1 Vernice Hankins
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 12:56 PM
To: Daniel Galamba; councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: January 25, 2022 City Council Meeting Item 7.F.-Please Oppose Proposed Extension of and Amendment to Interim Zoning Regulations Establishing Increased Thresholds for Administrative Review
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please oppose this Proposed Extension of and Amendment to Interim Zoning Regulations Establishing Increased Thresholds for Administrative Review.
With this proposed extension these projects would have no public hearing except one presented by the developer that really is just a waste of time and a check‐the‐box exercise. I've attended these developer meetings before and all the developer does is just state what they are going to do and then they really just ignore or minimize the concerns of residents. These projects affect the area and residents greatly and they should go through the full City public hearing process and not just be swept under the rug by Administrative Review that I understand can not be appealed. Also I understand that the proposed project at Lincoln and Ocean Park Blvds would only go through Administrative Review even though they involve five story buildings. This is completely unacceptable and cuts your constituents out of the decision making process. The City Council should represent the interests of residents, not developers using Administrative Review to silence the legitimate interests of residents. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 4:09 PM
To: Sue Himmelrich; KRISTIN MCCOWAN; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems
Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta Subject: City Cnl. 1/25/22 -- Item 7F - Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) Board urges the City Council to REMOVE TIER 2 PROJECTS from this IZO which has them approved via an AA and RETURNS THEMTO THE PRIOR DR process
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
The Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) urges the City Council to remove TIER 2 projects from this IZO, which has them approved by the Administrative Approval (AA) process and return them to the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (DR) approval process. The Administrative Approval (AA) process only requires that these Tier 2 projects be approved by the Planning Department staff, with no public hearings at either the Planning Commission or City Council and CANNOT BE APPEALED. The DR process includes hearings before the Planning Commission and possible appeal to the City Council, if the projects seem to be inconsistent with the LUCE or Zoning Ordinances.
A clear example of why TIER 2 projects should be removed from the IZO as an Administrative Approval process is the "Lincoln Center" project at Lincoln and Ocean Park Blvd. The proposed project consists of:
Ten buildings on the property of up to five stories with heights of 55 to 65 feet 521 apartments with 90% being market rate and only 10% being affordable; certainly not in support of what residents wanted to see with the passage of Proposition R in 1990 (Prop. R mandated that 30% of newly constructed multifamily housing be affordable to low- and moderate- income households) Of the calculated 468 market rate units, it appears that 410 are studio and 1 bedroom apartments. 36,000 square feet of retail, including a smaller grocery store. Gelson is currently 42,000 square feet 880 vehicle parking spaces, with only 200 now and 816 bicycle parking spaces o Currently Lincoln Boulevard has about 50,000 daily car trips o As part of the Vision Zero effort, a study of the most "lethal" intersections was conducted and the Lincoln/Ocean Park intersection was 2nd on that list with two fatalities and one severe injury.
Why would the city as part of Vision Zero, general car/pedestrian/cyclist safety and traffic impact on neighborhoods (Sunset and Ocean Park) and Lincoln Blvd. (main artery into/out of city including to LAX) not mandate a traffic study?
The Administrative Approval application form says nothing about notifying the neighborhood organization about the required "community meeting" which has to be held before the application is Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
2 submitted. The LUCE states that "Preserve Existing Neighborhoods. The highest priority of the community was the preservation of the existing character and scale of Santa Monica’s neighborhoods." How can this be done if the neighborhoods are not included? Finally, the 2010 LUCE states the following:
Current Challenges: Over the last 25 years, since the adoption of the 1984 LUCE, unanticipated issues have resulted, including:
Increased traffic congestion
Commercial buildings that do not transition well to adjacent residential neighborhoods The loss of existing affordable and workforce housing in multi-family neighborhoods Infill residential buildings which are out of scale with their existing neighborhoods Architectural design that does not contribute to the City’s rich urban character The lack of green space, open space and landscaped boulevards AND
HOW THE LUCE IMPLEMENTS THE COMMUNITY’s CORE VALUES
Preserves the scale and character of all residential neighborhoods, the Beach and Oceanfront District, and neighborhood commercial areas such as Main Street and Montana Avenue. Incentivizes the production of new housing opportunities and local-serving uses, in place of regionalserving commercial growth, in a small number of areas linked to transit. Encourages complete neighborhoods with shopping, services, and gathering places within walking distance of new and existing housing.
Integrates traffic management and land use though a target of No Net New Evening Peak Period Vehicle Trips.
Seeks new opportunities to enhance and create green spaces including: improvements to pedestrian and bicycle connections, freeway capping, beach greening, and ground floor open spaces as parts of new development.
Creates a diverse economic base that supports the fiscal health of the City, ensuring a high-quality of public services.
Requires community benefits such as open space, historic preservation, arts, and affordable and workforce housing for development above the ministerial base height. Provides for a greater community role in determining the physical nature and urban form of the City to ensure that Santa Monica maintains its unique “beach town” culture. Provides tools, including financial incentives, to preserve historic buildings. Phases development over the twenty-year length of the plan, keeping change in sync with transportation improvements.
Ties long-term programs and policies to the Sustainable City Plan to reduce GHG emissions, per capita carbon footprint, and overall impact on the environment.
We urge the city to return to the neighborhood focus and balanced aspect of the LUCE and allow community input and options for our city.
Thank-you
Board of Directors
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 9:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems; councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta; David Martin Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council 1/25/22 item 7-F -- OPPOSE extending the IZO
EXTERNAL
January 24, 2022
To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members
From: Zina Josephs, on behalf of the Friends of Sunset Park Board of Directors RE: 1/25/22 agenda item 7-F -- Extending the IZO for Administrative Approval We support Administrative Approval only for 100% affordable housing projects.
The FOSP Board approved the letter below over the weekend, under the impression that the proposed "Lincoln Center" project at the Gelson's site was considered a "Tier 2" project.
Today, we received the results of a public records request -- the preliminary application for Administrative Approval for the Gelson's project. To our surprise and dismay, we discovered that this gigantic project supposedly qualifies for "Tier 1" -- All of this somehow fits within the Tier 1 category:
Total square footage: 874, 385 sq ft
Number of buildings: 10
Height: up to 5-stories/65 feet
Number of apartments: 521 (90% market-rate, 10% affordable) Parking: 880 vehicle parking spaces (up from about 200)
Based upon this preliminary application, the FOSP Board now opposes Administrative Approval for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects.
That leaves 100% affordable projects.
They have not required Planning Commission hearings in the past, but if continuing that requires extension of a modified IZO, we would not oppose that, as long as they're still required to hold 2 community meetings AND notify the city-recognized neighborhood organization for the area where the project is located.
Unfortunately, the Administrative Approval application form requires only 1 community meeting and says nothing about notifying neighborhood organizations -- a transparency failure.
And if the Gelson's developers are allowed to get away with submitting their application after only one community meeting, in which only 100 people (including the development team) were allowed to participate, it will make a complete this sham of this "public process." Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
2 Thank you for your consideration.
**************************************************************************
Agenda: https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com//Citizens/detail_meeting.aspx?ID=1289 January 23, 2022
To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 1/23/22 agenda item 7-F: Staff recommends that the City Council introduce and adopt an emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance to extend interim regulations authorizing 100% affordable housing projects and Tier 2 housing projects subject to the Housing Accountability Act to be reviewed through an Administrative Approval process.
The FOSP Board urges the Council to remove Tier 2 projects from this Interim Zoning Ordinance and return them to the prior Development Review approval process, which would include hearings before the Planning Commission and possible appeal to the City Council, if the projects seem to be inconsistent with the LUCE or the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed “Lincoln Center” project on the Gelson’s site at the intersection of Lincoln Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd. supposedly qualifies as a “Tier 2” project.
The developer’s Demolition Permit will be automatically approved on January 25, when the 75-day waiting period ends.
The developer is applying for “Administrative Approval,” which means that the project could be approved by Planning Department staff, with no public hearings at either Planning Commission or City Council. In addition, Administrative Approvals cannot be appealed.
The proposed project consists of:
-10 buildings -- up to 5-stories, with heights of 55 to 65 feet -521 apartments (90% market-rate, 10% affordable)
-The market-rate units will include about 410 studio and 1-bedroom apartments. -36,000 sq ft of retail, including a smaller grocery store (Gelson’s is now 42,000 sq ft) -880 vehicle parking spaces (only about 200 now) and 816 bicycle parking spaces Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
3 Despite the fact the Lincoln Blvd. has about 50,000 daily car trips, and the intersection has been the scene of many traffic accidents, no traffic study is required before Administrative Approval.
In addition, the Administrative Approval application form says nothing about notifying the neighborhood organization about the required “Community Meeting” which has to be held before the application is submitted. With the January 11 community meeting for the “Lincoln Center” project, only 100 people, including the development team, were allowed into the Zoom meeting.
All of these factors combine to make a sham of public process.
Again, the FOSP Board urges the Council to remove Tier 2 projects from this Interim Zoning Ordinance and return them to the prior Development Review approval process, which would include hearings before the Planning Commission and possible appeal to the City Council, if the projects seem to be inconsistent with the LUCE or the Zoning Ordinance.
Thank you for your consideration.
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: lmarreola <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 12:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 1-25 -22 meeting Agenda Item 7-F
EXTERNAL
We agree with Friends of Sunset Park'sBoard position on Item 7‐F tonight. And it s letter to you from Zina Josephs.
Carol and Larry Arreola
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 12:57 PM
To: Sue Himmelrich; [email protected]; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; councilmtgitems; David Martin; David White; Jing Yeo Subject: Subject: Agenda Item 7-F
EXTERNAL
To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.
Agenda item 7-F: Staff recommends that the City Council introduce and adopt an emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance to extend interim regulations authorizing 100% affordable housing projects and Tier 2 housing projects subject to the Housing Accountability Act to be reviewed through an Administrative Approval process.
The NOMA Board urges the Council to remove Tier 2 projects from this Interim Zoning Ordinance and return them to the prior Development Review approval process, which would include hearings before the Planning Commission and possible appeal to the City Council, if the projects are inconsistent with the LUCE or the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed “Lincoln Center” project on the Gelson’s site at the intersection of Lincoln Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd. is being proposed as a “Tier 2” project.
The developer is gapplying for “Administrative Approval,” which means that the project could be approved by Planning Department staff, with no public hearings at either Planning Commission or City Council. In addition, Administrative Approvals cannot be appealed.
The proposed project consists of:
-10 buildings on one site -- up to 5-stories, with heights of 55 to 65 feet -521 apartments (90% market-rate, only 10% affordable)
-The market-rate units will include about 410 studio and 1-bedroom apartments. -36,000 sq ft of retail, including a smaller grocery store (Gelson’s is now 42,000 sq ft) -880 vehicle parking spaces (only about 200 now) and 816 bicycle parking spaces Despite the fact the Lincoln Blvd. has about 50,000 daily car trips, and the intersection has been the scene of many traffic accidents, no traffic study is required before Administrative Approval.
In addition, the Administrative Approval application form says nothing about notifying the neighborhood organization about the required “Community Meeting” which has to be held before the application is submitted.
For the January 11 community meeting for the “Lincoln Center” project, only 100 people, including the development team, were allowed into the Zoom meeting.
This process has not been democratic. Democracy demands that those affected by decisions that impact their community, have some input into those decisions. Plans for a huge, neighborhood changing project like this one should not be made in back rooms attended only by those who have a financial interests in the project.
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
2 Residents’ voices must be heard. Without community input this project makes a mockery of public process.
The NOMA Board urges the Council to remove Tier 2 projects from this Interim Zoning Ordinance and return them to the prior Development Review approval process, which would include hearings before the Planning Commission and possible appeal to the City Council, if the projects seem to be inconsistent with the LUCE or the Zoning Ordinance.
Thank you for your consideration.
smnoma.org
[email protected]
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 1:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; [email protected]; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Support for Letter submitted by Wilmont Board - Agenda Item 7F - REMOVE TIER 2 PROJECTS from this IZO
EXTERNAL
To: City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Re; Agenda Item 7.F
Jan. 25, 2022
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council,
The Board of Northeast Neighbors supports the letter submitted by Wilmont concerning Agenda Item 7F.
Tricia Crane
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
The Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) urges the City Council to remove TIER 2 projects from this IZO, which has them approved by the Administrative Approval (AA) process and return them to the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (DR) approval process. The Administrative Approval (AA) process only requires that these Tier 2 projects be approved by the Planning Department staff, with no public hearings at either the Planning Commission or City Council and CANNOT BE APPEALED. The DR process includes hearings before the Planning Commission and possible appeal to the City Council, if the projects seem to be inconsistent with the LUCE or Zoning Ordinances.
A clear example of why TIER 2 projects should be removed from the IZO as an Administrative Approval process is the "Lincoln Center" project at Lincoln and Ocean Park Blvd. The proposed project consists of:
Ten buildings on the property of up to five stories with heights of 55 to 65 feet 521 apartments with 90% being market rate and only 10% being affordable; certainly not in support of what residents wanted to see with the passage of Proposition R in 1990 (Prop. R mandated that 30% of newly constructed multifamily housing be affordable to low- and moderate- income households) Of the calculated 468 market rate units, it appears that 410 are studio and 1 bedroom apartments. 36,000 square feet of retail, including a smaller grocery store. Gelson is currently 42,000 square feet 880 vehicle parking spaces, with only 200 now and 816 bicycle parking spaces o Currently Lincoln Boulevard has about 50,000 daily car trips o As part of the Vision Zero effort, a study of the most "lethal" intersections was conducted and the Lincoln/Ocean Park intersection was 2nd on that list with two fatalities and one severe injury.
Why would the city as part of Vision Zero, general car/pedestrian/cyclist safety and traffic impact on neighborhoods (Sunset and Ocean Park) and Lincoln Blvd. (main artery into/out of city including to LAX) not mandate a traffic study?
The Administrative Approval application form says nothing about notifying the neighborhood organization about the required "community meeting" which has to be held before the application is submitted. The LUCE states that "Preserve Existing Neighborhoods. The highest priority of the community was the preservation of the existing character and scale of Santa Monica’s neighborhoods." How can this be done if the neighborhoods are not included?
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
2 Finally, the 2010 LUCE states the following:
Current Challenges: Over the last 25 years, since the adoption of the 1984 LUCE, unanticipated issues have resulted, including:
Increased traffic congestion
Commercial buildings that do not transition well to adjacent residential neighborhoods The loss of existing affordable and workforce housing in multi-family neighborhoods Infill residential buildings which are out of scale with their existing neighborhoods Architectural design that does not contribute to the City’s rich urban character The lack of green space, open space and landscaped boulevards AND
HOW THE LUCE IMPLEMENTS THE COMMUNITY’s CORE VALUES
Preserves the scale and character of all residential neighborhoods, the Beach and Oceanfront District, and neighborhood commercial areas such as Main Street and Montana Avenue. Incentivizes the production of new housing opportunities and local-serving uses, in place of regional-serving commercial growth, in a small number of areas linked to transit. Encourages complete neighborhoods with shopping, services, and gathering places within walking distance of new and existing housing.
Integrates traffic management and land use though a target of No Net New Evening Peak Period Vehicle Trips. Seeks new opportunities to enhance and create green spaces including: improvements to pedestrian and bicycle connections, freeway capping, beach greening, and ground floor open spaces as parts of new development. Creates a diverse economic base that supports the fiscal health of the City, ensuring a high-quality of public services.
Requires community benefits such as open space, historic preservation, arts, and affordable and workforce housing for development above the ministerial base height. Provides for a greater community role in determining the physical nature and urban form of the City to ensure that Santa Monica maintains its unique “beach town” culture. Provides tools, including financial incentives, to preserve historic buildings. Phases development over the twenty-year length of the plan, keeping change in sync with transportation improvements.
Ties long-term programs and policies to the Sustainable City Plan to reduce GHG emissions, per capita carbon footprint, and overall impact on the environment.
We urge the city to return to the neighborhood focus and balanced aspect of the LUCE and allow community input and options for our city.
Thank-you
Board of Directors
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
(310) 451-3669
January 25, 2022
VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Agenda Item 7-F
Emergency Extension of IZO for Processing Affordable and Code-Compliant Housing Applications
Our File No. 639.67
Dear Councilmembers:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the Santa Monica Housing Council. We are writing in support of the introduction and adoption of the emergency interim zoning ordinance to extend interim zoning regulations established by emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 2633, as previously extended by Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 2645. The extension is called for by Program 1A of the recently adopted Housing Element.
Collectively, these Interim Zoning Ordinances (“IZOs”) authorize 100% affordable and zoning compliant housing projects protected by the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) (Gov’t Code § 65589.5) to be reviewed through a streamlined Administrative Approval (“AA”) process.
As we all know, the State and the region are experiencing a severe housing supply crisis, even further exacerbated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Given the severity of the crisis, the City has both a moral and legal obligation to use every tool at its disposal to remove barriers to housing production.
For the 2021-2029 Housing Element cycle (Sixth Cycle), Santa Monica’s RHNA is 8,895 units. Meeting this obligation requires the City to issue building permits for an average of approximately 1,000 housing units a year between 2021 and 2029. Over the past five years, for comparison, the City issued building permits for an average of only approximately 200 units per year.
Pursuant to State law, the HAA prohibits cities from denying or reducing the density of housing applications that comply with objective general plan and zoning [email protected]
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Santa Monica City Council
January 25, 2022
standards unless the City determines that the project would have a quantifiable, specific, adverse effect on public health and safety. (Gov’t Code § 65589.5(j).) The intent of the HAA is to ensure that local governments do not reject or reduce the size of housing applications that comply with objective zoning standards.
The time delay and cost resulting from the discretionary review process has historically been a significant housing production barrier in Santa Monica. Given the very limited discretion afforded to cities for code-compliant housing applications under the HAA, and in an responsible effort to spur housing production, on March 10, 2020, the City Council adopted the IZO authorizing 100% affordable and code-compliant housing projects to be reviewed and approved through a streamlined AA process. As a result, strictly code-compliant housing projects proposed in the City now receive a more predictable and expedient review, as compared to the burdensome, time consuming and costly discretionary Development Review Permit (“DRP”) process. Previously extended on August 25, 2020, the IZO would expire on January 31, 2022, under current emergency orders.
In adopting and subsequently extending the IZO, the City recognized it is meaningless and counterproductive to subject HAA-protected housing applications to public hearings and processing delays in light of the City’s clear obligation under State law to approve those code-compliant housing applications. Without local discretion or the authority to deny or reduce a code-compliant housing application’s density, the City wisely dispensed with the DRP’s hollow and pointless--yet cumbersome and time consuming--review process.
The Sixth Cycle Housing Element was adopted by the Santa Monica City Council on a 5-2 vote on October 12, 2021, setting forth an eight-year housing strategy to achieve Santa Monica’s total RHNA allocation of 8,895 units. A key component of this strategy is Program 1A (titled “By-Right Approvals for Housing Projects”), which requires the City to make permanent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the IZO no later than March 31, 2022. Program 1A also unambiguously states:
“The City shall extend interim zoning amendments for
process thresholds pending the full implementation of this program.” (Emphasis added.)
The City transmitted the adopted Sixth Cycle Housing Element – leading with Program 1A – to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) on November 10, 2021. The document is currently pending legal review and comment as part of HCD’s certification process. (Gov’t Code § 65585(h).) Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Santa Monica City Council
January 25, 2022
Policy benefits of streamlined processing aside, at this point, the City has legally committed itself to extending the IZO pursuant to Program 1A of the Housing Element.
Reneging on a fundamental production program before the Sixth Cycle Housing Element is even certified would render the 6th Cycle Housing Element legally vulnerable.
Watering down the IZO by exempting larger projects, as some have suggested, would only undermine the Housing Element’s clear commitment to production and shake the State’s faith in Santa Monica’s commitment to truly meeting its RHNA obligation. We cannot think of a worse message to communicate to HCD during its legal review of the Housing Element than reversing course on quite literally the document’s very first housing production goal.
Therefore, we urge the City Council to adopt the staff recommendation and extend the IZO through May 31, 2022, at which point the changes should become permanent as required by Housing Element Program 1A. Extending the streamlined process in place under the existing IZO will support the City’s urgent need to facilitate the production of housing and demonstrate commitment to 6th Cycle Housing Element’s long-term housing production strategy.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
KLK:sna
cc: David White
Joe Lawrence
Alan Seltzer
Heidi von Tongeln
David Martin
Jing Yeo
SMHC Board of Directors
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22
Item 7.F
01/25/22