Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, February 14, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

EXTERNAL
> Please consider the quality of life in our town and don’t let developers destroy our ability to buy locally and support small businesses on Ocean park Boulevard.
> Once it has gone, we can never get it back.
> Please protect our communities in your council meetings. > Sincerely,
> Wendy Murray
Item 7.A
02/14/23
458 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
Planning Commission
January 23, 2023
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main St
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Honorable Councilmembers:

The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council request the approval of the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to amend Program 1J of the City’s certified Housing Element (2021-2129) in order to meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives and to protect small, locally owned businesses and service providers The proposed amendment would fine-tune the program by retaining the City’s long-term commitment to providing access to housing opportunity while ensuring we maintain complete neighborhoods that provide access to economic opportunity and address vehicle miles traveled concerns. Specifically, the proposed amendment would retain the existing heights and Floor Area Ratios (FAR) in the Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NC) on Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue, rather than increasing them as proposed in the current language of Program 1J.

The Planning Commission also recommends that the City request HCD’s guidance as to whether the SSI should be amended to remove the thirteen properties in the Neighborhoods Commercial District and to add (a) Replacement Site(s) that is (are) necessary to compensate for the 165 housing units projected for development in the NC District.

This request for approval to amend Program 1J is based on the following:

1. The Commission understands that the State is concerned about accomplishing AFFH goals by upzoning the NC Districts. The City has found through on-going analysis that this upzoning is not necessary to accomplish DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098 Item 7.A
02/14/23
459 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
the City’s RHNA goals nor to further AFFH objectives. The City believes that AFFH goals are being reached in all the neighborhoods served by the NC Districts, or will be reached through the implementation of new programs mandated by the Housing Element.

2. The upzoning of our NC districts will cause the displacement of locally owned businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to residents.

In fact, the loss of these neighborhood-serving businesses will be in direct conflict with AFFH objectives. Many of these small businesses are minorityowned. Further, NC Districts currently offer entrepreneurial opportunities for local residents, many of whom are people of color.

3. Proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would remove the requirement that the ground floors of new projects on Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards include commercial space. This proposed zoning change recognizes the inability of local businesses to afford the rents in these new buildings and the fact that these two neighborhood commercial streets would not attract sufficient regional interest to attract non-local retailers, which could afford the new, higher rents. The result of this would be the removal of all convenient, walkable commercial opportunities in Sunset Park and the Pico neighborhood.

4. The NC Districts include many designated Landmarks and other significant historic resources. This fact reduces the overall development capacity of NC areas.

5. A Replacement Site that can accommodate more than the 165 units projected for the upzoned NC areas has been identified. With even greater capacity than those sites, it will actually increase the number of affordable and market rate units produced during the 6th Cycle.

6. The Replacement Site will locate new residents close to the Expo Light Rail Line, offering access to numerous job nodes throughout the region. Access to high quality transit is critical to the economic health of many residents, especially lower incomes.

Data Demonstrating AFFH in Neighborhood Commercial Districts The proposed Housing Element amendment will not have negative impacts on the State’s AFFH requirements because each neighborhood surrounding the NC zones DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098 Item 7.A
02/14/23
460 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
currently offers or will offer a variety of housing types and affordability levels during the 6th Cycle.

Main Street
The NC district on Main Street is the major commercial area serving residents of Ocean Park. The historically red-lined Ocean Park community has always provided a variety of housing types and a range of affordability levels. Community Corporation of Santa Monica (CCSM), Santa Monica’s most prolific affordable housing development nonprofit established with a seed grant from the City of Santa Monica in 1982, owns and operates 343 affordable housing units on 22 sites across Ocean Park. Of these units, 44 are on Main Street, just north of Main Street’s NC District. Across the street from this CCSM project on Main Street is a mixed income rental housing project with approximately 60 units. This existing housing has been developed using the zoning standards of the General Commercial District, which has a lower FAR and height limit than that proposed in the Housing Element for the NC portion of Main Street.

There are approximately 170 units of deed restricted affordable rental units for seniors in Ocean Park.

According to the 2021 Santa Monica Rent Control Board Annual Report, 4,684 rental units in Ocean Park are subject to local rent control (17% of the citywide total). The median monthly Maximum Allowable Rents for these units range from $1,521 for a studio apartment to $2,466 for a three-bedroom apartment. These rents are affordable to moderate income households and include units with long term tenants and those that have been decontrolled to market rate levels.

The feasibility of developing housing with the existing NC development standards has been demonstrated by a recently approved market rate rental housing project with ground floor retail in the NC District. This project demonstrates that housing can be feasibly developed with a retail component on this NC portion of Main Street.

Ocean Park is a diverse community from the standpoint of income levels and demographics. John Muir Elementary School is located in Ocean Park and serves the majority of children who live in that community. It is currently closed for remediation purposes. When in operation, the school is a Title I school, meaning at least thirty five percent (35%) of its students are from families living at or near the poverty level. Forty seven percent (47%) of the students are from low-income families. John Muir is also racially and ethnically integrated with almost sixty percent (60%) of students identifying as non-white.

DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098 Item 7.A
02/14/23
461 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
The Ocean Park housing market also includes many single-family houses and condominiums with values well into the millions of dollars.

The City believes that upzoning the NC District on Main Street is unnecessary because Ocean Park is already a model community for meeting AFFH objectives.

Ocean Park Boulevard
The NC area on Ocean Park Boulevard is the major neighborhood commercial district for the Sunset Park community with locally owned businesses and necessary community retail and essential services. A common misperception about the Sunset Park community is that it is primarily populated by single family homeowners in R1 districts. Similar to Ocean Park, Sunset Park offers a wide variety of housing choices and affordability levels. There are approximately 7,000 housing units in Sunset Park.

Of these, 2,634 are on R1 properties, and 3,309 are rentals subject to local rent control. The median Maximum Allowable Rents for these rent-controlled units range from $1,140 for a studio to $2,298 for a three-bedroom unit. These rents are affordable to low and/or moderate-income households. CCSM owns and operates 310 deed restricted affordable rental units in Sunset Park. The balance of the units in Sunset Park (747) are condominiums and post-1978 apartments.

Another interesting fact about Sunset Park is that one of its two elementary schools (Will Rogers) is among the most ethnically and racially diverse schools in the district.

It serves the Pico and Sunset Park neighborhoods west of 17th Street. Thirty three percent (33%) of the students identify as white, forty five percent (45%) as Hispanic, nine percent (9%) as black, and thirteen percent (13%) as members of other racial/ethnic groups. Will Rogers is designated as a Title I school. John Adams Middle School, which serves the Pico Neighborhood, Sunset Park and Ocean Park is also a Title 1 school. No feasibility analysis showing the need to increase FAR and height in the NC District of Ocean Park Boulevard was performed, but existing conditions demonstrate the district’s ability to offer housing opportunity at a wide range of affordability.

Montana Avenue
The Montana Avenue NC district is the major neighborhood commercial area for the neighborhoods north of Montana Avenue and between Montana Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard. Although the north of Montana neighborhood is primarily R1 with extremely high property values, it is bound by streets with hundreds of units of multifamily housing. The certified Housing Element proposes furthering AFFH objectives in the R1 District north of Montana through active encouragement of ADU DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098 Item 7.A
02/14/23
462 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
construction and enactment of zoning changes that encourage the development of duplexes using SB9.

The neighborhood between Montana Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard is almost entirely developed with multi-family housing and has the highest percentage of the City’s rent-controlled housing supply (6,012 units). These rent-controlled units are affordable to and serve all income groups.

Pico Boulevard
Businesses in the Pico Boulevard NC District serve residents of the Pico Neighborhood and the northern section of Sunset Park with a variety of affordable retail and service options. Although designated a High Resource Area like the rest of the city, the Pico Neighborhood is home to its lowest income and most rent burdened residents. The neighborhood also has the highest concentration of people of color and is the community most at risk because of gentrification and its resulting displacement. Planning for this area is a delicate balance between encouraging diversity and protecting existing residents and the commercial facilities that serve them.

Beginning with the Pico Neighborhood Community Plan in 1983, the residents of the Pico Neighborhood have advocated for fair housing, appropriate commercial/industrial development, to reduce crime, support youth, and for public services in their district. Spurred by new energy from the community in 2016, the city began an update of the Pico Neighborhood Plan that focused specifically on the NC district. Community advocates brought strong support for maintaining and supporting the ethnic and cultural character of the Pico Neighborhood, protecting residents from displacement, and developing new ways to support business opportunities for local entrepreneurs in the NC district on Pico Boulevard. In 2019, targeted adjustments were made to the city’s zoning regulations for NC on Pico Boulevard to support local economic development. For example, a community kitchen that supports seed businesses in food service is under construction. The City also gives micro-grants to local entrepreneurs seeking to start small businesses.

And, a Protecting Our Diversity program provides rent subsidies for Pico Neighborhood residents.

The Pico Neighborhood also includes an area north of the I10 Freeway, which was severedfrom the southern portion of the neighborhood by construction of the Santa Monica Freeway in the 1960s. It encompasses the Bergamot Plan area where hundreds of new mixed income housing units are expected because of the upzoning planned for in the City’s Housing Element. This is also where the proposed DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098 Item 7.A
02/14/23
463 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
Replacement Site is situated. This aggressive development scenario will maintain the cultural and economic diversity in the Pico Neighborhood, while adding a robust program of new housing choices adjacent to transit.

Conclusion
The Neighborhood Commercial District zones support Santa Monica’s most diverse communities with locally owned, legacy businesses that have been serving their neighborhoods for decades. Many of these businesses are minority owned. These businesses include laundromats, shoe repair shops and affordable grocery stores, restaurants, and family entertainment options The Venice Family Clinic is located in the NC District of Pico Boulevard. Its displacement would eliminate affordable health care for the many lower income families in the community. NC areas define “community” for many current and future residents of Santa Monica at all income levels. Business owners are also neighbors who often know their customers by name. They provide daily neighborhood gathering opportunities, support for neighborhood organizations and schools, and job opportunities for local youth and Santa Monica College students.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requires a holistic approach to meeting housing needs and providing neighborhood-serving and affordable businesses, employment opportunities, and the kind of community cohesion that ensures safe and vibrant places for people at all income levels in Santa Monica. The city’s Neighborhood Commercial districts on Main Street, Pico Boulevard, Montana Avenue and Ocean Park Boulevard provide these opportunities. The Commission believes that protecting these resources is consistent with AFFH objectives.

Sincerely,
Jim Ries, Chair
DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098 Item 7.A
02/14/23
464 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Justine Lowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; [email protected]; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2.14.23 city council agenda item 7a

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members
As a 15 year resident of Santa Monica, I strongly oppose the ‘up‐zoning’ of our local streets and urge our council members to protect the community of local small businesses that we all enjoy and love on a daily basis.

Sincerely
Justine Lowe
2117 Navy Street
Santa Monica
Item 7.A
02/14/23
465 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilors:

I am writing to oppose the so called UPZONING in the Ocean Park, Main Street, Pico Blvd and Montana Avenue areas.

This idea will take all the small businesses away and be a complete bland blot on our community.

What we have left is wonderful – we do not need lot consolidation selling the same items that you can get anywhere in the U.S.

We need individualism . We need small, restaurants/cafes that people have worked so hard for us during the pandemic – we need the small shops and local supermarket.

Thank you for considering.

Yours sincerely,
Linda Hall Hiscock
1330 Pine Street
Santa Monica, 90405
P.S. Jesse Zwick: Hi Jesse – this is Linda (volunteer from the Saturday Pico Farmers Market) Hope none of this goes through.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
466 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Blair Khosla <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
I, Katherine Khosla, a Santa Monica resident, oppose upzoning Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that includes Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. l urge you to keep the existing heights and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts.

I also oppose lot consolidation for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana Avenue.

Thank you,
Katherine Khosla

Item 7.A
02/14/23
467 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Perry Holmes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards

EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City Council,
I am a renter living in the Ocean Park neighborhood and I am writing to register my support for more housing in my neighborhood and in Santa Monica in general.

Thank you,
Perry Holmes
[email protected]
511 Pier Ave
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 7.A
02/14/23
468 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Gretchen Humbert <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock
Subject: Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I strongly support the guidance provided by the planning commission to not allow upzoning on Ocean Park, Pico, Main St and Montana. I am in support of changes in zoning to enable more housing units in the city. But the plan needs to be realistic and emphasize:
 Retaining walkable businesses (including commercial space on the first floor of any multi‐story buildings)  Zoning that takes into consideration the neighborhood scale o3‐4 stories of residential above commercial would already be a dramatic change to places like Montana and Ocean Park
oThere is only one lane of traffic in each direction on these roads. The traffic is already quite gridlocked on Ocean Park during rush hour, especially when SMC is in session. oRemoving retail and adding units will only compel residents to get in their cars to make purchases they could now make by foot. It will exacerbate traffic issues and cause more pollution in a city that prides itself on its sustainability practices.

Hopefully, you have been able to review points made by Commissioner and former Chair of the Santa Monica Rent Control Board, and a Past Commissioner, Commission on the Status of Women, Nicole Phillis in the SM Mirror https://smmirror.com/2021/07/sma‐r‐t‐column‐blind‐upzonings‐false‐promise/ “Basic economic principles based on land values alone suggest that the primary beneficiaries of upzoning will be developers, who will undoubtedly sweep in and redevelop properties, sell at a greater value to more upper middle‐ class professionals, who typically far exceed the area median income (AMI) for the region—all the while accelerating gentrification.”
The false promise of upzoning to provide more affordable housing is laid bare when one considers how badly the glut of market‐rate, luxury housing has failed to produce affordable housing in our City. Upzoning relies on free market principles for the creation of housing, which will almost always skew the economics toward luxury, high‐ value residences, especially where, as here, lot values alone often exceed $2 million. It is not lost on me that many of the rent‐controlled properties that we’ve lost to the Ellis Act in areas zoned for multifamily residences have actually been redeveloped either as luxury condos or single‐family homes. This again underscores the fundamental flaw of upzoning as a panacea: when we leave the production of affordable housing to the free market in a highly desirable area like Santa Monica or Culver City, upzoning rarely produces affordable residential opportunities for working families.”
Item 7.A
02/14/23
469 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
5 Thank you for your consideration and service to our city.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
470 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Rachel Harms <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: re 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members
I am a 28‐year resident of Santa Monica and I am writing to tell the city council that I strongly oppose the “upzoning” of Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street,Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue.

As I watch Santa Monica's decline into bland and mediocre overdevelopment, it breaks my heart. I urge the City council to protect these neighborhoods and small businesses by keeping the current zoning and not allowing lot consolidation. I am deeply concerned about Santa Monica becoming even more homogenized, replacing what makes it unique and special with the same generic buildings and nationwide chains we see everywhere else.

The priority of the City Council should be to support resident's quality of life, our local businesses and to preserve the character of Santa Monica. I urge you to do the right thing and not to sell out the place we all call home.

Thank you.

Rachel Harms
Item 7.A
02/14/23
471 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: DENNY KENNEDY <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:31 AM
Subject: UPZONING

EXTERNAL
Please DO NOT “upzone” Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. Please leave neighborhoods intact. Not every building, every block needs replacement with multi story buildings. We need neighborhoods that feel like neighborhoods. We need our existing local businesses, not chain stores. These businesses survived a pandemic. Please do not kill them off with overdevelopment.

Sincerely,
Denny Kennedy
Item 7.A
02/14/23
472 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Rachel Harms <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: re 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

Thank you.

Rachel Harms
Item 7.A
02/14/23
473 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: DENNY KENNEDY <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:31 AM
Subject: UPZONING

Sincerely,
Denny Kennedy
Item 7.A
02/14/23
474 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: phillis dudick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock
Cc: phillis dudick
Subject: ITEM 7 (UPZONING) 2/14/23

EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor Davis and City Councilmembers:

As a longtime Santa resident who would be affected by upzoning, I strongly oppose the upzoning of Montana Avenue, Main Street, Pico Blvd, and Ocean Park Blvd.

These iconic corridors play a huge role in the quality of life of these unique neighborhoods, character of Santa Monica and long standing relationships with mom and pop businesses serving our communities.

A walk to a tea garden, a market, a shoe repair, or stop by for Taco Tuesday, or an ice cream cone makes it a "neighborhood". Please do not allow Montana, Main, Pico or Ocean Park to be destroyed by upzoning and lot consolidation. It is important that limits on lot consolidations apply to all! These areas not only benefit residents, but restaurants and other small businesses attract tourists and clientele from other areas as well. This is not to mention tour buses I have seen highlighting Main Street and Montana Avenue for visitors to Santa Monica/LA area. Evidently, there is a story to show and tell.

These "neighborhood" venues must be preserved as "essential" to Santa Monica.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Phillis Dudick
San Vicente Resident
Item 7.A
02/14/23
475 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Claudia Seizer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:43 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; councilmtgitems; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Council Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Hello City Council,
My name is Claudia Seizer and I am a long time resident in the Ocean Park area, Sunset Park. I have been following and understand that you are coming up with ideas for “upzoning” Ocean Park Boulevard. I really am hoping to persuade you to look that through once again. I completely understand the need for housing, our cousin has worked for the city of Santa Monica in this specific area and has explain to us the necessity.

With that said, I still persuade you not to up zone, Ocean Park Boulevard. We have John Adams Middle School, Will Rogers Elementary, and SMC traffic, that we the residents, deal with on a daily basis. I understand SMC is now hybrid, which has alleviated maybe a quarter of the traffic. But traffic is still an issue, and with traffic, car, accidents, and frustrated drivers. Since the pandemic, the city cut crossing guards, and those kids crossing Ocean Park with all the traffic already is always an issue. As you can see, in reports of how many accidents have occurred just at 16th and Ocean Park Boulevard. Therefore, bringing more cars to run up and down a one lane road is just not feasible idea.

I once again, urge you to please look at other areas. I have a business on 14th and Broadway. There are many areas around Broadway and Colorado that can actually be a better idea for housing.

Thank you a long time resident and parent of school children.

Claudia Seizer
Item 7.A
02/14/23
476 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Ruthann Lehrer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 7a

EXTERNAL
February 14, 2023
City Council Agenda Item 7a

Honorable Mayor Davis and Councilmembers,

This letter supports the position of the Planning Commission regarding the retention of the Neighborhood Commercial zoning on Main Street, Montana Avenue, Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard.

There is an abundant supply of alternative sites in other areas of Santa Monica to fulfill our housing mandates without destroying those unique enclaves of local business activity and pedestrian life that make Santa Monica an enjoyable place to live and visit.

Main Street contains a concentration of designated landmarks that create a highly distinctive presence in the City. Its visual character, small scale, and collection of local businesses make it an attractive place to explore.

It’s a vibrant and interesting walk street, an important asset to Santa Monica and should be stabilized, not threatened.

Montana Avenue offers a similar vibrant pedestrian environment, with many small businesses and a strong sense of place. It’s one of the City’s most appealing visitor attractions, vital to the revival of our tourism industry. It’s a community gathering place, with services for locals as well as attractive to a broader public.

The Neighborhood Commercial areas of Pico and Ocean Park Boulevard contain small locally‐owned businesses serving their local residential neighborhoods as well as allowing diverse businesses to flourish. Pico Boulevard Neighborhood Commercial supports our most integrated neighborhood. These places are important community assets, that could be wiped out with the proposed upzoning.

Remember place‐making? This is an important planning concept that identifies those special places that are physical, social and economic assets. Those few Neighborhood Commercial areas in Santa Monica that support pedestrian activity, local businesses and diversity should be protected in our zoning code. They serve local residents as well tourists.

Setting aside these few Neighborhood Commercial zones from potential building activity with large retail floorplates that will displace local businesses deserves your support. Fortunately, such a decision will not jeopardize the abundant opportunities for new housing construction in other locations. Please support the Housing Element amendment proposed by the Planning Commission.

Thank you for your consideration.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
477 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
4 Ruthann Lehrer
Resident, Northeast Neighborhood

Item 7.A
02/14/23
478 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Bradley Ewing <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject: 7A - Neighborhood Commercial

EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and Councilmembers,
I urge the council to follow through with the Neighborhood Commercial upzoning that is promised in our submitted, compliant Housing Element.

Refusing to follow through on these changes is a total abandonment of Santa Monica's commitment to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). AB 686 requires cities to take "deliberate action to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past and current patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities." If we wish to undo past patterns of segregation, that requires us to take deliberate steps to ensure new housing opportunities are available in neighborhoods that have historically produced little to no housing.

Upzoning Main, Montana, etc. has been in the Housing Element since June 2021. It was added after the Planning Commission and then City Council abandoned plans to add more housing in NOMA and Sunset Park. HCD told us that we needed to do more for AFFH so the Planning Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council decided to upzone Main, Montana, Ocean Park, and Pico to add new housing opportunities in areas of the city that haven't accommodated housing before.

Almost all of the parcels being downzoned as part of this proposal adjoin single‐family neighborhoods. Homes that are worth $2M+, and in NOMA easily $5M+. So after abandoning rezonings of R1 neighborhoods, we're now talking about abandoning rezonings of parcels next to R1 neighborhoods. This doesn't affirmatively further fair housing! AFFH is about creating housing opportunities where there were none before, it says nothing about business displacement. If the city wants to mitigate business displacement, we can and should create programs to ease disruption to business owners (AB2011 is one model on how to do this, requiring commercial space on smaller parcels is another). That does not give us an out to prevent housing! The Planning Commission's letter claims we are already AFFH in these neighborhoods. If this were true, why did HCD reject an earlier draft of our housing element over insufficiently AFFH? The statistics cited in their letter are incorrect and misleading: landlords are allowed to reset Maximum Allowable Rents under the city's vacancy decontrol law and almost all of them do! The MAR of my first apartment here was $1600/month when I moved out; it's $2300 today. The affordable rents paid by longtime tenants in rent controlled units are not available to newcomers.

Reneging on our commitments to the state opens the door to another Builder's Remedy opportunity, allowing unlimited size and density on any parcel in the city (including R1 and the NC corridors).

If we want to retain our local control, we need to exercise local responsibility.

Best,
Brad Ewing
Item 7.A
02/14/23
479 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: bobbie sheets <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
To Whom it May Concern:

PLEASE DO NOT “upzone” Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. Please leave neighborhoods intact. Not every building, every block needs replacement with multi story buildings. We need neighborhoods that feel like neighborhoods. We need our existing local businesses, not chain stores.

These businesses survived a pandemic. Please do not kill them off with overdevelopment.

Thank you,
Bobbie Sheets
Item 7.A
02/14/23
480 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Janet Chesne <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Vote No on upzoning and lot consolidation// 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Please don't tear down present small business locations and erect more multistory buildings. We are losing the small beach town character of Santa Monica. It could become just a Lego city of 5 story buildings and more traffic, probably with no parking spaces. People who live here don't want that. I am shocked and sorry to learn that you are considering moving more in that direction. Please think of Santa Monica's future.

Janet Chesne
Santa Monica resident
Item 7.A
02/14/23
481 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Nancy M <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:56 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; �[email protected]; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
To: Commissioners
From: Nancy Morse
Re: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

Please do not increase height and density of any of the neighborhoods in Santa Monica, as this will change the character of the areas. An increase in height will reduce the air and sunlight which are assets to the community. An increase in density will require infrastructure that I'm not sure Santa Monica has such as water and sewer.

The small businesses and walking streets serve not only locals, but are a draw for visitors.

The Neighborhood Serving Districts are unique areas of Santa Monica, and have been considered special to the city for years. It would be a shame to destroy that.

Sincerely,
Nancy Morse

Item 7.A
02/14/23
482 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
4 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:56 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

Every time the city comes up with one more thing to disrupt the lives of its citizens - - residents and small businesses alike - - I think things couldn’t get any worse. Now we have a proposal to densify four main thoroughfares of Santa Monica and yes, things are getting worse. The lot consolidation and planned mega development on these arteries can only intensify the traffic, noise, air pollution and overall frustration, even misery, of living and working in those zones. As a 90-year-old resident who’s seen the city continually eat away at itself over the years, I strongly support the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council to OPPOSE the proposed changes!
Donald Murchie
2338 21st St.

Santa Monica 90405
(310) 450-8639
Item 7.A
02/14/23
483 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Carol Lemlein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Tom Cleys
Subject: City Council Item 7A, February 14, 2023, Study Session on Implementation of 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element Programs
Attachments: 2023-02-14 City Council Item 7A-Santa Monica Conservancy Comments.docx

EXTERNAL
Please see attached letter from the Santa Monica Conservancy Board regarding this item and the treatment of the Neighborhood Commercial areas in the requested zoning changes..

Thank you,
Carol Lemlein
Vice President
Santa Monica Conservancy
Email: [email protected]
Mobile: 310.729.1165

Item 7.A
02/14/23
484 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
6 Vernice Hankins
From: betzi richardson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:54 AM
To: Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7A on February 14 Agenda

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and Council Members,
I am completely opposed to the proposed upzoning in Item 7A on your Agenda for tonight’s meeting.

Please Do Not Do This!!!
I am a resident of Santa Monica and I highly value our small and local businesses. Please do not upzone the Neighborhood Commercial districts on Pico Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard and Montana Avenue. That will diminish if not completely destroy the neighborhood feel and our accessibility to small businesses. Also, please refrain from allowing the consolidation of lots on Pico Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard or Montana Avenue. This will eliminate access to our highly valued small and local businesses.

Thank-you for supporting local and small businesses and acting to preserve our neighborhoods, Betzi Richardson
916 15th St. #9
Santa Monica,
CA 90403
Item 7.A
02/14/23
485 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
7 Vernice Hankins
From: Elaine Vukadinovich <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members:

This email is to inform you that I oppose the “upzoning” of Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts including, but not limited to, Montana Ave., Pico Blvd., Main Street and Ocean Park Blvd. The change in character would displace and eliminate most of the unique, essential local businesses that serve our neighborhoods and would act to price those local small businesses out, replacing them with large, higher rent tenants like chain stores and mega projects. We, the residents, do not need this type of development. We already have enough traffic and density and chains. Please help keep the unique character of our neighborhoods and do not further destabilize the neighborhoods by allowing such development. Please keep the existing heights and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts.

Sincerely,
Elaine Vukadinovich
Santa Monica Resident
Item 7.A
02/14/23
486 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
8 Vernice Hankins
From: John <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL

Dear City Councilors:

I am writing to oppose the so called UPZONING in the Ocean Park, Main Street, Pico Blvd and Montana Avenue areas.

This idea will take all the small businesses away and be a bland blot on our community.

What we have is wonderful – we do not need lot consolidation or chain stores selling the same items that you can get anywhere in the U.S.

We need individualism . We need small restaurants/cafes that people have worked so hard for us during the pandemic – we need the small shops and local supermarket.

Thank you for considering.

Yours sincerely,

Item 7.A
02/14/23
487 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
9 John Hiscock.

Pine Street, Santa Monica
‐‐
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/John_Hiscock/
www.johnhiscock.blogspot.com
Item 7.A
02/14/23
488 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Janet Chesne <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Vote No on upzoning and lot consolidation// 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Janet Chesne
Santa Monica resident
Item 7.A
02/14/23
489 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Nancy M <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:56 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; �[email protected]; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
To: Commissioners
From: Nancy Morse
Re: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

The small businesses and walking streets serve not only locals, but are a draw for visitors.

The Neighborhood Serving Districts are unique areas of Santa Monica, and have been considered special to the city for years. It would be a shame to destroy that.

Sincerely,
Nancy Morse

Item 7.A
02/14/23
490 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:56 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

Santa Monica 90405
(310) 450-8639
Item 7.A
02/14/23
491 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Carol Lemlein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Tom Cleys
Subject: City Council Item 7A, February 14, 2023, Study Session on Implementation of 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element Programs
Attachments: 2023-02-14 City Council Item 7A-Santa Monica Conservancy Comments.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Please see attached letter from the Santa Monica Conservancy Board regarding this item and the treatment of the Neighborhood Commercial areas in the requested zoning changes..

Thank you,
Carol Lemlein
Vice President
Santa Monica Conservancy
Email: [email protected]
Mobile: 310.729.1165

Item 7.A
02/14/23
492 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
5 Vernice Hankins
From: betzi richardson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:54 AM
To: Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7A on February 14 Agenda
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and Council Members,
I am completely opposed to the proposed upzoning in Item 7A on your Agenda for tonight’s meeting.

Thank-you for supporting local and small businesses and acting to preserve our neighborhoods, Betzi Richardson
916 15th St. #9
Santa Monica,
CA 90403
Item 7.A
02/14/23
493 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Elaine Vukadinovich <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members:

Sincerely,
Elaine Vukadinovich
Santa Monica Resident
Item 7.A
02/14/23
494 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Marianne O'Donnell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A

EXTERNAL
Council,
I'm writing to oppose the City considering upzoning Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. Each of these districts include many small local businesses, which are a critical component of our neighborhoods character, vibrancy, and safety. They are loved by our community, and an integral part of our social, cultural, and consumer life.

Upzoning would allow these unique streets to be consolidated into large lots, for the type of behemoth developments that have already defaced Downtown, making it a ghastly, unsafe place to visit, with too many dead ground‐floor fronts.

Is this Santa Monica's desire future? No.

The resulting demolition of existing buildings would displace and eliminate most of the essential neighborhood‐serving businesses. They would be replaced with higher rent tenants like chain stores, destabilizing the neighborhoods, reducing residents’ quality of life, bringing further hardship to low‐income residents, and increasing traffic and parking issues.

It would fly in the face of City Hall's "We are Santa Monica" and "Buy Local" campaigns, prompting the community to buy online instead, or drive miles to find the items, and community feel, they need. Too many essential small businesses have been lost already.

A recent Staff Report quoted: "The City has taken responsibility to act locally and address the risks of climate change, drought, extreme heat, social injustice and economic volatility by integrating sustainable practices across our organization and knitting sustainability into the fabric of our community." And yet, City Hall keeps doing the exact opposite, by increasing social injustice with its discriminatory initiatives, including the skewed selection of development sites; increasing economic volatility and vulnerability, by destroying local businesses and initiatives; and turning our beloved city into an unsustainable dystopia, with increased traffic, noise, pollution, crime, and incivility ‐‐ as well as putting unsustainable pressure on its limited resources (energy, utility, infrastructure, public services.) When the Planning Commission recently reviewed these changes, it made a strong, well‐supported recommendation to the Council against upzoning these streets, and urged the Council to keep the existing heights and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts.

We urge you to follow the Planning Commission recommendation.

A final word: Santa Monica Airport is an ideal site to build housing in a sustainable, vibrant manner, rather than the cramped developments that suffocate our neighborhoods. The argument that this is not legally feasible no longer holds; it is no longer audible, when our very own State tramples local laws and ordinances, with all neighborhoods except the airport bearing the brunt of their diktat. Santa Monica does not need a Central Park: it needs to remain livable, with development and green areas distributed throughout the entire city. It's high time this development option be revisited.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
495 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Thank you for your consideration.

Marianne O'Donnell
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A
02/14/23
496 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Pam Hall <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:04 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; David White; Susan Cline; David Martin; Jing Yeo Subject: No UpZoning

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and Council Members,
Please do not vote to upzone the NC areas. We look to you for your support. This is an urgent issue for our city's future.

Sincerely,
Pamela Hall
Santa Monica Resident
48 years
Item 7.A
02/14/23
497 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: lee wolfort <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am a long time resident of Santa Monica and I am writing to tell the city council that I strongly oppose the “upzoning” of Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. I urge the City council to protect these neighborhoods and small businesses by keeping the current zoning and not allowing lot consolidation. I am deeply concerned about Santa Monica becoming more homogenized, replacing what makes it unique and special with the same generic buildings and nationwide chains we see everywhere else. I want to support local businesses and preserve the character of Santa Monica.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter,
Lee Wolfort
Item 7.A
02/14/23
498 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Randolph Wright <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 02/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

I strongly oppose the "upzoning" of our neighborhood commercial districts, including but not limited to Main Street and Ocean Park Blvd. Please protect these streets! Randolph Wright
2607 6th St
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A
02/14/23
499 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Julian Billings <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards

PLEASE stop treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be accommodated- -this attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a housing shortage.

Bad city leadership across the state has prevented the housing we've needed to be built for decades, now is our chance to change course.

Thank you,
Julian Billings
[email protected]
1129 Lincoln Blvd Apt 4
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 7.A
02/14/23
500 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
4 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; David White; Susan Cline; David Martin; Jing Yeo Subject: No Upzoning

EXTERNAL

Dear Mayor Davis and Council Members,
Please do not vote to upzone the NC areas. We look to you for your support. This is an urgent issue for our city's future.

Sincerely,
Robert Hall
Santa Monica Resident
48 years
Item 7.A
02/14/23
501 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Kimberly Headstrom <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
To the City Council,
I am a resident of Santa Monica and love the small town feel of Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. It’s important to “buy local” and support the local small businesses and maintain the quality of these walkable Streets. I am against “upzoning” these streets. It’s important to have some variety in cities and if they all “upzone" there will be no character across our city as well as it will make it difficult for small business to continue.

Kimberly Headstrom
Long time Santa Monica Resident
Item 7.A
02/14/23
502 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
6 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Lauren Russell <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A -- OPPOSE upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial districts Zoning Changes Not Acceptable

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please note that as residents of Sunset Park, Santa Monica we are strongly opposed to the zoning changes to our beloved neighborhood of Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. Losing the current skyline to add five story buildings is an architectural fiasco, a traffic inducing nightmare and will negatively impact the quality of life of the neighbors living close by and the small businesses that operate here.

The only way we knew about this potential project was via Next‐door.

The City Council should have made this upcoming vote/proposal more public. Have any studies been done on traffic and air pollution consequences if this proposal passes? Nobody I know is for adding taller buildings, adding traffic and density to already ridiculously crowded streets, which are often nearly impassible during various hours.

Please note our total opposition to this proposal. We are voters.

Sincerely,
Lauren and Kenneth Quain
Item 7.A
02/14/23
503 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
7 Vernice Hankins
From: Maire Byrne <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards

EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City Council,
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant, local serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot, shouldn't be an alternative, it should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing Element. Please stop treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be accommodated--this attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a housing shortage. Bad city leadership across the state has prevented the housing we've needed to be built for decades, now is our chance to change course.

Thank you,
Maire Byrne
[email protected]
1630 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 7.A
02/14/23
504 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Raquel Vallejo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:34 AM
To: [email protected]; Christine Parra; councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; [email protected]; [email protected]; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject: NO REZONING

EXTERNAL
Dear council member:

How long have you lived in Santa Monica? What do you love about Santa Monica?
Me, I’ve lived here’d 25 years. As a student, then a single professional and as the last 18 years as a mom of 2 students who are now both at Samohi.

What I love about our city is mostly our Sunset Park Neighborhood - but also the various parts of the city we can choose to visit. The beach, of course, the restaurants and shopping districts, especially those with local flavor, “Mom and Pop”, and spaces where we can gather and still appreciate the surroundings. What I love less and less about our city is the growing TRAFFIC and CONGESTION, especially in our continually developing downtown, and the loss of what Santa Monica used to look like. What is incredibly disturbing to me is the looming transition of Gelsons into a massive development that will no doubt exacerbate the high traffic on Ocean Park and Lincoln and put a strain on our resources, especially water and our schools.

AND NOW, we learn our city council is considering further traffic exacerbation and loss of our city’s charm and culture and these mom and pop stores BY REZONING our Ocean Park, Pico, and Montana districts? ENOUGH! WHATEVER GAIN is to be had by such a seismic transition of these districts is far outweighed by the lasting loss to our City and neighborhoods. Keep downtown downtown and stop with the expansion of higher and larger structures, and denser areas - and traffic saturation. It’s NOT SUSTAINABLE. And it’s not worth losing our Santa Monica.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
505 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: ann major <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am OPPOSED to“upzoning” Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. I am not a Santa Monica resident, but the low buildings and local neighborhood shops create a lovely shopping and dining experience and have encouraged me and my husband to spend our money in these charming areas instead of closer areas of Los Angeles. I encourage a “no” vote on upzoning! Thank you,
Ann Major
3726 Boise Ave. Los Angeles 90066
Item 7.A
02/14/23
506 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Patricia Nakao <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 7A upzoning

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am a longtime resident and voter of Sunset Park.

I am 100% AGAINST upzoning in my local community on Ocean Park Boulevard, Main Street and Pico, as well on Montana.

Please DO NOT cave to the financial incentives of others who will profit while changing the character of our beloved city.

Upzoning would have a devastating impact on our local small businesses, as well as the special charm of Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Patricia Nakao
Danny Nakao
1321 Hill Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A
02/14/23
507 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Ashley Karubian <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: please upzone!

EXTERNAL
I just received an email lamenting the possible changes to the major commercial streets in SM. This frustrates me, because how are we supposed to solve our housing / unhoused issues if we don't build more units?! YES PLEASE TO DENSITY! Obviously we want local retailers to stay put and benefit from the extra people and foot traffic their businesses will eventually enjoy. My hope is that these redevelopments are zoned thoughtfully, with provisions to limit the chain stores and/or rethink the economics of the development so the rents allow for smaller shops. No one wants a street full of bank retail outposts, but we also need to reorient to saying YES to change and progress.

Side note: please don't let this happen. LA is ugly enough with all the chain malls. These developments are an opportunity to do something appealing and different.

Thank you,
Ashley
Item 7.A
02/14/23
508 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Sherna Berger-Gluck <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Sherna Berger-Gluck
Subject: Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I strongly urge you to maintain the character of the streets/neighborhoods in Santa Monica, and not "upzone," the areas on Ocean Park Blvd, Pico and Montana. Allowing greater heights and densities would transform the character of these neighborhoods and transform the character and charm of these areas, rendering them into the same monotonous, uniformity of so many other neighborhoods in LA County.

Sherna Berger Gluck
404 San Vicente Blvd, Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 7.A
02/14/23
509 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Alison Perchuk <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Proposed Upzoning

EXTERNAL
I oppose upzoning of Ocean Park & Montana Boulevards.

These street are vibrant pedestrian, shopping, service, and dining zones precisely because of their small scale and slower traffic.

We should promote larger developments on Olympic, Wilshire, Santa Monica, San Vicente: streets that already have larger scale in architecture and in roadway. Before building new commercial & live/work spaces, we should ensure full occupancy of existing commercial areas, like the now woefully empty Third Street Promenade ‐‐ the previous, local, query and vibrant iteration of which was destroyed by development 20 years ago. Conversion of existing structures is also important before building more.
‐‐
Dr. Alison L. Perchuk
Professor of Art History
California State University Channel Islands
One University Drive
Camarillo CA 93012
[email protected]
Item 7.A
02/14/23
510 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ellen Hannan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Upzone of all of SM

EXTERNAL
Plan for all of us.

Ellen Hannan
Item 7.A
02/14/23
511 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Michele Perrone <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Clerk Mailbox Subject: Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Hello City Council,
I am writing in complete support of the letter to you from SMCLC dated January 23, 2023 regarding Item #7a. You are addressing this issue tonight.

Please do everything in your power to stop ANY upzoning in our neighborhoods. It is unfair to take any more away from our city, most especially in our neighborhoods. What’s next? Some of you already know that I am against increasing density overall, which means including downtown. While I (hopefully) have a little moment of your attention… I do support adaptive reuse of existing buildings. There are so many empty stores, SM Place is a ghost town. Have there been studies turning any of this into residential? Thank you for your time!
Michele Perrone
Ocean Park Resident since 1997
Santa Monica Resident since 1991
Item 7.A
02/14/23
512 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Mimi Archie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Hello
As I long time Santa Monica resident. I oppose upzoning of our local neighborhoods. It is so important to maintain and support local small businesses and the quality of these walkable business locations. Please stop the over development of our city.

Thank You!
M. Archie
Item 7.A
02/14/23
513 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Bill Elswick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Oppose upzoning of Montana Ave

EXTERNAL
Hi,
I'm writing to oppose any upzoning of Montana Avenue. The neighborhood is already too dense, and the overflow parking for the existing businesses impacts residents for many blocks in all directions. Upzoning would certainly make Montana Avenue and the surrounding neighborhoods even more congested than they currently are. The council needs to stand up for the residents that elected them.

Bill Elswick
917 Eleventh Street
Item 7.A
02/14/23
514 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: John Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: No to upzoning NC in Sunset Park.

EXTERNAL
We the residents do not need or want upzoning of the NC strips in Sunset Park. Your 2018 interim zoning ordinance included a directive and policy to preserve "neighborhood character". Upzoning would in fct destroy the existing character of the neighborhood.

Thank you,
John Murdock
1209 Pine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
tel. (310) 450‐1859
Item 7.A
02/14/23
515 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: JOHN BUCKINGHAM <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:54 AM
To: Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject: 2.14.23 Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Council members,
I am imploring you to take the advice of our Planning Commission ‐ DO NOT allow our local neighborhoods to be upzoned!! Santa Monica residents deserve to have at least a few neighborhoods that still serve local residents, many of whom are older.

Greedy developers (you all know who they are!) have plenty of areas to overdevelop. Don’t let them destroy what is left of our city. Traffic is already a nightmare for cars and cyclists and rents (both commercial and residential) are off the charts.

Please use some common sense for once and vote to keep these neighborhood streets a true “neighborhood.” John Buckingham
Linda Buckingham
Sent from my iPad
Item 7.A
02/14/23
516 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Katherine Newall <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:56 AM
To: Katherine Newall
Cc: [email protected]; Christine Parra; councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; [email protected]; [email protected]; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject: NO REZONING

EXTERNAL
How long have you lived in Santa Monica? What do you love about Santa Monica? I’ve lived here as a young teen of a divorced immigrant mother who had no family, but the Santa Monica community. And now I continue to live here as a mother of three children now taking care of my elder mother….so I would say for the last 50+ years. I have been an active member of the community supporting the schools, youth sports and community leaders.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
517 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 What about making this a CITY that people want to live in and raise their children and give back…now you are STRIPPING us of the opportunity to have small business flourish, community members old and young meet live and work together because Seniors will not be able to afford to live here - and they will be too scared to walk down such congested streets.

I urge you to listen to the community and preserve the CITY I love.

Katherine Caulfield Newall
Item 7.A
02/14/23
518 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Bruce Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:56 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I am a long time resident of Sunset Park (40 years) and my wife and I have a deep connection to Pico and Ocean Park Blvd stores and essential businesses that are walkable and accessible in our neighborhood. Any changes such as are being considered (UpZoning) go against the way our neighborhood is as the Very Livable Santa Monica people love.

Thank you, Bruce
Bruce F Brown
1333 Pine St.

Santa Monica, CA 90405
[email protected]
C/ 310-351-5149
Lic. 523683
Item 7.A
02/14/23
519 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
4 Vernice Hankins
From: George Ferrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2-14-23 Agenda Item 7-A

EXTERNAL
I urge council members to reject the Planning Departments recommendation to upzone the commercial streets of Main Street, Pico Boulevard, Montana Avenue, and Ocean Park Boulevard. These commercial streets are about the only thing Santa Monica left in Santa Monica, the only thing left that is imbedded in the local community and serves or is owned by or employs neighborhood residents. Of course, doing what best serves residents may not be the highest priority for many council members. For those who do place the highest value on what benefits residents of Santa Monica, I urge you to not upzone these commercial streets.

George Ferrell
338 15th Street
Item 7.A
02/14/23
520 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

(310) 451-3669
February 14, 2023

VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Agenda Item 7-A (Study Session on Implementation of Various 6th Cycle Housing Element Programs)
Program 2D: Update Density Bonus (SMMC ch. 9.22)
Program 1A: Streamlined Approvals
Our client: Santa Monica Housing Council
LASC Case No. 22STCV11610
Our File No. 639.67
Dear Councilmembers:

This letter is submitted on behalf of the Santa Monica Housing Council (“SMHC”).

I am writing on the subject of density bonuses, as well as streamlining for housing projects.

STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW IMPLEMENTATION
The City’s obligation to comply with State Density Bonus Law (Gov’t Code §§ 65915, et seq.) is set forth in the Third Cause of Action in SMHC’s pending lawsuit. (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 22STCV11610.) The City’s Density Bonus Ordinance is codified in Chapter 9.22 of the Zoning Ordinance. It does not presently comply with State law. Since the filing of SMHC’s lawsuit, the City has been considering amendments needed to comply with State Density Bonus Law. Those amendments are reflected on pages 108-120 of the Zoning Ordinance redlines listed as Attachment B of your Staff Report.

The City appears to be on the verge of making substantial progress towards belatedly bringing its density bonus ordinance into compliance with State law. However, at least two concerns remain.

One is with the City’s failure to adopt a scheduled end-date for processing density bonus applications. (See Zoning Ordinance § 9.22.080.) As currently drafted, there is no deadline by which the City will make a determination on a project’s density bonus application once it has been filed, deemed complete and reviewed for code compliance.
[email protected]
Item 7.A
02/14/23
521 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023

Page 2 ends

The second has to do with the overbroad and overreaching nature and scale of supporting documentation called for from applicants to establish the basis for granting incentives/concessions. (See Zoning Ordinance § 9.22.080(A)(3)(c).) The California Court of Appeal has clearly held: “The applicant is not required to prove the requested incentives will lead to cost reductions; the incentive is presumed to result in cost reductions and the city bears the burden to demonstrate otherwise if it intends to deny the incentive.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego, 74 Cal. App. 5th 755, 770 (2022).) To come into compliance with State law, the City needs to address both of these issues. State Density Bonus Law is binding on charter cities such as Santa Monica. (Gov’t Code § 65918.) And State Density Bonus Law “shall be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units.” (Gov’t Code § 65915(r).)
In this regard, the State Legislature has formally declared and codified its intentions with regard to State Density Bonus Law:

The Legislature finds and declares that the intent behind the Density Bonus Law is to allow public entities to reduce or even eliminate subsidies for a particular project by allowing a developer to include more total units in a project than would otherwise be allowed by the local zoning ordinance in
exchange for affordable units. It further reaffirms that the intent is to cover at least some of the financing gap of affordable housing with regulatory incentives, rather than additional public subsidy
It is therefore the intent of the Legislature to make
modifications to the Density Bonus Law by the act adding this subdivision to further incentivize the construction of very low, low-, and moderate-income housing units. It is further the intent of the Legislature in making these modifications to the Density Bonus Law to ensure that any additional benefits conferred upon a developer are balanced with the receipt of a public benefit in the form of adequate levels of affordable housing. The Legislature further intends that these
modifications will ensure that the Density Bonus Law creates incentives for the construction of more housing across all areas of the state.
(Gov’t Code § 65915(t)(1) & (2).)
Item 7.A
02/14/23
522 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023

Page 3 ends

A. The City Must Establish Procedures And Timelines For Approving Density Bonus Applications.

The first deficiency in the draft redlines has to do with the apparently sensitive issue of adopting timelines for processing density bonus applications. In this regard, State Density Bonus Law clearly requires as follows:

In order to provide for the expeditious processing of a density bonus application, the local government shall do all of the following:
(A) Adopt procedures and timelines for processing a
density bonus application.
(Gov’t Code § 65915(a)(3)(A); emphasis added.)
This unambiguous requirement comes directly from State law.

The City’s “procedures” for processing density bonus applications are set forth on pages 119-120 of the Zoning Ordinance redlines. Among other procedures, the draft redlines state: “The [Planning] Director shall grant the concession or incentive required by the applicant unless [certain narrow findings can be made] based upon substantial evidence [in the record]” (9.22.080(C)(1)), and also state: “The [Planning] Director shall grant the waiver or reduction if the development standard will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a housing development at the densities permitted” (9.22.080(C)(2)). However, the redlines state nothing about timelines for rendering these decisions.

This deficiency means that density bonus projects are held in limbo in Santa Monica. Like SMHC, the Planning Commission was concerned with this lack of accountability and raised it multiple times during their public hearings. Also keep in mind that Housing Element Program 1A and your February 14 Staff Report discuss “streamlining” the review process for housing projects, but apparently City Staff contends that “streamlining” means no public hearings but does not mean reaching a timely decision.

In order to comply with State law, Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance Chapter 9.22 in general, and Section 9.22.080 in particular, need to set forth a timeline or timelines for decision-making. It does no good to have a timeline for deeming an application complete and for reviewing an application for code compliance, but not for determining the amount of the eligible density bonus or the adequacy of the supporting information to approve incentives, concession, waivers or reductions of development standards.

Per State law:

Item 7.A
02/14/23
523 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023

Page 4 ends

(D)(i) If the local government notifies the applicant that the application is deemed complete pursuant to
subparagraph (C), [it shall then] provide the applicant with a determination as to the following matters:
(I) The amount of density bonus, calculated pursuant
to subdivision (f), for which the applicant is
eligible.
(II) If the applicant requests a parking ratio pursuant to subdivision (p), the parking ratio for which the
applicant is eligible.
(III) If the applicant requests incentives or
concessions pursuant to subdivision (d) or
waivers or reductions of development standards
pursuant to subdivision (e), whether the applicant
has provided adequate information for the local
government to make a determination as to those
incentives, concessions, or waivers or reductions
of development standards
(ii) Any determination required by this subparagraph shall be based on the development project at the time the
application is deemed complete. The local
government shall adjust the amount of density bonus
and parking ratios awarded pursuant to this section
based on any changes to the project during the
course of development.
(Gov’t Code § 65915(a)(3)(D).)
Right now, there is no timetable for the City to render decisions on density bonus applications. And density bonus requests are in limbo for long periods of time without a decision being made. By comparison, for discretionary projects that are exempt from CEQA, the Permit Streamlining Act requires decisions to be made within 60 days from the exemption determination. (Gov’t Code § 65950(a)(5).) The City should set forth a similarly expeditious timeline for granting density bonus applications. (See Gov’t Code § 65915(a)(3) (“In order to provide for the expeditious processing of a density bonus application”; emphasis added).) Regardless of City Staff’s resistance, the City must establish a timeline for its own decision-making on density bonus applications in order to comply with State Density Bonus Law.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
524 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023

Page 5 ends

B. Section 9.22.080(A)(3)(c) Of The Draft Redlines Runs Afoul Of Caselaw Limiting A City’s Ability To Require Applicants To Demonstrate Economic Feasibility (As Distinct From Cost Savings) To Justify Concessions/Incentives Under Density Bonus Law.

State Density Bonus Law provides as follows:

A local government shall not condition the submission,
review, or approval of an application pursuant to this chapter on the preparation of an additional report or study that is not otherwise required by state law, including this section. (Gov’t Code § 65915(a)(2); emphasis added.)
As to density bonus requests for concessions or incentives, they are to be evaluated based on “identifiable and actual cost reductions.” (See Gov’t Code § 65915(d)(1)(A).) The criterion is cost savings, not economic feasibility.

On September 28, 2021, the California Court of Appeal held as follows:

A local ordinance is preempted if it conflicts with the density bonus law by increasing the requirements to obtain its
benefits. [Citation omitted.] The ordinance here does so; it conflicts with the state density bonus law to the extent that it requires an applicant to demonstrate that an incentive is needed to make the project “economically feasible.” It is therefore preempted by state law. [Footnote omitted.]
(Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles, 69 Cal. App. 5th 549, 558. See also Bankers Hill 150, supra, 74 Cal. App. 5th at 774 (“the Density Bonus Law does not require a developer to establish that the requested incentives and waivers are necessary to ensure financial feasibility”).)
The Zoning Ordinance redlines partially address this restriction on the City’s purview by striking the Zoning Ordinance’s past unlawful requirement for a project pro forma. However, even with this change, Section 9.22.080(A)(3)(c) still crosses the line.

As proposed, it purports to give Planning Staff overly broad and overreaching latitude to seek project financial information far beyond “cost savings” as a basis for granting concessions and incentives. This is not lawful.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
525 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023

Page 6 ends

Please turn to page 119 of the Zoning Ordinance redlines. The redlines on that page read in pertinent part as follows:

An application for a density bonus, incentive, or concession, waiver or reduction /, modification of development standards, or revised parking standard pursuant to this Chapter shall be submitted with the first application for approval of a housing development and processed concurrently with all other
applications required for the housing development. The
application shall be submitted on a form prescribed by the City and shall include at least the following information:
* * *

3. Description of any requested incentives or, concessions, waivers or modifications reduction of development
standards, or modified parking standards. For all
incentives and or concessions that are not included
within the menu of incentives/ or concessions set forth in subsections B and C of Section 9.22.060, the application shall include documentation a pro forma providing
evidence that the requested incentives and concessions
result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. The cost of reviewing any required pro forma or other financial data submitted as part of the
application in support of a request for an
incentive/concession or waiver/modification of
developments standard, including, but not limited to, the cost to the City of hiring a consultant to review said
financial data, shall be borne by the developer. The pro forma documentation shall include all of the following
items:
a. The identifiable and actual cost reduction achieved
through the incentive or concession;
b. Evidence that the cost reduction allows the applicant to provide affordable units or affordable sales prices; and
c. Other information documentation requested by the
Director. The Director may require that any pro
forma documentation include information regarding
Item 7.A
02/14/23
526 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023

Page 7 ends

capital costs, equity investment, debt service,
projected revenues, operating expenses, and such
other information as is required to evaluate the pro
forma deemed necessary by the Director.

The wording of (a) and (b) is fine. But the wording of (c) highlighted in yellow goes far beyond cost savings and strays again into financial feasibility and must be stricken to comply with established caselaw. Capital costs, equity investment, debt service, projected revenues, and operating expenses have nothing to do with cost savings, and instead relate to financial feasibility, which is exactly what the Court in Schreiber held to be unlawful. Subsection (c) should be deleted in its entirety.

STREAMLINING HOUSING PROJECTS
As drafted, the review and decision-making process for Administrative Approval ("AA") applications does not establish any timetable for City Staff to issue their ministerial decision to approve an AA for a housing or mixed-use housing project. (See draft Zoning Ordinance § 9.39.060 at pages 165-166 of Attachment B.) Moreover, the draft Zoning Ordinance adds the requirement to obtain Architectural Review Board (“ARB”) approval prior to the City approval of the AA, which could easily add more time (as well as upfront cost) rather than result in streamlining.

A. To Better Implement Housing Element Program 1.A, The Zoning Ordinance Redlines Should Establish Actual Deadlines By Which The City Will Issue Its Ministerial Approvals Of New Housing Projects.

We contend that not having any deadline for completing review of AA applications for housing projects is the exact opposite of the meaning of the term “streamlining.” Instead, it is anti-streamlining. That is not consistent with the purpose and intend of the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

B. By Contrast, The Zoning Ordinance Formerly Had A 90-Day Deadline For Review And Decision On Administrative Approval Applications.

In contrast to the current lack of any timetable proposed in the draft Zoning Ordinance, the City’s 1988 Zoning Ordinance committed to a clear 90-day timetable for issuing decisions on all Administrative Approval applications:

Item 7.A
02/14/23
527 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023

Page 8 ends

C. A Timetable For Approval Of Administrative Approval Projects Is Needed.

As discussed above, an open-ended application process runs counter to streamlining and counter to the urgent need for expedited housing production.

The City Council should insist on revising Section 9.39.060 to establish reasonable deadlines for decision-making on AA applications for housing projects.

Overall, these decisions should take no longer than 60-90 days once an AA application for a housing project is deemed complete. To be fair to City Staff, this deadline could exclude any time during which the applicant is asked to respond to City requests for additional information from the applicant concerning the project.

Following are suggested timetables:

1. For Housing Projects of 150 units or less, the City has 60 days from the application being deemed complete to issue the AA.

2. For Housing Projects exceeding 150 units, the City has 90 days from the application being deemed complete to issue the AA.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
528 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023

Page 9 ends

3. The time periods in #1 and #2 above are tolled while City is waiting for an applicant to respond to a City request for a project revision necessary for the project to conform with the Zoning Code or to provide other legally required information.

Imposing the above time periods for review and processing of AAs should not be burdensome on the City as the Housing Accountability Act already requires the City to notify the applicant within 30 days (for projects of 150 units or less) or 60 days (for projects of more than 150 units) if the City considers the project to be inconsistent with the Code. (Gov’t Code § 6589.5(j)(2).) Thus, the above time periods allow an additional 30 days (with tolling for any time period required for the applicant to respond) beyond when the City is required to identify any Code inconsistencies to approve the project.

In addition to the above, time periods for processing of AA applications for housing projects, including the time period for the City to respond to an applicant's resubmittal and/or schedule a hearing before the Architectural Review Board, should be tracked by the City and the City Council should receive periodic reporting (quarterly or at least annually) tracking the City's actual timelines for processing and approval of AAs for housing projects.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the City Council should direct City Staff to come up with an expeditious timeline for rendering decisions on density bonus applications.

Furthermore, the City Council should direct City Staff to remove the unlawful terms relating to financial feasibility from Section 9.22.080(A)(3)(c).

In addition, the City should further ensure the streamlining of housing projects as outlined in this letter.

Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
KLK:sna
cc: David White
David Martin
Jing Yeo
Douglas Sloan
Heidi von Tongeln
Michelle Hugard
SMHC Board of Directors
Item 7.A
02/14/23
529 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Donna Gregory <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:00 PM
To: Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; [email protected]; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems Cc: Hamilton Sterling
Subject: City Council Agenda item 7A for Feb. 14th meeting

EXTERNAL
We have lived in the Sunset Park neighborhood for over 40 years, first as renters and subsequently as owners. Over these four decades, we have enjoyed seeing a wonderfully changing mix of mom and pop businesses and services evolve along Ocean Park Boulevard between 16th and 18th.

As the zoning currently stands, we enjoy a vibrant commercial corridor. Upzoning the corridor would drastically reduce the quality of life in the neighborhood. Traffic and parking are already growing problems. In addition, placing a high density residential building in this area would further erode the quality of life here.

It has taken decades to progress to this vibrant community. Destroying it just as it has gotten off the ground would countermand the State’s goals for both current and new residents. Please do not let this happen to our neighborhood.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
530 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: John Zemke <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject: Re: City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
I am a resident of Sunset Park and am strongly opposed to “Upzoning” for Ocean Park Boulevard and Pico Boulevard.

I am opposed to changing these unique streets to be developed with new five or six-story projects. It would result in the demolition of existing buildings, and would displace and eliminate most of the essential neighborhood-serving businesses. They would be replaced with higher rent tenants like chain stores, destabilizing the neighborhoods, reducing residents’ quality of life and increasing traffic and parking woes.

I am also opposed to allowing lot consolidation for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana Avenue. I am opposed to allowing developers to consolidate lots and build larger, mega projects on these Streets.

When the Planning Commission recently reviewed these changes it made a strong, well-supported recommendation to Council against upzoning these Streets and urged the Council to keep the existing heights and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts. I urge you to take the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

Ocean Park Blvd is heavily congested from the ocean to Bundy throughout much of the day. Lincoln Boulevard is jammed. 23rd street operates at a crawl. There are already big developments being built (on Lincoln at Ashland) or in the works (Ocean Park/Lincoln /Gelsons) that will have a huge impact on the quality of life in our too-rapidly growing city. Despite studies that may have been done we do not have any real idea how these massive projects will negatively impact our neighborhood. It seems the height of foolishness and poor, insensitive planning to be thinking of upzoning Ocean Park boulevard at this moment in time.

It’s important to “buy local” and support local small businesses and maintain the quality of these walkable Streets. Please do not destroy Santa Monica as we know and love it.

I’m hoping that the greed of developers (who don’t live here, only care about making money) does not yet again win out over the people who’ve chosen to live in Santa Monica and build their lives here, raise families, contribute to the community.

John Zemke
3030 Paula Dr
Item 7.A
02/14/23
531 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Bronwyn Poole / Touch Interiors <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock
Subject: PLS. NO TO UPZONING OCEANPARK AND PICO

EXTERNAL
To our valuable Council Members,
I have lived in Santa Monica since 2014 and recently bought our home on 14th & Hill Street with my husband and 3 children in 2021.

I urge your to not allow the upzoning Ocean Park, Pico, Main St and Montana.

We need to protect the small businesses that make Santa Monica neighborhoods special and unique. Not to mention the inevitable traffic issues.

If you need to meet state mandates for affordable housing then consider creating a corridor along Wiltshire in keeping with Westwood.

PLEASE DO NOT RUIN OUR BEACHSIDE HAVEN.

Kind Regards,
Bronwyn Poole ‐ 310 661 0627
www.touchinteriors.com
Item 7.A
02/14/23
532 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Craig Hamilton Hamilton <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards

EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City Council,
We need to support opportunities to provide more housing in Santa Monica and the Housing Element is a step in the right direction.

Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant, local serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot, shouldn't be an alternative, it should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing Element.

New housing on the boulevards will actually improve the boulevards. New residents living on streets like Ocean Park Boulevard in Sunset Park, where I live will support the kind of local serving retail and restaurants that I'd like to see more of.

Thank you,
Craig Hamilton
Craig Hamilton Hamilton
[email protected]
2524 25th St
SANTA MONICA, California 90405
Item 7.A
02/14/23
533 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: George Gleason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards

EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City Council,
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant, local serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot shouldn't be an alternative, it should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing Element. Please stop treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be accommodated--this attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a housing shortage. New housing will only help Santa Monica to grow and be a more inclusive community.

Restrictive policies across the state have prevented the housing we've needed to be built for decades, now is our chance to change course.

Thank you,
George
George Gleason
[email protected]
811 20th St
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 7.A
02/14/23
534 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
4 Vernice Hankins
From: rhona attwater <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: VOTE NO!!

EXTERNAL
My parents came to Santa Monica in the early 50's from the UK. I was born in '59. We lived in the Ocean Park area where rents were cheap and the area at the time was considered a dump. My brother and I, who is a retired SM firefighter were raised in Santa Monica. Our lives have revolved around this City for many years. I raised my own children here and am a Santa Monica property owner. We are all absolutely disgusted at the overdevelopment that is taking place around us and the total disregard for what is best for the residents and taxpayers of Santa Monica. The overdevelopment must stop. It can not be allowed to creep onto Ocean Park, Montana or Pico. Upzoning these areas will have a detrimental impact on the surrounding neighborhoods and the residents of these areas that will trickle down all of us. It's horrific what you've allowed to happen to Lincoln Blvd. Don't allow this to happen to what is left of our quaint 8 square mile city. Do what's right and VOTE NO to upzoning!!
Rhona Attwater
Item 7.A
02/14/23
535 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Rosa Hogle <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 2.14.23 City Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
We have lived in Sunset Park on Pearl Street since 1956. We patronize the shops and restaurants on Ocean Park Blvd, and Pico Blvd and Montana Avenue.

PLEASE DO NOT DEVELOPE AND DESTROY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

Thanks,
William and Rosa Hogle
Item 7.A
02/14/23
536 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Gavin Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Nicola Scott
Subject: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members,
My wife Nicola and I live in Sunset Park and strongly agree with the Planning Commission's urging that you protect our neighborhoods and local small businesses by keeping the current zoning and not allowing lot consolidation.

Sincerely,
Gvin and Nicola Scott
Item 7.A
02/14/23
537 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: bill weiner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:46 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Montana Ave upzoning - NO

EXTERNAL
Please do not include Montana Ave. in your upzoning plans. Montana Ave survives because of its smallness, its small town feel. It is not in the same league as a Pico Blvd. Main street or Ocean Park Blvd or the other major shopping streets. It is narrower and less dense by its very geography, it’s walk and shop nature. You will increase the parking on local streets, crowds in a residential area, more crime and less appealing for the many locally owned, neighborhood serving businesses that are here now. We do not need large chain stores that can pay more for larger spaces.

We already have districts that lend themselves to multi-story developments: Wilshire Blvd, Lincoln Blvd, Santa Monica Blvd, as well as the more commercial parts of major streets such as 4th, 7th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 20th.

Leave Montana Ave the way it is.

Bill Weiner
Item 7.A
02/14/23
538 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Vincent Licassi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Up-zoning Ocean Park

EXTERNAL
Dear city councilmembers,
Please do not vote to up‐zone the Ocean Park district. There has long been small business grassroots entrepreneurship there ‐ recent efforts from new businesses has increased the vibrancy of this quaint area of town that is on the upswing and has potential to continue to do so. It’s nice to walk there now and then as I live in the area. If I want to frequent any kind of big business, I can drive there within a 5‐ 10 minutes ‐ that said, I stay away from Lincoln Boulevard (crowded with lack of parking), which has lots of semi high‐rise, multi‐use buildings that are barren of the personality that had given Santa Monica it’s unique charm. I don’t need more in my immediate neighborhood. If we voted on it, I’m sure my friends and neighbors would agree with me. The traffic on Ocean Park is one lane each way ‐ plus the bike lanes (which are appreciated). But the traffic is backed up every day. A lot of people passing through use Ocean Park as an alternate route going east and west, to and from the freeway ‐ there is a lot of speeding already. It would be reckless to try to increase the load on our current transportation system in this area. (Main Street also has a lovely charm ‐ I feel the same about that.) Your votes will mean a lot for us in this neighborhood. Certainly increased tax revenues will make it tempting to build and build and build but let’s ask the people ‐ we pay the taxes, vote and know what is needed! Thank you, Vincent Licassi
Item 7.A
02/14/23
539 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Larry E. Verbit <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Upzoning Montana

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilpersons,
I have been a resident of and homeowner on the 1000 block of 9th and 10th streets since 1987. I am strongly opposed to the upzoning of Montana avenue which is a local neighborhood shopping street. To allow higher density and building on that block is absurd and an act against the residents of the neighborhood who pay taxes to support the city.

You’re really trying to drive out those who sought refuge in a wonderful and quiet community. Now this type of action, along with the City’s nonfeasance, basically resulting in misfeasance by not timely filing a development plan with the state risks a 12 story apartment building planned for my 1000 10th street block. This will drive our prices down, cast shade on multiple residents of 9th, 10th and 11 streets and make parking impossible. How can you have let the City be so ingnorant to such impact resulting from timely failures.

Very truly yours,
Larry Verbit
Selected by Thomson Reuters as a 2016 - 2023 Southern California Super Lawyer® Law Offices of Larry E. Verbit
6922 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 300
Hollywood, CA 90028
Telephone: 323/469-6400
Cell: 310/486-4141
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.dhvlaw.com
This message and its attachment are sent by a lawyer and may contain information that is confidential and protected by privilege from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from printing, copying, forwarding or saving this message and any attachments. Please delete this message and attachments without printing, copying, forwarding or saving them and kindly notify the sender immediately. Thank you.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
540 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
5 Vernice Hankins
From: yelena sonkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
I am SM resident for more them 30 years and I oppose this Upzoning change that includes Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue.
thank you
Yelena Sonkin
Item 7.A
02/14/23
541 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Kendra Desai <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Hi Council Members,
I am writing to express my concern for the proposal to upzone Santa Monica's neighborhood commercial districts. I strongly disagree with the idea of upzoning our neighborhoods. My hope is that we can maintain the quality of these walkable streets by keeping local small businesses. Santa Monica is already getting crowded and there are a large number of high‐rise apartment buildings already being built. This is only going to create more traffic and worse air quality. I have small children and we love Santa Monica for its small neighborhood feel. Please protect our neighborhoods!!!
Thank you,
Kendra

KENDRA LEAH DESAI
310.980.7507
Item 7.A
02/14/23
542 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Debra Jean <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: UPZONG on Montana Ave

EXTERNAL
Dear City of Santa Monica Council Members;
I am adamantly opposed to the upzoning on Montana Avenue (and in all neighborhoods in our beautiful city).

I urge you to oppose this.

Thank you.

Debra Rawdin
Santa Monica 90401
Item 7.A
02/14/23
543 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Perry Friedrich <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Feb 14 2023 City Council Agenda item 7a

EXTERNAL
My wife and I have lived in Santa Monica for over 40 years and STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposed upzoning of our city’s commercial districts and the proposal to allow lot consolidations for Ocean Park Blvd, Pico Blvd and Montana Avenue.

The character of our city has already been diminished by overdevelopment. Skyrocketing utility rates are making Santa Monica less affordable. Increasing demand for water, sewer, gas and electric will only exacerbate the problem. I’m a retired CPA who has worked with developers for most of my career and know they only care about density which allows them to increase profitability. None of them ever live in the projects they develop or have any sympathy of the problems their project create in the local communities.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
544 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Amanda Robertson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:57 PM
To: Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis
Subject: Please vote NO on upzoning

EXTERNAL
This will destroy the unique small town feel Santa Monica is famous for. It will destroy the family friendly environment we all strive for and pay huge amounts of property taxes for. This should be reserved for downtown Santa Monica only.

If Bobs on OP was forced into the ground floor of a steel and glass building, all hope is lost for our beautiful beach side city. PLEASE VOTE NO ON LOT CONSOLIDATION AND UPZONING ESPECIALLY ON OCEAN PARK AND MONTANA. It will destroy everything we have created together.

Amanda Robertson (310) 614‐8071
Please excuse any typos! Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A
02/14/23
545 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Roger Young <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: No "Up Zone"

EXTERNAL
Do not destroy the "village" atmosphere of SM.

Roger Young
Resident
Item 7.A
02/14/23
546 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; David White
Subject: 2/14/2023 City Council Agenda Item 7A- Public Comment

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, and City Councilmembers, Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the implementation of our City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element for 2021-2029. At a high level, I am writing to urge you to implement zoning changes, as we agreed to in our Housing Element, so that we can not only meet our RHNA requirements, but so we can continue on our path toward making Santa Monica a City that genuinely reflects our values.

The staff report for Item 7A lays out a number of discussion topics and questions that you will need to opine on. Before I provide my feedback on the specific questions raised in the staff report, I feel that I need to comment on the “hot topic” that I am sure you’ve received many emails on from community members on urging you to seek an amendment to our approved Housing Element to limit upzoning of certain neighborhood commercial districts based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission.

I understand and support the underlying premise of seeking to protect small businesses and neighborhoodserving retail, but I do not believe that the proposed method of limiting new housing in these districts is the appropriate path forward. If our goal is to protect small businesses and create new opportunities for business owners from marginalized backgrounds, as the City Council, you can implement other policies that would allow for displaced businesses to return (within certain parameters) or create incentives to provide under-market rents to certain types of businesses/business owners. The possibilities are vast, and we have not yet sufficiently explored them. The types of businesses that we are looking to protect and encourage can and should co-exist alongside homes. In fact, proximity to homes can help businesses succeed and when we allow for new possibilities, architects can design creative and aesthetically pleasing buildings that create exciting opportunities and benefit all of us.

Outside of the exploration of other ways to support a thriving business community, as stated in the staff report “it appears that not rezoning the NC zone and further upzoning a portion of the Bergamot area beyond that already stated in the certified Housing Element would likely be rejected by HCD.” (emphasis added) We do not want to put ourselves at risk of our housing element being de-certified and once again becoming subject to all of the potential consequences of having a non-compliant housing element, including once again opening ourselves up to additional builder’s remedy projects. With our limited resources and time, we should follow through on implementing the policy changes we committed to in our Housing Element.

With regards to the remaining discussion topics and questions laid out in the staff report, my suggestions are below:
 Program 1.F (Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards) - We should eliminate the tier system for housing in Downtown. As we know, 20% of 0 is 0 and if our inclusionary requirements are too high for projects to pencil, we will not get any housing at all, including deed-restricted affordable housing. The inclusionary zoning requirement in Downtown should be lowered to 15%. Consistency in our zoning codes citywide will also help make the development process more predictable, which will reduce costs Item 7.A
02/14/23
547 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
4 at the project level and may even help reduce the per-unit costs to renters and homeowners who will live in these new homes.
 Program 1.J (Revising Development Standards for Housing Projects) - As you consider whether ground floor commercial use should be required for Neighborhood Commercial zones on Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard, I urge you to consider the practical outcomes of such a requirement and explore the nuances of the topic including asking the following questions: Should this requirement be a blanket requirement for all new buildings? Should it apply only in cases when a new project is replacing a building with commercial space on the ground floor? Could this be a flexible requirement that could potentially allow for more live/work units for people like artists?  Program 1.A (By Right Approvals for Housing Projects) - As for program 1.F above, the standards for Downtown should be consistent with the zoning standards citywide.  Program 1.D (Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements for Housing) - At a high level, we should eliminate parking minimums and institute parking maximums citywide. In order to be consistent with AB 2097, we must eliminate parking minimums in the areas shown on the map on page 43 in the staff report, but knowing what we know about the high costs of parking and in order to align with our values, we should go a step further and eliminate parking minimums city-wide. We should not eliminate parking maximums, and we should institute parking maximums citywide as well. An off-street parking spot routinely adds $30,000-$100,000 to the cost of a new housing project and takes up valuable space that we could use for homes, for businesses, or for other community-serving needs. We should prioritize people over cars and we can show that by eliminating parking minimums.  Program 2.A (Establish a Moderate-Income Housing Zoning Overlay “MHO”) - We should expand the MHO citywide, but we should not exclude R1 or OP1 zoning districts, although we may want to include some considerations if it is applied in those areas. If we are truly serious about alleviating the strains of high housing costs on Santa Monica residents and meeting our RHNA requirements, it does not make sense to exclude a majority of the City’s land. We should also allow for some inclusion of market-rate units as an incentive to create more housing in projects built under this policy.  Program 4.E (Incentives for SB9 units in R1 zones) - We should make it easier for people to transform their single-family homes into what works for their families and help incentivize gentle increases to density through development impact fee waivers for SB9 projects. We should also go a step further and re-examine our development impact fees for projects that have smaller numbers of units and for ADUs.

Additionally, although the specific issue is not before you today, we should consider allowing deferral of development impact fees as it would help reduce development costs in the long-term, allowing for lower per-unit costs.

All people deserve access to safe, stable, affordable, and accessible homes. Please follow through on implementing the programs and zoning changes we agreed to in our HCD-certified Housing Element so that Santa Monica can meet its RHNA requirements and live up to our values of equity, inclusivity, sustainability, and accessibility.

I appreciate your careful consideration of the issues before you today and look forward to listening to your discussion this evening.

Sincerely,
Natalya Zernitskaya
Natalya Zernitskaya (she/her)
[email protected]
Item 7.A
02/14/23
548 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
5 Vernice Hankins
From: John Okulick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose upcoming

EXTERNAL
Vote no on item 7A
Sent from John's iPhone.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
549 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jeffrey Prince <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Keep Supporting Sustainability in our amazing city!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
As a long‐time Santa Monica resident, CERT Team member and Community Garden Volunteer (Ishihara Learning Garden and the new Marine Park Garden), I want to thank you for your continued support in addressing climate change and sustainability issues.

I also hope you will continue all efforts to expand urban agricultural projects that promote community gardens and their educational components.

Everyone benefits from these efforts!
Thank you again,
Jeffrey Prince
‐‐
Jeffrey Prince
(310) 770-8656
"Music is what feelings sound like." - Author Unknown
Item 7.A
02/14/23
550 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Eden Kusmiersky <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
Importance: High

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members:

I am a longtime resident of Santa Monica, living just off of Ocean Park Bl\oulevard for 25 years. I vehemently oppose the proposed “upzoning” of Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts, including our very special Ocean Park Boulevard. These proposed changes would bring an end to the local small businesses that are the heart of our neighborhood - the rents would preclude the small bakeries, restaurants, shops, architecture offices, and other small businesses. The street is welcoming to the local residents and the Will Rogers Elementary and John Adams Middle School students.

These neighborhood-serving businesses would invariably be replaced with higher rent tenants like chain stores, destabilizing the neighborhoods, reducing residents’ quality of life and increasing traffic and parking woes.

We do not want bigger buildings or consolidated lots on Ocean Park Boulevard.

We agree with the Planning Commission's well-supported recommendation against upzoning these Streets and instead keeping the existing heights and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts.

Respectfully,
Eden Kusmiersky
1321 Pine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A
02/14/23
551 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Reza Shapouri <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Upcoming vote on up-zoning four of our neighborhoods

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Tonight you will be discussing and forming an opinion on whether to upzone four of our neighborhood commercial districts: Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. We already have districts that lend themselves to multi‐story developments: Wilshire Blvd, Lincoln Blvd, Santa Monica Blvd, as well as the more commercial parts of major streets such as 4th, 7th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 20th.

I’m asking you to please keep Main St, Ocean Park Blvd, Pico Blvd, and Montana Ave. as the few last shopping areas to keep its old Santa Monica charm and character. We are powerless against the commercial builders who have infiltrated Santa Moinca using the “builder’s remedy” to erect buildings up to 10 stories high. Let’s not allow these unique walk and shop streets to turn into tall corridors of generic large chain stores, blocking out sunlight and small businesses from thriving. If there is anything worth preserving in our seaside town, it’s these districts!
Thank you,
Reza Shapouri
Shapouri Consulting, Inc.

Mobile: +1‐310‐266‐9816
[email protected]
Item 7.A
02/14/23
552 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Cynthia Hill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: [email protected]; Cynthia Hill
Subject: 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A

EXTERNAL
D ear C ouncilm em bers –

I am a business ow ner in Santa M onica, with offices located on O cean Park Blvd and a hom eow ner in the Sunset Park neighborhood, just off Pico Blvd.

I oppose the upzoning of the N eighborhood C om m ercial districts on these tw o streets. It is the sm all locallyow ned businesses on O cean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that m ake the Sunset Park neighborhood special. There are plenty of com m ercial areas within the city limits already prepared for the businesses upzoning attracts, w hereas Santa M onica depends on m aintaining the intim ate neighborhoods like Sunset Park, Pico Blvd and O cean Park Blvd, that support locally-ow ned sm all and eclectic businesses. It’s w hat m akes Santa M onica a w onderful hom e and an exciting destination for others.

Please do not throw locally-ow ned businesses to the w olves by upzoning the N eighborhood C om m ercial (NC) districts on these tw o streets.

Thanks,
C ynthia Hill
Cynthia HIll
SM small business owner and Sunset Park resident
310-399-4000
Item 7.A
02/14/23
553 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Burt Goldstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Carol Dickinson Subject: City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Member:

Please vote down any and all proposals to upzone or consolidate lots or otherwise facilitate further large-scle development.

I have read the article at:
https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2023/February2023/02_13_2023_Council_Caught_in_a_Tight_Spot.html We are ALL in a “tight spot” here in Santa Monica.

That is why residents oppose further development and overcrowding.

The cost of possible State and developer litigation, with its uncertain outcome, should be weighed against the cost of rolling over and upzoning ourselves, with its certain depredation of living standards for us.

At the very least, litigation could delay development. “Injustice delayed is injustice denied (for a while)”.

This might provide some breathing room and the possibility of change at the State level as other communities put pressure on the State in defense of their right to zone themselves.

The alternative is certain oincrease in overdevelopment.

Burt Goldstein
On Feb 14, 2023, at 10:41 AM, Tricia Crane <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Northeast Neighbors and friends,
Tonight, Santa Monica City Council will be holding a study session to implement our city's Housing Element, which has already been approved by Council and includes upzoning four commercial boulevards (Main Street, Montana Ave, Pico Blvd, and Ocean Park Blvd). But opposition to this element in the Housing Element has been Item 7.A
02/14/23
554 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
4 mounting among residents, small business owners, members of the Planning Commission and Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City.

Defending the zoning increase in the Housing Element are City Planning Department staff who have expressed fears that such changes could place the City's certified Housing Element in jeopardy and risk rejection by the State Housing and Community Development (HCD) with potentially dire consequences.

Below is an article in the LookOut. You can watch the Council meeting live tonight at https://www.youtube.com/user/Citytv16santamonica
The Agenda with Written Comments submitted to Council on Agenda Item 7-A can be accessed at
https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1353 Tricia
Santa Monica LOOKOUT - Council Caught in a Tight
Spot on Development
February 13, 2023 -- The City Council on Tuesday will face a volatile political dilemma -- change the unique nature of Santa Monica's four Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts or open the floodgates to virtually unchecked State-sanctioned development. https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2023/February2023/02_13_2023_Council_Caught_in_a_Tight_Spot.html Item 7.A
02/14/23
555 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Joan Sekler <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Council Mailbox; [email protected]
Subject: Feb 14 City Council Agenda Item 7A regarding Upzoning

EXTERNAL
As Santa Monica residents, we strongly oppose the upzoning of Montana, Pico, Ocean Park and Main St. This will further prevent low and middle income people to rent and to shop on their incomes.

We need to downzone these areas, otherwise, Santa Monica will just turn into a city for the wealthy! Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A
02/14/23
556 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Rochelle Siegel <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
As a 20 years plus Westside resident, I urge you to vote no in the choice to “upzone” Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. Please leave neighborhoods intact. Not every building, every block needs replacement with multi story buildings. We need neighborhoods that feel like neighborhoods. We need our existing local businesses, not chain stores. Please protect the soul and "sense of place" in Santa Monica.

Rochelle Siegel
cel 310‐902‐0159
______________
Item 7.A
02/14/23
557 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
7 Vernice Hankins
From: Matt Elkus <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:45 PM
To: Matt Elkus
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
As a current Santa Monica resident and concerned citizen, I believe you should OPPOSE the upzoning of our neighborhood commercial districts.

Thanks,
Matt Elkus
Item 7.A
02/14/23
558 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Agenda Item 7 - Study Session Housing Element From: Laurel Overman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:02 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 7 ‐ Study Session Housing Element

EXTERNAL
I am against up zoning Montana, Ocean Park, Main Street and Pico.

It’s a false choice to say you either up zone or we will have the “builder’s remedy” throughout the city.

UP ZONE ANOTHER AREA. The area that should be up zoned is Wilmont from 4th Street east to 20th Street.

This is rent control Area G and the most populous SMRR voting base. Wilmont Area G and NOMA have historically allied to downzone Wilmont because NOMA doesn’t want the traffic in their neighborhood that will come from increased Wilmont development.

As a voting block, Wilmont and NOMA have ganged up on the southern portion of the city for 40 years, keeping SMRR in power.

In 1990, before Prop R was voted in, the density in Wilmont was 8 units on a 7500 square foot lot. Prop R downzoned it to 5 units and it has been downzoned again to 3 units. The limited new construction is $2M+ condominiums.

At 8 units per lot, more affordable condominiums could be built. The people want 3 bedroom condominiums for families. Families in this area will send their kids to our public schools and the tax base will be increased.

Any renter who is truly low income would automatically go to the head of the line for a new rent restricted unit.

I have been in my current location on 7th Street for 30 yers. The “low income” renters are all long‐stayers who don’t work — or work very little — because their rent is so cheap they don’t have to.

My next door neighbor will tell you she is a poor grandmother. In reality, she is a 50% owner in another rent controlled building in Santa Monica which she operates illegally. Under AirB&B. Hers is not an unusual situation, When developing the boulevards was initially voted in, then Council Member Kevin McKeown stated that developing the boulevards would provide 20 years worth of our housing needs for the Housing Element.

So, in 20 years, you are going to have to upzone the multi‐family areas anyway. Why not have a more balanced plan? You should have the Planning Department present a plan view of the city with the boulevards built out with 4 and 5 story buildings with low density residential in between. It’s going to look like a wall of overhead rail lines lining the Item 7.A
02/14/23
559 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 streets.

Thank you.

Laurel Overmaan
953 7th Street
SM 90403
Item 7.A
02/14/23
560 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
From: rick salzman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:13 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: 2/14/23 agenda item 7‐A

EXTERNAL
Hi--I am a long time resident of Sunset Park. I urge you to leave the Pico Blvd and Ocean Park Blvd development standards as is. There are many small local business establishments which make this neighborhood feel like a neighborhood
Please do not upzone the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts on these streets.

Thank you.

Rick Salzman
1109 Pearl St
Item 7.A
02/14/23
561 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Jan Brilliot <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Upzoning commercial areas.

EXTERNAL
For 35 years I ran a business on Montana Ave. It was very successful (I sold and retired in 2008) I would attribute my success to hard work and a vision but also to the fact that it existed in a low key friendly neighborhood where business owners and employees knew our clients and cared about them. It wasn’t just about the bottom line $$$.

I am afraid the City of Santa Monica has not learned this lesson from the failing Promenade and now wants to try again on the smaller neighborhood commercial streets.

Please do not vote to upzone these neighborhood commercial districts. Do not support this mistaken vision. Vote NO.

Jan Brilliot
former owner Weathervane II
Item 7.A
02/14/23
562 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Ellen Mark <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra
Subject: 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A: Study Session on Implementation of the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element Programs
Importance: High

EXTERNAL
To Mayor Davis and Council members:

Please retain the existing heights and FARS in the Neighborhood Commercial districts on Ocean Park Blvd, and the south side of Pico Blvd., rather than increasing as proposed in the certified Housing Element.

Small businesses need our protection, and our neighborhoods need them! Sincerely,
Ellen Mark
Navy St.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
563 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Tony Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Janis Flax
Subject: No rezoning Ocean Park and Pico!

EXTERNAL
Please vote NO on rezoning Ocean Park and Pico. I am a homeowner on 31st Street and Ocean Park and I am strongly against this money grab and surely unpopular idea. Please register my voice.

Tony Harris
2526 31st Street
Item 7.A
02/14/23
564 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
7 Vernice Hankins
From: Donna <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
As a long time Santa Monica resident one of the things I value most are the distinct neighborhoods with their small stores and restaurants. It makes the city seem like an oasis in the midst of the sprawling megalopolis of Los Angeles. Upzoning Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts would destroy that and lose the uniqueness that makes Santa Monica special. It would become like any other street and shopping district in Los Angeles, full of large chain stores with no character. Chain stores can go to Third Street Promenade, which many have left, without destroying our neighborhood shopping areas. I shop locally because there are stores that aren’t in a zillion other places, if those stores go out of business I would have no incentive to shop here. Tax dollars would be lost and city revenue would decrease.

I urge you to vote no to the upcoming proposal. Keep Santa Monica full of charming small businesses and restaurants.

Thank you.

Donna Sternberg
Donna Sternberg & Dancers
Artistic Director
www.dsdancers.com
310-260-1198
Item 7.A
02/14/23
565 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Neighborhood Commercial
From: Thomasine Rogas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:52 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Neighborhood Commercial

EXTERNAL
As a tour guide I regularly come down Main Street in a bus with people from Canada, UK, and other parts of the USA.

This has given me a unique opportunity to experience just how special our Main Street is.

PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE IT!
Thomasine Rogas
110 Ocean Park Blvd #214
Santa Monica CA 90405
Item 7.A
02/14/23
566 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Amanda Kerner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Alan Kerner; Amanda Kerner
Subject: We LOVE all of our local business. They are necessary to the quality of life for our community!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
More is not better. We need you to support our quality of life! We love our small local businesses please give them all the support that they need to thrive so they can serve our community.

We do not support - upzoning our Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Thank you for your service and thank you for listening to the people's concerns, Amanda and Alan Kerner
1761 Sunset Avenue
Santa Monica CA 90405
310.452.0658
310-261.7798
[email protected]
[email protected]
Item 7.A
02/14/23
567 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Ben Swett <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Housing on our Boulevards - More, Not Less! (please at least skim)

EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Friends:

Please don't downzone commercial boulevards. That would be going EXACTLY THE WRONG DIRECTION on housing.

Some of parts of them have housing already - and those are vital areas, full of life and services. There is housing on Montana, Ocean Park & Wilshire already --- and it hasn't ruined or hurt those areas - the new housing on Eastern SM blvd has brought life and services to that area.

Look at the new services and vibrancy that's come with new(ish) housing in downtown santa monica.

Housing is not bad or evil. Housing = Good. More Housing = Good.

Housing is nothing to fear.

People fear change. Housing is fine. We need it as a state, a region, a city ... and we're required to add it as a city. The NIMBYs want ... what? Roll back the clock? Pull up the Drawbridge?
Why would you restrict housing, anywhere, when we need more of it, so desperately? Just because people who are unhappy and fearful anyway think it's going to .... do what, exactly? We got a message from NOMA saying Montana is at risk of "becoming homogenized, replacing (specialness) with generic buildings and nationwide chains." and that we should be alarmed. Ridiculous. (and several nationwide chains on Montana already: californa closests; citibank, wells fargo, whole foods, william sonoma; Menchies, Panda Express; Starbucks, Item 7.A
02/14/23
568 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
4 Drybar, Kiehls, Massage Place, Chase Bank; Coldwell Banker, Compass Realty; Engel and volkers; One West Bank (pavillions (safeway corp) union bank, etc ).

You need to add something like 9,000 units, right? So add them at Bergmont, AND the airport someday - AND boulevards. Please be grown ups about this, do your jobs, and be kindly, firm and understanding towards the fearful. They'll be fine. You'll be fine.

We need housing, period. More housing will IMPROVE our commercial boulevards.

If you read this, thanks. If you get it, please hold the line. It's time to grow up. Please change direction on "fear of housing" and show leadership - thank you.

Thank you,
Ben Swett
90402
Ben Swett
[email protected]
614 San Vicente
Santa Monica, California 90402
Item 7.A
02/14/23
569 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Agenda Item 7: Study session, 2/14/23

EXTERNAL
To help protect your privacy,
Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.

Dear Mayor Gleam and Council Members,
The NOMA Board supports the concepts previously expressed in the letter sent by several members of the Planning Commission asking the City Council to request the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) amend the City’s certified Housing Element to enhance Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).

The request asks to "retain the existing heights and Floor Area Ratios (FAR) in the Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NC) on Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue rather than increasing them as proposed" in the certified Housing Element. This is acknowledgement that the upzoning of our NC districts has the strong potential to displace locally owned businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to residents. The letter cautions that "In fact, the loss of these neighborhood-serving businesses will be in direct conflict with AFFH objectives."
The letter clearly states the need to maintain our Neighborhood Commercial Districts in order to provide essential services to residents. The last major zoning update (2015) considered increasing the height and FARs for the neighborhood commercial districts and decided that these were not warranted and should remain resident serving commercial areas.

Neighborhood Commercial Districts each have a unique feel which is vital to Santa Monica, its residents and business community. They provide a special mix serving us all. We would be substantially poorer as a community if we were to lose their distinctive nature and local ownership.

The NOMA Board urges the City Council to seek a modification in the City’s certified Housing Element to protect the Neighborhood Commercial Districts.

Thank you.
smnoma.org
[email protected]
Item 7.A
02/14/23
570 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Pico Blvd Santa Monica <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A; Protect Neighborhood Serving Streets

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please use your authority to protect Santa Monica’s Pico Boulevard from higher-sized buildings, and more density.

Pico Boulevard is Santa Monica’s longest ‘working boulevard’, starting at the beach and running 3 miles up to Centinela Avenue at the 10. There is a unique concentration of family-owned small businesses, many secondand third-generation, along with national supermarkets, specialty shops, professional offices, gyms, bars and restaurants, non-profits, Santa Monica College, and community open spaces Virginia Ave Park. This mix is how Pico Boulevard survived the recent pandemic, and continues to attract more small businesses to the neighborhood.
 Nearly half of all businesses on Pico Boulevard are professional offices in areas such as law, healthcare, real estate and property management, financial services, general contracting, creative production, and nonprofits.  Food and drink businesses (excluding exclusively retail-based businesses) also have a strong presence on Pico Boulevard, including coffee shops, bakeries, bars, and restaurants like Lunetta, Upper West and The Brixton
 Personal services such as hair salons and barbers, massage, fitness, laundry and other services are also common, as are retail businesses for a wide variety of goods including groceries, liquor, clothing, sporting goods, general merchandise, and many auto repair and tire shops.  Some of Pico Boulevard’s many legacy businesses include McCabe’s Guitar Shop, the Morgan-Wixson Theatre, Rae’s Diner, and Gilbert’s El Indio restaurant.  Retail anchors include Trader Joe’s, the 99 Cent Store, Rite Aid, Walgreens, and Whole Foods 365.  Pico’s newest businesses in 2022 are small and/or independent, including Adriana’s Hair Studio, Nostalgia Bar, In2Scuba, Vela Massage and Go Get Em Tiger, opening June 2023.

Please apply to the State to modify our City’s Housing Element to exempt this Neighborhood Commercial District from upzoning. Upzoning would allow significantly taller buildings than Pico Boulevard can currently host, and disrupt its thriving small business community. Resulting increasing rents would drive out the small, local businesses that are the backbone of this district’s economy.

Thank you.

Sharon Town Lee
Chair
Pico Improvement Organization
Item 7.A
02/14/23
571 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
7 [email protected]
‐‐
Dana Moorehead
Merchant Engagement Director
Pico Improvement Organization
[email protected]
Item 7.A
02/14/23
572 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Outdoor dining
From: Jen Liles <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 1:22 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Outdoor dining

EXTERNAL
Hi to whoever may actually read this!
I’m writing to say horribly sad it is that the city is making it so difficult for our beloved restaurants to continue outdoor dining, specifically Crudo e Nudo in Santa Monica.

Main Street has been dead for years, and the pandemic outdoor dining project brought it back to life. We got to know the owners well while they opened, and know they truly care for the city, sustainability, community and more.

Making it so difficult for businesses to save outdoor dining is absolutely baffling to me. We live in Southern California! We want to eat outside! What do you save, like 3 parking spots? Don’t we pay enough in taxes to keep programs like this running?
Restaurants have suffered enough and so have angelenos. Please reconsider the recent measures you have put into place.

Thanks,
Jen
Item 7.A
02/14/23
573 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: MAIN STREET OUTDOOR DINING - NO to personal guarantee and water waste capital facility fee From: Brooke Oliver <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 1:21 PM
To: Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: MAIN STREET OUTDOOR DINING ‐ NO to personal guarantee and water waste capital facility fee

EXTERNAL
Hello City of Santa Monica,
As a resident of Santa Monica for the past 10 years and Los Angeles resident for 30, I have seen businesses go to die on Main Street. Over the past 3 years since Santa Monica opened up the streets of Main Street for outdoor dining, there has been a new wave of life and interest on the street. It has become a nice place to dine, walk, gather with friends and find new places to eat/shop. Where in the past it was a sleepy street, quiet during the day with almost only indoor dining (some with dining off the street in dark outdooer patios). Such a shame when we live in such a beautiful place with great weather year round.

It has come to my attention by business owners on Main Street that the city is now requiring new fees for business owners making it impossible for them to survive.

I am asking you to remove the personal guarantee and the water waste capital facility fee entirely from your new contract. Save these companies who saved the city during the pandemic. Keep local businesses alive.

Respectfully,
Santa Monica Resident Brooke Oliver
Item 7.A
02/14/23
574 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: We should be helping restaurants
From: Kevin Tyler <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 1:13 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: We should be helping restaurants

EXTERNAL
My partner and I chose to live in Santa Monica because of how charming and walkable the Main St corridor seemed. As soon as we saw it, we envisioned all of the outdoor dinners we could walk to, sitting under the lights lining our street.

Now, the city has decided to take aim at an industry left hobbling throughout and after the pandemic: neighborhood restaurants.

In 2021, according to Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, visitor spending on meals was Alonso’s $160m and over $60m was spent on beverages ‐ each a fraction of 2019/pre‐pandemic levels. ($343m and $146m, respectively.

That means restaurants are working double time to claw themselves back to profit, while enduring extreme hiring difficulties and other obstacles. The City of Santa Monica should be assisting these vital businesses, not harming them.

As a prominent destination for business, families, and others, our dining scene deserves support from the municipality it serves.

As a tax payer, I’m asking you to consider removing the personal guarantee and the water waste capital faculty fee so these restaurants can get back on their feet and continue serving the residents and tourists in our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Kevin Tyler.

Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A
02/14/23
575 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Cheryl LaMee <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
Hello City Council:

Upzoning Pico, Main, Ocean Park and Montana is not called for at this time. We have plenty of open storefronts (take a look at 3rd St as an example) and we need to address immediate eyesores before we create more havoc in our beautiful city.

Kind Regards,
Cheryl
‐‐
Cheryl LaMée
c | 512-968-2506
e | [email protected]
Item 7.A
02/14/23
576 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
5 Vernice Hankins
From: sally landau <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: "upzoning" of Pico and Ocean Park Boulevard

EXTERNAL
I’m unable to attend tonight’s City Council meeting, so I’m taking this time to share my feelings and thoughts about increasing zoning in my neighborhood on Ocean Park Boulevard and West Pico.

In years past, I’ve co‐managed an architecture firm and fully understand the need for space requirements and neighborhood upgrades, not to mention increased revenue for the City.

However, the blocks under consideration are occupied by small business owners that greatly contribute to the community and enrich our lives. Many of us shop and dine often in establishments that will be affected by their removal.

In fact, some are so popular, they attract people from all over Los Angeles County.

The speculation that 5‐story behemoths will transform our neighborhood is chilling, and because of the anticipated much higher rents, the developers will only be able to sign leases with mighty chain stores (at which I rarely shop) or fast food restaurants (where I do not eat).

I’m sure you’re considering many aspects of this potential zoning change, perhaps some I’m unaware of, but from my point of view, it would be a travesty for the neighborhood I have lived in for 18 years and hold dear.

Thank you,
Best regards,

SALLY LANDAU
2444 25th Street
Santa Monica CA 90405
“Be yourself. Everyone else is already taken.”
Oscar Wilde
“I dwell in possibility.”
Emily Dickenson
“Curiosity is the cure for boredom. there is no cure for curiosity.” Dorothy Parker
Item 7.A
02/14/23
577 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
6 Item 7.A
02/14/23
578 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Barbara Fuchs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 6:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City Council,
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant, local serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot shouldn't be an alternative; instead, it should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing Element.

Please stop treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be accommodated-- this attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a housing shortage.

Bad city leadership across the state has prevented the housing we've needed to be built for decades, now is our chance to change course.

Thank you,
Barbara Fuchs
Barbara Fuchs
[email protected]
1068 Yale St.

Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 7.A
02/14/23
579 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Jane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 8:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: NO on Up-Zoning our Neighborhood Commercial Districts Dear City Council Members,
I am asking - pleading with you DO NOT Up-Zone our Neighborhood Commercial Districts!! Please STOP with the over building and destroying the unique neighborhood charm of Santa Monica! Stop it!
For the past 25 years I have lived less than a block of Montana Ave, I raised my son here - Please don't destroy this lovely neighborhood, OUR HOME by building 6-story buildings!
Enough with the over building in Santa Monica!!!
Stop destroying Santa Monica!
Stop making destroying Santa Monica's charm!!
People over Profit!!
Prioritize the quality of life for Santa Monica residents! P.S. I VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION!
Thank you.

Jane Tucker
Long time Resident of Santa Monica, Parent and Voter
Item 7.A
02/14/23
580 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Rachel Maguire <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 10:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
Hello‐
As a homeowner in Santa Monica, I am opposed to “upzoning" of the Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. I am also opposed to lot consolidation for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana Avenue.

Santa Monica is currently being overrun by big projects and taller buildings. We need to preserve the charm and diversity that still exists.

Thank you for your time.

Rachel Maguire
101 California Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90403lean
Item 7.A
02/14/23
581 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Sue Edwards <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
Dear Councilmembers:

Again, please protect Pico, Main, Ocean Park, and Montana from upzoning by requesting a modification to the City’s Housing Element regarding NC Zones.

In addition, please oppose lot consolidation on Pico, Ocean Park, and Montana, as well as Main.

We have come to a crossroads in terms of development in our city.

Please consider that upzoning and lot consolidation will have profound and negative effects on our local environment, sustainability, and quality of life for future generations of Santa Monica residents, workers, and visitors.

Thank you.

Sue Edwards
Item 7.A
02/14/23
582 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Caoimhe Whitebloom <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 5:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
Hello,
My name is Caoimhe Whitebloom and I have grown up in Santa Monica. There are a lot of things changing in our city now, some things for the better but some for the worse. Upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial districts on Ocean Park Blvd and Pico Blvd would hurt Santa Monica and our locally owned small businesses in a hugely detrimental way.

The businesses that would replace them would be large corporate chains that you can find anywhere else in the states and we would loose what makes us unique.

I patron many of the business on Ocean Park and Pico weekly, if not daily. Bob’s Market, Thyme Cafe, Santa Monica Yoga, The Counter, Lunetta, Gilbert’s, and so many more make Santa Monica the amazing place it is and if we lose them, which is what will definitely happen if this item goes through, then we might as well be any other boring city in California.

Please understand that the gravity of this decision.

Thank you,
Caoimhe Whitebloom
Item 7.A
02/14/23
583 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Kristin Kreiger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
Hello Council members,
Please do not “Upzone” more streets in Santa Monica, allow lot consolidation on Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue.

It is vitally important to support our small businesses which are being so driven out of business in all the country by large buildings and enormous chain stores.

Please, please, please make your votes for the local people. Thank you.

Kristin Kreiger
Item 7.A
02/14/23
584 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Victoria Schlue <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
I’m a Santa Monica resident and strongly feel that Ocean Park Blvd, Main St, Pico Blvd, and Montana Ave need to be protected against upzoning and lot consolidation. It’s important to support local small businesses and maintain the quality of these walkable streets in our neighborhoods.

Thank you,
Victoria Schlue
Sunset Park resident
Item 7.A
02/14/23
585 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Jenee Castellanos <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council Agenda Item 7a
Council members,
I'm writing as a resident of Santa Monica for almost 20 years, and as a voter and tax payer, I am voicing my opposition to the proposed "upzoning" of our retail areas of the city.

Support small business, support your residents, listen to your residents.

Protect the integrity of Santa Monica and do not upzone these areas. This city is over developed as it is.

Thank you,
Jenée Castellanos
Item 7.A
02/14/23
586 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Thomas Polson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
To the city council,
I'm a 25+ resident in Santa Monica who lives near Montana and has an office on Main St. I strongly oppose the zoning change. We need to preserve these areas as they are some of the few remaining walkable neighborhoods in Los Angeles.

Traffic and parking are already a problems and I'm sure you've heard all the arguments. It is time to do what is right and preserve the things that make Santa Monica special.

Thomas Polson
Item 7.A
02/14/23
587 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Steve Housden <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS
We will not stand for Ocean Park Blvd becoming a dark, depressing canyon like you've created on parts of Lincoln. This over simplistic (greed based, imho) approach to "The Housing Crisis™" has never and will never solve the issues it purports to. It is --at best-- misguided, wasteful, and an assault on those of us who have set down roots here over decades.

Steve Housden
Item 7.A
02/14/23
588 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Kat Blandino <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 7A Santa Monica City Council 2.14.23

EXTERNAL
Dear Elected Officials and Mayor Davis,
I implore you to hear from the people you are elected and responsible to serve.

I write to you regarding item 7A on tonights (2.14.23) city council agenda. We the people do not want to upzone our neighborhood commercial streets (Montana, Main, Pico and Ocean Park) please stop with the overdevelopment that is destroying our city, our quality of life and the future of Santa Monica for our children.

I understand that there are personal agendas at play and the machine that is Santa Monica politics including SM Dem Club and SMMRR is why we have Gleam Davis as Mayor once again and Council Member Torosis and Council Member Zwick holding seats but it is time to realize that you don’t own this city and it’s residents won’t allow you to destroy our neighborhoods.

We are working, living and raising our children here. Many have lived here far longer than I have but what we all have in common is a love for this iconic city. Please stop destroying it. Please stop making it unsafe to live in, impossible to park anywhere and devoid of the basic amenities needed. Please listen to the people you are elected to serve.

We do not want a consolidation of lots and large mega projects happening. We want to support local businesses and live in a thriving neighborhood community.

Please stop destroying our city.

I stand with the planning commission and what is outlined in their letter. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=14074&Meeting ID=1353__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!pgsPNx9CSRMiF9r73wRUrcFIiFnbM6R5NCfgjgI3SwXAumXrfGqV5a_2VgjaI45QitF1wDxe 11riQu0LRzrwDYrNn9xQkAj1$
Please vote to keep the current zoning and not allow lot consolidation.

Thank you for your time and service,
Kat Blandino
Sunset park resident and parent to elementary and middle school children in our district.

Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A
02/14/23
589 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Mitchell, Jonathan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Re: Please vote NO upzoning Item 7a city council meeting 2/14/23

EXTERNAL
PLEASE vote NO on upzoning Item 7a city council meeting tonight2/14/23 We do not want our city destroyed by overdevelopment. The shade and eyesore of tall buildings on these quaint streets that still have family run businesses is the foundation of our city. Please do not ruin it any more than recent development has already done!!!!
Thank you,
Jono Mitchell
Santa monica, 90403
Item 7.A
02/14/23
590 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Upcoming vote on up-zoning four of our neighborhoods

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,

Tonight you will be discussing and forming an opinion on whether to upzone four of our neighborhood commercial districts: Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. We already have districts that lend themselves to multi‐story developments: Wilshire Blvd, Lincoln Blvd, Santa Monica Blvd, as well as the more commercial parts of major streets such as 4th, 7th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 20th.

Thank you,
Dr. Banafshe Bayati MD

1450 10th Street, Suite 305
Santa Monica, Ca. 90401
424.348.3800 Office
833.974.2032 Fax
www.smobgyn.com

This email message, including any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and prohibited from disclosure under applicable law. if you are not the intended recipient, please delete/destroy all electronic and har copies of this email immediately and notify the sender that the email was sent in error.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
591 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Carmen Joseph <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 5:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2/14/23 Agenda item 7a

EXTERNAL
I am a concerned Sunset Park resident of 22 years. I have been a regular customer of Bob’s Market, Santa Monica Yoga and Merrihew’s Sunset Gardens as well as many other businesses on Ocean Park, Pico and Montana Avenue. I have been heartened to see the recent small businesses thriving on Ocean Park lately. I feel like our little neighborhood is starting to thrive. The prospect of “up zoning” will undermine all the positive growth in this area. Pushing out long‐term small businesses for denser, high‐rents doesn’t make sense.

I am not a NIMBY person. I desperately want to house the unhoused and to provide much needed affordable housing. I worry about these small businesses being forced out if there are rent increases. The last thing that small commercial areas need are more large corporate retail stores and restaurants. I want to support small business and affordable housing.

Please vote no on up zoning. This will destroy our small residential areas by changing the commercial landscape.

Thank you.

Carmen Joseph
2101 Pearl Street
Item 7.A
02/14/23
592 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jero Books & Templet Co. <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 5:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Re: Protect our neighborhood streets from UP-ZONING! NO and NO to these Projects!!

EXTERNAL
Hello,
We have been S.M. residents since 1978 and have also opposed the Miramar and now the Gelson Project at Lincoln and Ocean Park. Enough is Enough!! No to these Projects that will do more to Harm our city then help in anyway!! Traffic Sucks already!! Mary & Jerry Rojeski
“Upzoning” would allow these unique Streets to be developed with new five or six-story projects. The resulting demolition of existing buildings would displace and eliminate most of the essential neighborhood-serving businesses. They would be replaced with higher rent tenants like chain stores, destabilizing the neighborhoods, reducing residents’ quality of life and increasing traffic and parking woes.

Also being considered is whether to allow lot consolidation for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana Avenue. If approved this would allow developers to consolidate lots and build larger, mega projects on these Streets.”
Item 7.A
02/14/23
593 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Gerald Zelinger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 5:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
To Council-members,
I have lived in Santa Monica most of my life.

I have seen Montana Avenue evolve from laundromats, gas stations and upholstery shops to a street of good restaurants, shops and now a bookstore.

To propose gutting our walking streets and neighborhoods for more ugly high-rise, non-descript architecture and make Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd., Pico, Montana and other low density shopping streets into what Lincoln Blvd. is becoming would be a tragic end to the Santa Monica Community.

As a former business owner told me when he was closing Weathervane for men on Montana Ave. (and moving to Laguna) a few years ago “Santa Monica is not beachy anymore”.

If Santa Monica loses its “beachy-ness” Santa Monica will lose its unique desirability and say “by-by” to tourists and visitors.

Gerald Zelinger
Item 7.A
02/14/23
594 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

Santa Monica City CouncilFebruary 14, 2023

Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023