one another, ensuring that his lifelong dedication to community service lives on. May this meeting be adjourned in memory of Carl Edwin Chober.

Beautiful. Thank you all. Um, we will now adjourn to close session. And Madame City attorney, do we need to come back after that? We do to do a report out, but we anticipate it would be 20 minutes. Great. Thank you. Let's do it, guys. All right.

Pardon me. Oh, thank you. The front say there's nothing. He's wearing a blank hat. Blanket.

All right. Real quickly, we're going to report out and go home. All right. Please. Thanks for waiting for us. Okay, that's good.

Okay, we're back. It's 12:29. Uh, city attorney, can we hear a report out of close session? Yes. Items 5A, 5B, and 5C were heard with no reportable action taken. Great. We are now adjourned at 12:30. Thank you.