We should expect our city to treat people experiencing homelessness as people we might know and love, and to use public resources effectively. Meeting those responsibilities takes more than good intentions or forceful promises. Every approach depends on two things platforms rarely explain: somewhere suitable for people to go, and follow-through when help is declined or a placement fails.
The same care reaches everyone trying to stay. People should be able to find a home they can afford, remain in their community, and build a life here. The questions below examine proposals and the candidates making them. They are not a test, and you may reach a different answer than we do.
Three commitments guide this page: care for people, including their safety, agency and relationships, and for the neighbors who share their streets; comparing approaches by full costs and lasting outcomes, including costs shifted to families, other services or other cities; and testing assumptions, changing course when evidence warrants.
Frustration, fear and compassion tell us what people want addressed. They do not establish why someone is outside or which remedy will work.
Environment: this page covers Building energy; Housing location; Development impacts. Go to that section.
Question 1
What are we trying to accomplish?
TakeawayA clear sidewalk and a lasting home are different outcomes; we should account for both.
Imagine a sidewalk where people have been sleeping becoming clear. A neighbor who can use it again may reasonably call that progress. To know whether homelessness has improved, we also need to know where the people went. A stable home, a shelter bed and another block are different destinations.
Four outcomes matter, each with its own measure: fewer people sleeping outside, public spaces people can safely use, fewer households losing homes, and more affordable homes. Arrests, referrals and beds purchased describe activity, not whether those outcomes improved.
The City's 2025 Homelessness Strategic Plan aims to cut unsheltered homelessness by at least 10% a year1. We do not lead with a headline count: published 2026 figures for people sleeping outside conflict, and a one-night count cannot show what caused a change.
Four outcomes, four measures
Fewer people sleeping outside
Measure: people counted unsheltered, with the same definition and method each year.
Not the same as encampments cleared or arrests
Public spaces people can use
Measure: whether residents and visitors can safely use sidewalks, parks and transit stops.
Not the same as cleanup tonnage or citations
Fewer households losing homes
Measure: households helped who are still housed 6 and 12 months later.
Not the same as payments issued or calls answered
More affordable homes
Measure: completed homes by income level, and who moves in.
Not the same as zoning capacity, approvals or financing hearings
Activity counts show effort. Outcome measures show whether lives and places changed. No headline performance number is shown until its definition and date are verified.
What the City counted, and what a count can't tell us
Preliminary results of the 2026 Point-in-Time count found 718 people experiencing homelessness in Santa Monica, sheltered and unsheltered, on a single night2. The 2025 count found 8123. City staff note that most people counted remain unsheltered.
We do not show a 2026 unsheltered number. The sources we reviewed give two different figures, and we could not open the City release behind one of them to confirm its definition. A count also cannot separate the effect of City programs from County changes, movement to nearby areas, or counting method.
The adopted budget sets yearly placement targets of 150 people placed in interim housing and 60 in permanent housing for FY 2025-26, against estimates of 140 and 55 the year before4. These count placements, not whether people stayed housed. We found no published FY 2025-26 results.
Question 2
Why is someone still outside?
TakeawayPeople can share a housing need while needing different kinds of help.
Seeing someone sleeping outside does not tell us what led there, what would help them leave, or whether suitable help has been offered.
Consider three illustrative situations: a worker who loses a room after an income shock, an older adult who needs an accessible home, and someone in an acute psychiatric crisis. Each needs somewhere safe to live; the additional help, and its urgency, may differ. These circumstances overlap. One person can have a serious illness, too little income and long Santa Monica ties at once.
Local evidence about who is outside is thin. The most recent clue describes one shelter: about 10% of SaMoShel's 60 beds serve people meeting the City's local-ties definition3. That cannot stand in for everyone outside, and an eligibility rule does not capture every meaningful tie to the city.
Shared need, different help
| Illustrative situation | Housing need | Support that may also help | Can overlap with |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lost a room after an income shock | An affordable place, soon | Rent help, work or benefits support | Health needs; long local ties |
| Needs an accessible home | A unit that fits a disability or age | Accessible design, in-home care | A persistent income gap |
| Acute psychiatric crisis | Somewhere safe and stable | Clinical care, sometimes urgently | A job, family, years in the city |
Illustrations, not population categories or shares. We found no representative local data on people's circumstances. Appearance does not reveal a diagnosis.
The City's local-ties definition
The City's Santa Monica Program Participant definition covers someone who became homeless in the city (shown by a last permanent address), has been homeless in the city for three or more years, or frequently uses Santa Monica services as verified by City staff3. It decides eligibility for City-controlled beds. It is not a full account of anyone's relationships here, and a shelter's residents are not the whole unsheltered population.
Question 3
What happens when we offer help?
TakeawayAn offer's suitability, the responder, and follow-through all matter.
"Offer shelter" sounds simple. But a bed may separate someone from a partner, fail to accommodate a disability, or make it hard to keep a job. These possibilities do not explain every refusal. They show why we need to know what was offered and why it was declined.
The responder matters too. A medical emergency, a request for help and an immediate threat of violence call for different skills and authority. Denver's civilian crisis teams were followed by fewer reports of the minor offenses they targeted5, a reason to examine civilian response for suitable calls here, not proof of the right local mix.
Compulsory intervention requires specific legal grounds and safeguards; being unhoused does not show someone cannot make decisions. California's CARE process has defined eligibility, and a CARE plan does not authorize forced medication6. Every approach should explain how it handles urgent danger, persistent harm, and people it has not yet helped.
Responses and what each needs
| Intended situation | Proposed response | Required capacity or authority | Unresolved risks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open to help, no suitable option | Voluntary outreach and an offer that fits | Suitable beds; trusted outreach staff | Nothing suitable free; help declined |
| Health crisis without immediate violence | Clinical or civilian crisis response | Trained clinicians, transport, treatment beds | Calls that turn dangerous; scarce County treatment |
| May be unable to make safe decisions | Court or clinical intervention under legal criteria | Legal grounds, safeguards, care and a next placement | Overuse; loss of agency; discharge to the street |
| Persistent conduct that harms others | Enforcement of conduct rules | Police, courts and somewhere to go | A citation cycle that moves people without lasting change |
An explanatory comparison, not medical advice or a decision tree. Real situations mix these rows.
About the Denver and CARE examples
Denver's Support Team Assisted Response sent a mental health clinician and a paramedic to certain calls, starting in 2020 in a limited set of police precincts. Researchers compared reported crime there with areas the program did not yet serve and found fewer reports of the less serious offenses it targeted, with no measured change in violent crime5. It is one city, an early period and police-report data, not individual outcomes for the people served.
CARE is a civil court process for adults with specific serious mental illnesses who meet defined criteria. It can lead to a court-ordered care plan, but it does not authorize forced medication6. Neither example tells us what Santa Monica's call types or local treatment capacity require.
Question 4
Where does the path lead?
TakeawayA placement needs a credible path to lasting housing.
Bridge housing can keep someone safe while a lasting arrangement is made. Without available exits, stays lengthen and beds stop opening for others. Someone ready for permanent housing should not need an unnecessary temporary step, and someone whose placement fails needs a way back to help. Success means people still housed 6 and 12 months later, including people lost to contact.
Santa Monica is rebuilding this path now. On July 28, 2026, Council authorized agreements to run The Palm Motel (343 rooms) as City-controlled stabilization housing for people with local ties, to fund beds at the Salvation Army's Bell Shelter for others, and to seek new non-congregate sites7. A separate 4-2 vote keeps SaMoShel open until those site proposals return.
Local and regional options both carry tradeoffs. A nearby placement can preserve work, family and treatment. A regional one may save on rent but cost more in transport, lost connections and repeat crises, and depends on a receiving community's capacity. Neither earns a preference from its label; what matters is whether people with similar needs stay housed, at what full cost.
From the street to a lasting home
- Outreach and a suitable offer Referrals from City outreach and first responders
- Stabilization housing The Palm Motel, for people with local ties
- Interim housing New non-congregate sites not yet identified Gap: capacity or evidence missing
- Permanent housing Depends on available units and subsidies; local capacity not reported Gap: capacity or evidence missing
- Follow-up at 6 and 12 months No published retention results Gap: capacity or evidence missing
- A way back if a placement fails Ask how people re-enter
Steps can be skipped; someone ready for permanent housing can move directly. Marked steps lack identified capacity or published results. No conversion rates are shown because matched-cohort data are not available.
A cost checklist for comparing placements
Count housing, care, transport, administration, repeat crises, and costs shifted to other services or cities. A cheap placement that fails may accomplish less than an expensive one that lasts.
The three July agreements are budgeted at $4,264,673 in FY 2026-27 and $9,535,809 across two fiscal years, and staff say other funding must be found beginning in the third year3. That is the cost of these agreements, not of the City's whole homelessness response, for which no complete total is published.
Results we don't use yet
SaMo Bridge, the diversion hub where police can offer services instead of prosecution, has reported referral and placement figures, but the snapshots we found use different dates and units. We show no placement rate until dates, destinations and retention are reconciled. The July 28 votes above come from minutes not yet approved by Council.
Question 5
How do more people find and keep an affordable home?
TakeawayKeeping a home now and expanding affordable choices over time require different tools.
Helping people leave the street is only part of the problem if others keep losing housing, and affordability matters well beyond people at risk. A temporary income loss may call for timely help; rent that is unaffordable every month may call for ongoing support or a different home. Prevention should be judged by whether people stay housed.
Santa Monica uses several tools at once. Renter Aid offers flexible help to households at or below 80% of area median income8, with up to $6 million over five years9. A County-run pilot is reaching out to 72 households flagged as at risk10. Neither has reported results yet.
Building more homes raises different questions: how many, at what rents, where and how soon. State progress data count 277 homes for very-low and low-income households toward a 2021 to 2029 target of 4,466, against 1,252 of 2,727 above-moderate homes11. A supply strategy must show how it reaches households with very little income; a restrictive one must explain how access improves while homes stay scarce.
Public or nonprofit ownership is another path to lasting affordability. Council has asked staff to study a City-aligned nonprofit developer12; it is a study, not a program. For every approach, ask who benefits, who pays, and what happens to upkeep, displacement and access for newcomers.
Four ways to widen access to a home
| Approach | Who it serves | How it works | Time and cost | Evidence needed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assistance | Renters facing a shortfall or eviction | Cash help and case management | Fast; recurring public cost | Who is still housed a year later |
| Tenant protections | Current renters | Eviction rules and legal counsel | Fast once adopted; enforcement cost | Evictions avoided; effects on supply and upkeep |
| Additional supply | Future residents, including newcomers | More homes, such as ADUs, family-sized units, corridor housing | Years; mostly private cost | Completed homes by income level; displacement |
| Public or nonprofit ownership | Households priced out of the market | Land and homes held for lasting affordability | Years; public capital and subsidy | Cost per home; reach to the lowest incomes |
These approaches can complement one another. The choice is about scale, timing, location and who is served. Supply examples are illustrations, not separate programs.
Housing, building energy and the environment
Where homes go and how buildings use energy are environmental choices as well as housing ones. The City's 2019 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan set a goal of cutting carbon emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2030, with zero net carbon buildings among its strategies13. Staff estimate that existing buildings produce about 33% of the city's annual carbon emissions14.
In 2025 staff proposed a Building Performance Standard requiring the 762 buildings over 20,000 square feet to report energy use and meet targets every five years toward net-zero emissions by 205014. The ordinance was pulled at staff request on September 9, 2025 and never adopted15. Any future standard raises questions this page cares about: who pays for retrofits, whether costs reach tenants, and how rent-controlled buildings are treated.
Location matters too. Homes near jobs and frequent transit make more trips possible without a car, though nearness alone does not guarantee transit use or lower emissions. Development also brings construction impacts and can replace older housing. Travel emissions are examined on the Getting around page.
Approvals, state counts and completed homes
Approvals run ahead of finished homes. City budget measures estimate 115 affordable and 996 market-rate homes granted planning approval in FY 2024-254. The full state target for 2021 to 2029 is 8,895 homes11. The state progress file does not give its reporting cutoff, and we have not confirmed whether its counts are permits or finished homes.
Under the City's off-site pilot, 102 affordable units once required inside six market-rate projects became 93 units to be built elsewhere, plus one in-lieu fee16. More housing may start sooner, while the affordable homes arrive later and in different places.
Tenant protections and the November ballot
In March 2025 Council directed $2 million toward expanding Right to Counsel eviction defense with five more attorneys8. We found no record of how many tenants the expansion has served. Rent control and most eviction rules sit in the City Charter and are administered by the separately elected Rent Control Board; three charter measures on eviction protections are on the November 3, 2026 ballot17.
Question 6
Which candidates reflect this approach?
Our position: help should suit the person receiving it; success means lasting housing, not only a cleared block; safety and agency both deserve proportionate attention; approaches should be compared by full cost; and prevention and housing delivery should be judged by results.
Several choices remain open, and we do not grade on them: the responder mix, when compulsory intervention is justified, local or regional placement, temporary or direct permanent placement, and the balance of assistance, protections, supply and ownership. On these we compare reasoning, not conclusions.
The comparison covers all 12 candidates. Homelessness and housing affordability stay separately visible, and the quality of each public case is judged apart from alignment with our commitments. Silence in the sources we reviewed is not opposition. These assessments are drafts, not yet reviewed or sent to campaigns.
Our assessments of each candidate are published after every campaign has had 72 hours to review them and respond. Each candidate's approach, public evidence and open questions are below.
Phil BrockSpecific commitments found on reviewed site · Has served on the council; votes reviewed
Homelessness
Approach: No 2026 campaign commitment on this subtopic was reviewed. On the council (Dec 2020-Dec 2024) he offered a 2021 budget substitute restoring West Coast Care outreach to its 2019 level of $260,000, paid for by cutting the City Attorney's budget by $70,000 (failed, 2-3); moved the May 2022 endorsement of three investments: a larger police Homeless Liaison team, an extra multidisciplinary street team outside Downtown and the beach, and after-hours SAMOSHEL intakes, with a study of relocating SAMOSHEL (6-0); and moved the February 2023 Local Emergency on Homelessness. He voted for the 2022 ordinance that narrowed the camping ban in line with then-current case law, and in September 2024, after Grants Pass, for repealing those changes, which restored sleeping bags and bedrolls as evidence of illegal camping (4-3). (Relationship to current policy unclear.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: The 2024 bedding rule he supported was reversed by the current council in 2025 (Ordinance 2804); added outreach teams and Homeless Liaison officers are recurring costs for a General Fund with little room.
A question to ask: What would you do about people living outside in Santa Monica, and how would you know it worked?
Public evidence (7)
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember Negrete, to endorse three key investments for FY2022-23 budget consideration: expanding the Santa Monica Police Department (SMPD) Homeless Liaison Program (HLP) Team); creating an additional multidisciplinary street team to provide coverage outside of the Downtown Santa Monica and beach areas; and redesigning the SAMOSHEL program scope to facilitate after-hours intakes for City referrals, with the amendment to look at a possible relocation of SAMOSHEL. AYES: Councilmembers Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Parra.vote · minutes 2022-05-11 printed p. 4, homelessness study session · 2022-05-11 · source
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Parra, to adopt the staff recommendation of options 2 and 3, repealing changes made in 2022 to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.05.095 [sic], prohibition against camping in public places, to comply with the Ninth Circuit's Grants Pass ruling; and to give direction to continue to monitor what other cities are doing and return with additional options. AYES: Councilmembers Parra, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, Mayor Brock. NOES: Councilmembers Zwick, Davis, Torosis. ABSENT: None. (Per the Feb 25, 2025 staff report, pp. 2–3, the repeal restored sleeping bags and bedrolls to the items that define a camp facility.)vote · minutes 2024-09-10 printed pp. 6–7, item 8.A · 2024-09-10 · source
11.A. Adoption of Proclamation of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness ... Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was approved by voice vote, with all Councilmembers present.vote · minutes 2023-02-14 printed p. 9, item 11.A (Local Emergency on Homelessness) · 2023-02-14 · source
Emergency Ordinance No. 2728 (CCS) amending SMMC 4.08.095, Prohibition Against Camping in Public Places, to clarify: (1) the applicability of the section's prohibitions in line with recent case law; and (2) the definition of "Camp Facility." Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Councilmember de la Torre ... AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. (These are the 2022 changes repealed on Sep 10, 2024.)vote · minutes 2022-11-15 printed p. 11, item 10.A (Emergency Ordinance 2728, camping) · 2022-11-15 · source
Substitute motion by Authority/Councilmember Brock, seconded by Authority/Councilmember de la Torre, to adopt ... the FY 2021-23 Biennial Budgets ... With the amendments to restore West Coast Care to 2019 levels to $260,000, add $20,000 to the Neighborhood Associations budget, and defund the City Attorney's Office by $70,000 to fund these increases. The substitute motion failed: AYES: de la Torre, Brock; NOES: Davis, McCowan, Himmelrich; ABSTAIN: Parra. The original motion (McCowan/Davis), with an amendment directing $1 million of ARPA funds to clean and safe services at the Pier, beach and Esplanade, was approved: AYES: Parra, Davis, Brock, de la Torre, McCowan, Himmelrich. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.vote · minutes 2021-06-22 printed pp. 11-12, item 9.B (FY 2021-23 biennial budget) · 2021-06-22 · source
Motion by Authority/Councilmember Torosis, seconded by Authority/Councilmember Zwick, to adopt ... the FY 2023-25 Biennial Budget ... Authority/Councilmember Brock proposed an amendment to fund the $1,300 to keep the Montana Library open for the neighborhood groups ... transferred from the Council's discretionary fund. The City Manager reported that the Library will absorb this cost ... The amendment was withdrawn. Authority/Councilmember Brock proposed a friendly amendment to allocate more money to the Police Department in the amount of $500,000 ... After hearing from the Chief, the amendment was withdrawn. ... AYES: de la Torre, Torosis, Brock, Parra, Zwick, Negrete, Davis. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Then: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to adopt the staff recommendations 4 through 17 and 19 [incl. the Homeless Strategic Plan engagement] ... approved 7-0.vote · minutes 2023-06-27 printed pp. 10-12, item 12.A (FY 2023-25 biennial budget) · 2023-06-27 · source
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Mayor Davis, to approve funding the Growing Place at the level proposed by staff of $212,500. AYES: Parra, Brock, de la Torre, Negrete, Davis. NOES: None. ABSENT: Torosis, Zwick [Zwick recused, conflict]. Then: Motion by Councilmember de la Torre, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to approve the staff recommendation and approve funding recommendations for FY 2023-27 Human Services Grants Program (HSGP), and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute grant agreements. AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Parra, Zwick, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, Mayor Davis. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Torosis.vote · minutes 2023-05-09 printed pp. 6-7, item 11.B (FY 2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) · 2023-05-09 · source
Affordable homes
Approach: Continue expanding the POD program of last-gap rent subsidies for seniors, paid partly from economic 'rebirth'; restrict further growth, seek to restore local control from the state, and organize opposition to a larger RHNA allocation in 2028–2029; clarify which areas face zoning changes. (Continues current city policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: POD costs about $3 million a year from a Housing Trust Fund the General Fund still owes; restricting growth runs against state Housing Element obligations (8,895 homes) the Council cannot waive, so most of this depends on the Legislature.
A question to ask: How many more seniors would POD reach under your plan, from which fund, and how would you show they stay housed?
Public evidence (5)
"We must continue to expand the POD program, which supplies last-gap rent subsidies to seniors in need."promise · Brock #4 · 2026-09-27 · source
"further growth must be restricted" / "Stop the state overreach — restore local control." / "We must speak out as a united community against further density when Sacramento starts to assign the next RHNA allotments in 2028–2029"promise · Brock #17 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Clarify exactly which areas, if any, would be subject to zoning changes — and on what timeline — so property owners can plan with confidence."promise · Brock #18 · 2026-09-27 · source
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to adopt Resolution No. 11371 (CCS) entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADOPTING THE 6TH CYCLE (2021-2029) HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN," including the five programs, one policy change, and one amendment voted on previously. AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Parra, Mayor Himmelrich. NOES: Councilmember Davis, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan. ABSENT: None. Earlier: Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to approve the staff recommendation for Program 1.K. ... to establish that City-owned sites are allowed 100 percent residential use and require residential use to occupy at least 50 percent of the floor area (7-0); Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Brock, for Program 1.J., feasible FARs for housing projects range from a minimum 2.75 to 3.25 with heights ranging from 55 feet to 65 feet (5-2, Davis and McCowan no).vote · minutes 2021-10-12 printed pp. 10-14, item 8.A (6th Cycle Housing Element) · 2021-10-12 · source
Motion by Mayor Brock, seconded by Councilmember Torosis, to adopt the staff recommendation, as corrected [introduce an ordinance amending the City's Tenant Protection Code, Housing Anti-Discrimination Code, Tenant Harassment Code, and Tenant Buyout Agreements Code; consider directing a Charter amendment on just causes for eviction], and request the Rent Control Board provide assistance drafting the Charter Amendment. AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Parra, Davis, Torosis, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, Mayor Brock. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.vote · minutes 2024-01-23 printed pp. 10-11, item 10.B (Tenant Protection Laws) · 2024-01-23 · source
Lindsay DavisSpecific commitments found on reviewed site
Homelessness
Approach: Offer an all-in-one mobile shelter unit (sleep, sanitation, water, power, privacy) at about $1,250–$1,450 each, backed by city service stations for refills, repairs and housing support; expand choices beyond traditional housing (tiny homes, ecovillages); create a three-digit help line with volunteer matching. (New relative to current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Where units could be used is governed by the camping prohibition and pending vehicle-habitation rules, so the program needs ordinance changes; service stations would draw on a General Fund with little room, and unit count drives total cost.
A question to ask: Where would people use these mobile shelters, and how would someone in one move into permanent housing?
Public evidence (2)
Roam Home: "A durable, all-in-one mobile shelter with sleep, sanitation, clean water, power, and privacy — plus city service stations for refills, repairs, and housing support." / "Some may thrive in traditional housing. Others may dream of ecovillages, tiny homes, or nature-centered communities. The goal is to expand choices"promise · Davis #1 · 2026-09-27 · source
111 network: "a universal needs and community support network for Santa Monica: three-digit access to human help, volunteer matching, and peer fellowship"promise · Davis #2 · 2026-09-27 · source
Affordable homes
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What would you do to help residents keep or find a home they can afford, and how would you measure it?
Eli GillSpecific commitments found on reviewed site
Homelessness
Approach: Tie every dollar to measurable results (people housed, people treated, public spaces restored); push LA County through a regional strategy to carry its share; enforce a clear public-order standard for parks, sidewalks and public drug use. (Expands current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Most treatment and homelessness funding sits with LA County, which the City can only lobby; what 'set and hold a clear standard' changes from existing ordinances is not said.
A question to ask: Would you count someone as 'housed' when they are placed, or only if they are still housed a year later?
Public evidence (3)
"Accountability for outcomes. … Every dollar spent should be tied to a measurable result: people housed, people treated, public spaces restored."promise · Gill #4 · 2026-09-27 · source
"A regional homelessness strategy. Santa Monica should be at the table pushing Los Angeles County to carry its share."promise · Gill #3 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Enforcing baseline public order. Parks are for everyone. Sidewalks are for walking. Drug use in public spaces is not acceptable. The city needs to set and hold a clear standard."promise · Gill #1 · 2026-09-27 · source
Affordable homes
Approach: Lower development fees and make permitting fast and predictable; add more homes in more places through ADUs, infill and transit-adjacent density without demolishing existing neighborhoods. (Changes or reverses current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Development fees fund affordable housing and parks; cutting them shifts cost to those programs unless replaced, and no amount or replacement is named.
A question to ask: Which fees would you lower, by how much, and what would replace the affordable housing and park money they raise?
Public evidence (3)
"Lower fees and faster permitting. Development fees in Santa Monica are among the highest in the region. … We need a system that is fast, predictable, and affordable to navigate so that building homes here is actually feasible."promise · Gill #11 · 2026-09-27 · source
"More homes in more places. … We should be adding homes here, not rationing them."promise · Gill #10 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Using every tool and incentive available. ADUs, infill development, transit-adjacent density: proven ways to add housing without bulldozing existing neighborhoods."promise · Gill #12 · 2026-09-27 · source
Daniel IvanovNo specific commitments found on reviewed site
Homelessness
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What would you do about people living outside in Santa Monica, and how would you know it worked?
Affordable homes
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What would you do to help residents keep or find a home they can afford, and how would you measure it?
Wade KelleyNo campaign site found in September review
Homelessness
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What would you do about people living outside in Santa Monica, and how would you know it worked?
Affordable homes
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What would you do to help residents keep or find a home they can afford, and how would you measure it?
Ericka LesleySpecific commitments found on reviewed site
Homelessness
Approach: Expand access to permanent supportive housing, mental health care and substance use treatment. (Expands current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Treatment is mainly County-run and permanent supportive housing needs capital and operating subsidy; neither source is named.
A question to ask: How many more supportive homes would you add, paid for by whom, and how would you track whether people stay housed?
Public evidence (1)
"That means expanding access to permanent supportive housing, mental health care, and substance use treatment"promise · Lesley #3 · 2026-09-27 · source
Affordable homes
Approach: Expand deed-restricted affordable housing, particularly on publicly owned land. (Expands current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Building on City land needs subsidy (Measure GS is restricted and contested); the four Downtown City sites have no affordable share set yet.
A question to ask: On which public sites, at what income levels and how many homes, and what would you trade off to fund them?
Public evidence (1)
"expanding deed-restricted affordable housing—particularly on publicly owned land"promise · Lesley #2 · 2026-09-27 · source
Brett MorrowSpecific commitments found on reviewed site
Homelessness
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What would you do about people living outside in Santa Monica, and how would you know it worked?
Affordable homes
Approach: Keep renters housed by protecting rent control, enforcing anti-harassment and illegal-eviction laws, and continuing the $6 million renter assistance program; extend rent help to families; build more homes Downtown, on commercial corridors and near E Line stations, ease adaptive reuse and small infill, and speed approvals. (Continues current city policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Extending monthly help to families and to childcare has no amount or fund; Measure GS can pay rent help but not childcare, and the General Fund has little room. Rent control itself is run by the separately elected Rent Control Board.
A question to ask: How would you tell whether the renter assistance program keeps families housed a year later, and what would you change if it does not?
Public evidence (4)
"That means protecting rent control, enforcing laws against tenant harassment and illegal evictions, and helping people through temporary financial setbacks before they become evicted. Santa Monica's new $6 million renter assistance program is exactly the kind of prevention worth investing in."promise · Morrow #3 · 2026-09-27 · source
"We should build more housing Downtown, along our commercial corridors and near E Line stations; make adaptive reuse easier; allow smaller-scale infill throughout the city; and focus on what's especially difficult to find here: family-sized and middle-income housing."promise · Morrow #1 · 2026-09-27 · source
"If it takes years to approve housing, costs go up. We need to move faster and responsibly."promise · Morrow #2 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Right now, 88 families are waiting for assistance through Connections for Children. We should help clear that backlog and expand programs like "Preserving Our Diversity" to help families struggling to pay rent and childcare every month."promise · Morrow #4 · 2026-09-27 · source
Lana NegreteSpecific commitments found on reviewed site · Has served on the council; votes reviewed
Homelessness
Approach: Pair housing with guaranteed mental health and addiction services, and continue a locally responsive system of care that connects people experiencing homelessness with appropriate treatment and services. On the council she moved the 2023 renewal of County C3 outreach, a multidisciplinary street team and the Exodus STEP program (5-0) and the March 2026 direction to design a City-controlled, housing-first system of care to replace the SaMoShel model (6-0); in July 2026 she voted for the Palm Motel and non-congregate interim housing plan, moved to prioritize properties outside Santa Monica (no second recorded), and voted against requiring SaMoShel to stay open until the site search returns. In September 2024 she moved the ordinance restoring sleeping bags and bedrolls as evidence of illegal camping (4-3). (Continues current city policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Treatment capacity is run mainly by LA County, so a city 'guarantee' depends on County services and funding the statement does not identify.
A question to ask: What does 'guarantee' mean in practice, who pays for the treatment, and how would you report whether people stay housed?
Public evidence (10)
"Working to guarantee mental health and drug addiction services alongside housing that heals." / "Lana continues to advocate for a locally responsive system of care that connects people experiencing homelessness with appropriate treatment and services"promise · Negrete #3 · 2026-09-27 · source
Annual Interdepartmental Update on Addressing Homelessness, including agreements with the County for C3 Homeless Outreach Teams (not to exceed $5,040,000 over four years), The People Concern for a Homeless Multidisciplinary Street Team ($2,400,000) and Exodus Recovery for the STEP program ($400,000). Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, seconded by Mayor Davis, to adopt the entire staff recommendation. AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Zwick, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, Mayor Davis. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmembers Torosis, Parra.vote · minutes 2023-05-09 printed pp. 8–10, item 11.A · 2023-05-09 · source
21. To direct staff to conduct housing-first system of care community outreach [the 'City-controlled, housing-first system of care' to replace the SaMoShel and Access Center model]. Motion by Councilmember Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya, to approve the staff recommendation. AYES: Councilmembers Negrete, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, Mayor Torosis. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Hall (excused).vote · minutes 2026-03-24 printed p. 17, item 21 · 2026-03-24 · source
Housing Focused System of Care: Palm Motel interim stabilization housing, Bell Shelter beds, an RFEI for non-congregate interim housing 'in and around Santa Monica' and transition away from SaMoShel's congregate shelter concurrent with the RFEI. 'Motion by Councilmember Negrete, that for Policy decision #3 to prioritize properties outside of Santa Monica' (no second or vote recorded). Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to adopt the staff recommendation, with direction ... keeping the RFEI as broad as possible, with the incorporation of the direction to deprioritize the Pico neighborhood. AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, Mayor Torosis. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Hall (recused: lives near the downtown SaMoShel).vote · minutes 2026-07-28 (NOT APPROVED) printed pp. 12–14, item 11.B · 2026-07-28 · source
Request of Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, and Councilmember Raskin: 'We also support the replacement of the congregate housing model at Samoshel with other models of emergency shelter and interim housing that are better suited for the needs of our city and those exiting homelessness. However, we do not support closing Samoshel without a further developed plan to replace its capacity.' Motion by Councilmember Raskin, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, to clarify ... that we do not demobilize SanMoShel until after the RFEI process comes back to us. AYES: Councilmembers Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick. NOES: Councilmembers Negrete, Mayor Torosis. ABSENT: Councilmember Hall. Negrete: 'an unnecessary motion because staff has already laid out the entire plan.' Torosis: 'supports concurrently demobilizing after we get the replacement plan.'vote · minutes 2026-07-28 (NOT APPROVED) printed pp. 14–15, item 16.F · 2026-07-28 · source
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Parra, to adopt the staff recommendation of options 2 and 3, repealing changes made in 2022 to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.05.095 [sic], prohibition against camping in public places, to comply with the Ninth Circuit's Grants Pass ruling; and to give direction to continue to monitor what other cities are doing and return with additional options. AYES: Councilmembers Parra, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, Mayor Brock. NOES: Councilmembers Zwick, Davis, Torosis. ABSENT: None. (Per the Feb 25, 2025 staff report, pp. 2–3, the repeal restored sleeping bags and bedrolls to the items that define a camp facility.)vote · minutes 2024-09-10 printed pp. 6–7, item 8.A · 2024-09-10 · source
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember Negrete, to endorse three key investments for FY2022-23 budget consideration: expanding the SMPD Homeless Liaison Program (HLP) Team; creating an additional multidisciplinary street team to provide coverage outside of the Downtown Santa Monica and beach areas; and redesigning the SAMOSHEL program scope to facilitate after-hours intakes for City referrals, with the amendment to look at a possible relocation of SAMOSHEL. AYES: Councilmembers Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Parra.vote · minutes 2022-05-11 printed p. 4, item 8.A, homelessness study session · 2022-05-11 · source
11.A. Adoption of Proclamation of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness ... Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was approved by voice vote, with all Councilmembers present.vote · minutes 2023-02-14 printed p. 9, item 11.A (Local Emergency on Homelessness) · 2023-02-14 · source
Emergency Ordinance No. 2728 (CCS) amending SMMC 4.08.095, Prohibition Against Camping in Public Places, to clarify: (1) the applicability of the section's prohibitions in line with recent case law; and (2) the definition of "Camp Facility." Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Councilmember de la Torre ... AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. (These are the 2022 changes repealed on Sep 10, 2024.)vote · minutes 2022-11-15 printed p. 11, item 10.A (Emergency Ordinance 2728, camping) · 2022-11-15 · source
Motion by Authority/Councilmember Torosis, seconded by Authority/Councilmember Zwick, to adopt ... the FY 2023-25 Biennial Budget ... Authority/Councilmember Brock proposed an amendment to fund the $1,300 to keep the Montana Library open for the neighborhood groups ... transferred from the Council's discretionary fund. The City Manager reported that the Library will absorb this cost ... The amendment was withdrawn. Authority/Councilmember Brock proposed a friendly amendment to allocate more money to the Police Department in the amount of $500,000 ... After hearing from the Chief, the amendment was withdrawn. ... AYES: de la Torre, Torosis, Brock, Parra, Zwick, Negrete, Davis. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Then: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to adopt the staff recommendations 4 through 17 and 19 [incl. the Homeless Strategic Plan engagement] ... approved 7-0.vote · minutes 2023-06-27 printed pp. 10-12, item 12.A (FY 2023-25 biennial budget) · 2023-06-27 · source
Affordable homes
Approach: No 2026 campaign position reviewed. On the council in July 2022 she proposed raising the city's transfer-tax measure from $20 to $30 per $1,000 above $8 million and sending the difference entirely to affordable housing projects, with a 15-20 year sunset; the proposal was not taken up, and she voted for the measure as amended (6-1). She also voted for the 2021 Housing Element and the 2024 tenant-protection ordinance.
Tradeoff or open dependency: A higher transfer tax dedicated to affordable housing would raise more for homes but fall on large property sales and narrow what the revenue could cover elsewhere; her proposal did not say how many homes it would fund.
A question to ask: What would you do to help residents keep or find a home they can afford, and how would you measure it?
Public evidence (3)
Councilmember Negrete proposed an amendment to the recommendation to adjust from $20 per thousand dollars to $30 per thousand dollars and direct the difference will go 100 percent to affordable housing projects, and that the sunset should be increase to 15 or 20 years instead of 10 years. Motion by Councilmember Brock, to amend the measure by adding a 10-year sunset clause, the city council could approve a 5-year extension, with a Supermajority vote; make the amount $23 per thousand dollars; part of the Advisory measure $7 per thousand of the money to provide housing assistance and increase the POD program for seniors. Councilmember Davis, seconded the motion, with amendments, at least 30 percent of the proceeds would go to programs to housing assistance and address housing displacement ... proposed $25 per thousand dollars ... accepted as friendly by the maker. AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan. NOES: Mayor Himmelrich. ABSENT: None. Councilmember Brock agreed to write the Argument in Favor of this measure.vote · minutes 2022-07-26 printed pp. 11-13, item 11.B (Resolution 11450, transfer tax / Measure CS) · 2022-07-26 · source
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to adopt Resolution No. 11371 (CCS) entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADOPTING THE 6TH CYCLE (2021-2029) HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN," including the five programs, one policy change, and one amendment voted on previously. AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Parra, Mayor Himmelrich. NOES: Councilmember Davis, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan. ABSENT: None. Earlier: Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to approve the staff recommendation for Program 1.K. ... to establish that City-owned sites are allowed 100 percent residential use and require residential use to occupy at least 50 percent of the floor area (7-0); Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Brock, for Program 1.J., feasible FARs for housing projects range from a minimum 2.75 to 3.25 with heights ranging from 55 feet to 65 feet (5-2, Davis and McCowan no).vote · minutes 2021-10-12 printed pp. 10-14, item 8.A (6th Cycle Housing Element) · 2021-10-12 · source
Motion by Mayor Brock, seconded by Councilmember Torosis, to adopt the staff recommendation, as corrected [introduce an ordinance amending the City's Tenant Protection Code, Housing Anti-Discrimination Code, Tenant Harassment Code, and Tenant Buyout Agreements Code; consider directing a Charter amendment on just causes for eviction], and request the Rent Control Board provide assistance drafting the Charter Amendment. AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Parra, Davis, Torosis, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, Mayor Brock. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.vote · minutes 2024-01-23 printed pp. 10-11, item 10.B (Tenant Protection Laws) · 2024-01-23 · source
Ashley OelsenSpecific commitments found on reviewed site
Homelessness
Approach: Tie every homelessness dollar to measurable outcomes; do not renew providers that cannot show results or accept independent review; adopt citywide siting guidelines for supportive housing (proximity standards, community notification, operator vetting, clinical appropriateness, annual public reporting on outcomes, fiscal efficiency and safety); enforce Good Neighbor Agreements and MOUs; terminate shelter agreements after failed inspections or repeated complaints. (New relative to current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: State law limits local siting rules for supportive housing in some zones, and County programs need County agreement to enforceable MOUs; terminating shelter agreements needs replacement beds.
A question to ask: Which outcomes would decide whether a provider is renewed, and where would residents go if a shelter's agreement were terminated?
Public evidence (4)
"Every dollar spent on homelessness must be tied to a measurable outcome. Contracts with service providers that cannot demonstrate results should not be renewed." / "Providers that cannot show measurable outcomes, transparent funding, and a willingness to submit to independent review should not be renewed or expanded."promise · Oelsen #2 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Clear, citywide guidelines are needed for how and where supportive housing is sited, with proximity standards, mandatory community notification, transparent vetting of operators, clinical appropriateness requirements, and annual public reporting on outcomes, fiscal efficiency, and public safety impacts."promise · Oelsen #1 · 2026-09-27 · source
"That authority must be exercised through Good Neighbor Agreements, enforceable MOUs, and clear performance benchmarks. Programs posing documented safety concerns or persistent harm to residents must be correctable, suspendable, and terminable." / "restore local control over our human services"promise · Oelsen #7 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Shelters and bridge housing facilities operating in Santa Monica must meet basic safety and operational standards. Facilities that fail inspections or generate repeated neighbor complaints must be brought into compliance or their operating agreements terminated."promise · Oelsen #6 · 2026-09-27 · source
Affordable homes
Approach: Close the off-site affordable housing pilot so the 15% affordable share is built on-site; strengthen enforcement of tenant protections and publish rent board resources in plain language; oppose Ellis Act use for luxury redevelopment and require a replacement unit before a rent-controlled unit is demolished; give small landlords tax relief and compliance support. (Changes or reverses current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Closing the off-site pilot may leave stalled approved projects unbuilt; small-landlord tax relief would be a General Fund payment or fee change, since property tax is set by the state.
A question to ask: If the off-site pilot is closed, how many affordable homes would actually be built in its place, and when?
Public evidence (4)
"Developers required to build 15% affordable housing on-site should build it on-site. The city's off-site pilot program lets them write a check instead. … It should be closed."promise · Oelsen #5 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Strengthen enforcement of existing tenant protections. Make rent board resources available in plain language."promise · Oelsen #8 · 2026-09-27 · source
"The Ellis Act was not designed to clear the way for luxury development … Any use of it for that purpose should be opposed at every stage. When a rent-controlled unit is lost, a replacement must be required before demolition proceeds."promise · Oelsen #4 · 2026-09-27 · source
"The city should provide tax relief and compliance support to keep small landlords viable."promise · Oelsen #3 · 2026-09-27 · source
Caroline TorosisNo specific commitments found on reviewed site · Has served on the council; votes reviewed
Homelessness
Approach: No campaign commitment on this subtopic was reviewed; her site lists past actions. On the council she voted against restoring sleeping bags and bedrolls as camping evidence in 2024, then co-requested and moved adoption of the 2025 ordinance removing them from the camping ban's definition of a camp (tents and other shelters stay banned); moved receipt of the 2025–2030 Homelessness Strategic Plan and adoption of the 2025 Realignment Plan, which relocates SAMOSHEL under a 'healing center' model; co-requested a public scorecard tracking shelter, interim and permanent housing outcomes; and co-requested the July 2026 statement that SAMOSHEL's congregate model should be replaced only with a developed plan to replace its capacity. (Continues current city policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Keeping SAMOSHEL open until replacement capacity exists means paying for the congregate shelter and new sites at once; the July 2026 agreements total about $9.5M, with other sources needed from year three (July 28, 2026 report).
A question to ask: How would you report whether people placed through the new system are still housed after 6 and 12 months, and what result would make you change course?
Public evidence (9)
16.K. Request of Councilmembers Hall, Snell, and Mayor Pro Tempore Torosis for Council to direct the City Attorney to return with an ordinance that amends Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.095 prohibiting certain comfort items for unhoused individuals, was approved. (Items 16.J through 16.N approved on motion by Mayor Negrete, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, by unanimous voice vote with all members present.)vote · minutes 2025-01-28 printed pp. 17–18, item 16.K · 2025-01-28 · source
Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2804 (CCS) to Amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.095, Prohibition Against Camping in Public Places, was adopted [omitting sleeping bags and bedrolls from the definition of 'camp facility']. Consent Calendar: motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Raskin. AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Zwick, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis. NOES: None. ABSENT: Mayor Negrete.vote · minutes 2025-03-11 printed pp. 2, 5, consent item 4.I · 2025-03-11 · source
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Parra, to adopt the staff recommendation of options 2 and 3, repealing changes made in 2022 to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.05.095 [sic], prohibition against camping in public places, to comply with the Ninth Circuit's Grants Pass ruling; and to give direction to continue to monitor what other cities are doing and return with additional options. AYES: Councilmembers Parra, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, Mayor Brock. NOES: Councilmembers Zwick, Davis, Torosis. ABSENT: None. (Per the Feb 25, 2025 staff report, pp. 2–3, the repeal restored sleeping bags and bedrolls to the items that define a camp facility.)vote · minutes 2024-09-10 printed pp. 6–7, item 8.A · 2024-09-10 · source
Receive Homelessness Strategic Plan [2025-2030] and Renters' Protections Program, approve Human Services Division Reorganization Plan, adopt the 2025 Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Hall, to adopt the staff recommendation ... and to provide staff direction [to return in 60 days with stronger tenant protections during construction and tenant relocation per diem changes]. AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Hall, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis. NOES: None. ABSENT: Mayor Negrete.vote · minutes 2025-03-11 printed pp. 8–9, item 11.A · 2025-03-11 · source
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Hall, to adopt staff recommendation items 1, 3-11, 16-19, removing the gondola. AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Zwick, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.vote · minutes 2025-10-28 printed p. 11, item 11.A (Realignment Plan) · 2025-10-28 · source
16.C. Request of Mayor Torosis, Councilmember Hall, and Councilmember Raskin that the City Council direct the City Manager, in coordination with the City Attorney to establish a Citywide Realignment Performance Framework and public-facing dashboard that organizes outcome and output performance indicators across the Realignment Plan's five priority areas, was approved (Hall/Negrete motion approving 16.C–16.E; AYES: all seven). The request asks for the dashboard 'within 90 days', 'quarterly and annual performance targets for each indicator', and indicators including 'police response times, crime trends (including downtown-specific crime and calls for service) ... shelter placements, interim housing placements, and permanent housing outcomes' and 'number of affordable units in development and completed'.vote · minutes 2025-12-16 printed pp. 15–16, item 16.C; request text pp. 3–4 · 2025-12-16 · source
Request of Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, and Councilmember Raskin: 'We also support the replacement of the congregate housing model at Samoshel with other models of emergency shelter and interim housing that are better suited for the needs of our city and those exiting homelessness. However, we do not support closing Samoshel without a further developed plan to replace its capacity.' Motion by Councilmember Raskin, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, to clarify ... that we do not demobilize SanMoShel until after the RFEI process comes back to us. AYES: Councilmembers Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick. NOES: Councilmembers Negrete, Mayor Torosis. ABSENT: Councilmember Hall. Negrete: 'an unnecessary motion because staff has already laid out the entire plan.' Torosis: 'supports concurrently demobilizing after we get the replacement plan.'vote · minutes 2026-07-28 (NOT APPROVED) printed pp. 14–15, item 16.F · 2026-07-28 · source
Housing Focused System of Care: Palm Motel interim stabilization housing, Bell Shelter beds, an RFEI for non-congregate interim housing 'in and around Santa Monica' and transition away from SaMoShel's congregate shelter concurrent with the RFEI. 'Motion by Councilmember Negrete, that for Policy decision #3 to prioritize properties outside of Santa Monica' (no second or vote recorded). Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to adopt the staff recommendation, with direction ... keeping the RFEI as broad as possible, with the incorporation of the direction to deprioritize the Pico neighborhood. AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, Mayor Torosis. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Hall (recused: lives near the downtown SaMoShel).vote · minutes 2026-07-28 (NOT APPROVED) printed pp. 12–14, item 11.B · 2026-07-28 · source
11.A. Adoption of Proclamation of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness ... Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was approved by voice vote, with all Councilmembers present.vote · minutes 2023-02-14 printed p. 9, item 11.A (Local Emergency on Homelessness) · 2023-02-14 · source
Affordable homes
Approach: No campaign commitment on this subtopic was reviewed; her site lists past actions. On the council she moved the 2024 selection of a developer for affordable housing on three City-owned sites near Wilshire (6-0), moved adoption of the 2025 Renters' Protections Program with direction to strengthen tenant protections during construction (6-0), and co-requested a public scorecard tracking affordable units in development and completed, preserved rent-controlled units and households helped by rental assistance. (Continues current city policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: No completed homes on the three City sites appear in the record yet, and rental assistance has not reported whether assisted households stayed housed.
A question to ask: How many affordable homes on City land will be finished by 2030, and will the scorecard report whether households given rental help are still housed a year later?
Public evidence (4)
Award RFP #365 to Hollywood Community Housing Corporation for the future development of affordable housing on City-owned property at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street and 1146 Sixteenth Street. Motion by Councilmember Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Zwick, to adopt the staff recommendation. AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Torosis, Davis, Parra, Zwick, Mayor Brock. NOES: None. ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Negrete.vote · minutes 2024-03-19 printed pp. 8–9, item 11.A · 2024-03-19 · source
Receive Homelessness Strategic Plan [2025-2030] and Renters' Protections Program, approve Human Services Division Reorganization Plan, adopt the 2025 Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Hall, to adopt the staff recommendation ... and to provide staff direction [to return in 60 days with stronger tenant protections during construction and tenant relocation per diem changes]. AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Hall, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis. NOES: None. ABSENT: Mayor Negrete.vote · minutes 2025-03-11 printed pp. 8–9, item 11.A · 2025-03-11 · source
16.C. Request of Mayor Torosis, Councilmember Hall, and Councilmember Raskin that the City Council direct the City Manager, in coordination with the City Attorney to establish a Citywide Realignment Performance Framework and public-facing dashboard that organizes outcome and output performance indicators across the Realignment Plan's five priority areas, was approved (Hall/Negrete motion approving 16.C–16.E; AYES: all seven). The request asks for the dashboard 'within 90 days', 'quarterly and annual performance targets for each indicator', and indicators including 'police response times, crime trends (including downtown-specific crime and calls for service) ... shelter placements, interim housing placements, and permanent housing outcomes' and 'number of affordable units in development and completed'.vote · minutes 2025-12-16 printed pp. 15–16, item 16.C; request text pp. 3–4 · 2025-12-16 · source
Motion by Mayor Brock, seconded by Councilmember Torosis, to adopt the staff recommendation, as corrected [introduce an ordinance amending the City's Tenant Protection Code, Housing Anti-Discrimination Code, Tenant Harassment Code, and Tenant Buyout Agreements Code; consider directing a Charter amendment on just causes for eviction], and request the Rent Control Board provide assistance drafting the Charter Amendment. AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Parra, Davis, Torosis, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, Mayor Brock. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.vote · minutes 2024-01-23 printed pp. 10-11, item 10.B (Tenant Protection Laws) · 2024-01-23 · source
Derrick TownsendSpecific commitments found on reviewed site
Homelessness
Approach: Replace Housing First with an integrated housing-and-treatment model; mandate treatment for severe mental illness and addiction, using CARE Court, Proposition 36 and LPS conservatorship for people refusing care; pass and strictly enforce sidewalk-obstruction, public drug use and encampment-fire ordinances; expand and fund SaMo Bridge and the Main and Pico diversion hub with more referral pathways, longer follow-up and published outcomes. (Changes or reverses current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: CARE Court and conservatorship run through the County and Superior Court and Prop 36 through the DA; SaMo Bridge depends on a Prop 47 grant with an uncertain end date; state law requires Housing First in state-funded programs.
A question to ask: Who would decide a person must enter treatment, under what safeguards, and how would you report whether they end up housed?
Public evidence (4)
"Replace Housing First with an integrated Housing and Treatment model and implement mandatory treatment for those suffering from severe mental illness and addiction."promise · Townsend #1 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Use CARE Court, Proposition 36, and LPS conservatorship to connect people refusing necessary care with treatment and housing."promise · Townsend #2 · 2026-09-27 · source
"As your city council member, Derrick will expand and fund SaMo Bridge with more referral pathways, longer follow-up, and publicly published outcomes." / "Expand and fund the Main and Pico diversion hub"promise · Townsend #3 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Pass and strictly enforce ordinances targeting sidewalk obstruction, public drug use, and encampment fire hazards. Require regular reports on response times."promise · Townsend #5 · 2026-09-27 · source
Affordable homes
Approach: Lower in-lieu fees for condos, offer density bonuses and parking reductions for family-oriented projects, streamline condos over apartments to shift Downtown toward family-sized ownership homes; require full independent audits of major Housing Trust Fund projects. (Changes or reverses current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Lower in-lieu fees forgo revenue that funds affordable housing; the size of the cut and replacement funding are not stated, and state density-bonus law already sets a floor.
A question to ask: If condo in-lieu fees go down, how would you replace the affordable homes that money would have paid for?
Public evidence (2)
"He will push to lower in-lieu fees for condos, offer density bonuses and parking reductions for family-oriented projects, and streamline approvals for condo buildings over apartment complexes" / "shift development downtown from big-box apartments to family-sized condos"promise · Townsend #16 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Demand full independent audits of major Housing Trust Fund projects. No more rubber-stamping."promise · Townsend #13 · 2026-09-27 · source
Doug TrusslerSpecific commitments found on reviewed site
Homelessness
Approach: Consolidate city-funded providers under one intake and placement system with a shared real-time database and one accountable official; keep SAMOSHEL open until a tested replacement exists and use interim supportive housing as a step to lower-cost long-term housing; immediately house displaced residents without mental illness or addiction; enforce the camping prohibition with ample beds, mainly in low-cost locations inside or outside the city; amend Housing First to allow units outside Santa Monica and require engagement in services to keep housing. (Changes or reverses current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Beds outside the city need other jurisdictions and an unstated budget; state law requires Housing First in state-funded programs, limiting the conditional-housing change.
A question to ask: If someone in housing stops engaging with services, what happens to them, and how would you measure whether they stay housed?
Public evidence (5)
"Consolidate contracts with all city-funded service providers under a single coordinated intake and placement system." / "Use a shared real-time database so outreach workers, shelters, housing providers, and law enforcement all see the same person's status." / "Designate one city official with actual authority over all homelessness-related spending across departments."promise · Trussler #8 · 2026-09-27 · source
"I would only close SAMOSHEL when we have a tested solution to replace it. We need Interim Supportive Housing Units ("ISH") that then allow us to move individuals to longer term, lower cost solutions."promise · Trussler #11 · 2026-09-27 · source
"a Santa Monica resident without mental health or drug addiction who has been displaced from housing should immediately be provided a housing solution."promise · Trussler #10 · 2026-09-27 · source
"The current City Council voted not to enforce it. I will change that" / "We will secure ample capacity for beds to enforce these rules, primarily in low cost locations inside or outside the City."promise · Trussler #7 · 2026-09-27 · source
"The Housing First policy in Santa Monica needs to be amended to: a) Housing First policy where the housing unit might not be in Santa Monica and b) it needs to require engagement in wrap-around services … as a condition to maintaining housing."promise · Trussler #9 · 2026-09-27 · source
Affordable homes
Approach: Produce 500–1,000 affordable homes a year through a leveraged program funded by a proposed Santa Monica public bank that converts city deposits into lending (including tenant purchase), chartered under AB 857 after a viability study, business plan, Council approval, DFPI review and FDIC charter (four to five years); require proportional parks, schools and infrastructure with each new unit; move residential on or next to the mall through entitlement quickly. (Expands current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: The bank needs state and federal charters and four to five years before it lends; until then the 500–1,000 target has no funding, and per-unit subsidy is unknown.
A question to ask: What would each affordable home cost the bank, and what would you build in the four to five years before it exists?
Public evidence (4)
"500 to 1,000 affordable housing units per year — a level this city has never come close to achieving — through a leveraged affordable housing program funded by the instrument I'll describe next." / "Every unit added … must be accompanied by a proportional commitment to the parks, schools, and infrastructure"promise · Trussler #32 · 2026-09-27 · source
"The City could use this bank to fund tenant purchase of affordable housing, instead of renting" / "Chartering a public bank under AB 857 requires a viability study, a public business plan, city council approval, DFPI review, and FDIC chartering. … this is a four to five year process."promise · Trussler #33 · 2026-09-27 · source
"The realistic path forward is more residential on or adjacent to the mall … I will move this through the entitlement process with urgency."promise · Trussler #17 · 2026-09-27 · source
"a Santa Monica resident without mental health or drug addiction who has been displaced from housing should immediately be provided a housing solution."promise · Trussler #10 · 2026-09-27 · source
Answer this policy area's questions yourself, and see how candidates answered.
Inspect our reasoning
Our position
Candidates are assessed against these commitments. Other choices on this page are open, and we compare approaches to them without grading.
- Help offered should suit the person's circumstances, including disability, relationships, work and care needs.
- Judge homelessness responses by lasting housing outcomes, such as housing retention at 6 and 12 months, not by activity counts or cleared locations alone.
- Give proportionate attention to both safety and agency: address urgent danger and persistent harm, and use compulsory measures only on specific legal grounds with safeguards.
- Compare approaches by full costs and lasting outcomes for people with similar needs, including costs shifted to families, other services and other communities.
- Judge prevention and housing delivery by results: households still housed, and completed homes by income level, not payments issued or approvals granted.
- Affordability has to include room for people not yet housed here: more homes, paired with protections for current tenants and subsidy for the lowest incomes. Protecting current renters alone caps affordability at the people who already have a home.
Why we hold these, what they depend on, and what would change our view
Related policy areas
Where this connects
Sources, figures and research notes for this page · All policy areas