1 Vernice Hankins
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2022 1:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Daniel Galamba
Subject: City Council Meeting April 12, 2022-Item 7.A. Please oppose Proposed Extension of Interim Zoning Regulations
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I must request that you oppose the Proposed Extension of the Interim Zoning Regulations.
First Administrative Approval of these projects I believe is unconstitutional and illegal. Unconstitutional under the U.S.
Constitution because it abridges the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances since appeal to the Planning Commission and the City Council is not possible with administrative approval. Illegal under California law because it prevents the people of Santa Monica from having a referendum as was done for the Hines Project since no legislative action will be taken, and a referendum cannot be done for administrative approval.
Therefore, Administrative Approval disenfranchises the people of Santa Monica who have legitimate concerns about these projects and how they undermine their quality of life.
Next Administrative Approval would be allowed for projects of less than one acre. This would include almost all new projects since very few projects will be more than one acre. More than one acre would include a future project like the Gelson's Project (but not the Gelson's Project itself) but it wouldn't include the projects at 19th and Wilshire, 20th and Wilshire, 25th and Wilshire, and 4th and Colorado, etc. All of these smaller projects will be less than one acre and all will have no City public hearings with no possibility of appeal to the Planning Commission and City Council and with no possibility of a referendum as was done for the Hines Project. Furthermore these projects at 19th and Wilshire, 20th and Wilshire, 25th and Wilshire, and 4th and Colorado are just the tip of the iceberg. Soon these administratively approved projects will be all over Santa Monica including on Wilshire Blvd, Lincoln Blvd, Santa Monica Blvd, Pico Blvd, Ocean Park Blvd, etc. The Santa Monical Coalition for a Livable City has previously warned that administrative approval of Tier 2 projects can result in massive sized buildings.
I therefore am requesting that ALL projects regardless of size use standard City processes with the possibility of appeal to the Planning Commission and the City Council and with the possibility of a referendum as was the case when I built my two‐story house on a lot of 35 feet by 50 feet. Since that was the case for my two‐story house, I can't see any reason why this shouldn't also be the case for other projects. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr. Daniel Galamba
Item 7.A
04/12/22
1 of 9 Item 7.A
04/12/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter Altschuler <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 11:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra
Subject: Tuesday's agenda item 7. (A)
EXTERNAL
The IZO extension, as described in the report accompanying the published agenda, reinforces the validity of several considerations that apply to projects, such as Lincoln Center, already in the pipeline for approval.
Two statements stand out.
“...Santa Monica can accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 8,895 units (of which 69 percent must be affordable)…”
“The Housing Accountability Act... prohibits cities from denying or placing conditions on housing development projects to reduce the project’s density if the housing development project complies with a city’s “objective” general plan, zoning, subdivision, and design review standards (e.g., height, floor‐area‐ratio (FAR), density).” Lincoln Center allocates only 10% of its proposed 521 units to affordable housing. Yet the developer is citing provisions in SB330 that do not apply to the project but are being used to justify height and density modifications.
At 10%, Lincoln Center’s number of affordable apartments comes nowhere near the 69% required under the RHNA.
Without providing a much higher percentage of units that fit the budgets of very low, low, and moderate incomes residents, Lincoln Center does not comply with the applicable zoning and design standards that would justify the height variance and density bonus. Even if the development were 100% affordable, the current MUBL zoning of the site does not allow either modification.
The housing market in 2022 is significantly different than it was when the HCD numbers were determined and before the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Residents have left the urban core for more affordable suburban and exurban/rural locations. Santa Monica rents declined, indicating an increase in supply, and those rents have not entirely recovered to pre‐2020 levels. The City already ranks among the most expensive housing markets in the State, and the new market‐rate units are likely to match or, because they’re new, exceed current rents. That will not help low income renters, but it may create a glut of new apartments that no one wants or can afford.
There is, among the Sunset/Ocean Park communities’ residents, a feeling that the City has no will to object to Lincoln Center, though it is clearly out of alignment with State requirements and City objectives. If that’s true, and the Council, City Manager, and City Attorney are unwilling to defend the characteristics that help make Santa Monica a desirable place to live and to give residents the voice that the State denied them when it created its mandates, the City’s elected and appointed officials are not upholding their own mandate to protect the best interests of Santa Monica and its residents.
p
Item 7.A
04/12/22
2 of 9 Item 7.A
04/12/22
2 Item 7.A
04/12/22
3 of 9 Item 7.A
04/12/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 2:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 7a: Interim Housing Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Summary: Tone‐deaf at best. Opposed.
After widespread public furor over the process and outcome of the Gelson’s/Lincoln/Ocean Park monstrosity, a poll showing overwhelming opposition to this monstrosity, the State’s own Auditor challenging the State’s housing arithmetic, and major lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions—some on the Council might conclude it’s time to extend this failed “no public hearing” process for another year? Really? What is the harm in allowing the sunshine‐cloaking interim ordinance to expire and then revisiting it when there is more clarity on the true housing numbers and/or the legal challenges? Absent such a common‐sense resolution, I hope the Council meeting will produce a robust discussion on this Item so members of the public and the media can fully understand where each Councilmember stands and why.
Thank you,
Peter DiChellis ‐ Unaffiliated moderate
Santa Monica ‐ 90403
(In addition to copies noted above, copy via contact form to Northeast Neighbors Group) Item 7.A
04/12/22
4 of 9 Item 7.A
04/12/22
Item 7.A
04/12/22
5 of 9 Item 7.A
04/12/22
Item 7.A
04/12/22
6 of 9 Item 7.A
04/12/22
Item 7.A
04/12/22
7 of 9 Item 7.A
04/12/22
Item 7.A
04/12/22
8 of 9 Item 7.A
04/12/22
Item 7.A
04/12/22
9 of 9 Item 7.A
04/12/22