Santa Monica City Council
February 22, 2023

Sincerely,
Anna M. Rogers, Ph.D.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
403 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Lauri Fraser <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Lauri Fraser
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
.

Please refer to 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a in your email subject line and send it to:

Dear City Council Members,
I am a concerned  resident and citizen of Sunset Park. I was born in Los Angeles and have been a resident of Santa Monica for over two decades. I say this because I have seen lots of changes and unfortunately the building and development of our precious city of Santa Monica has made it almost impossible to  do business or dine, or shop,  due to over development and traffic and lack of parking.

PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW  this to happen to Ocean Park Blvd. This is the last pocket of peace in Los Angeles. So far it is still civilized. More development, high rises, over‐flowing  parking lots may mean more income for the developers and it  will also bring in more traffic, and crime. Our neighborhood is still a neighborhood. We are
PLEASE consider the human condition before you go for the dollar instead of the people.

Thank you for your time
Most sincerely,
Lauri Fraser
‐‐
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chapelle Villas HOA ‐ Owners" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ChapelleVillas‐ [email protected].

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ChapelleVillas‐ Owners/C53B7E9D‐95D9‐4A41‐A6CA‐FC2451332D64%40laurifraser.com.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
404 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Karen Sampson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Opposition to 2/14/23 City Council Agenda 7a

EXTERNAL
I am writing to voice my strong opposition to "upzoning" Montana Avenue.

I believe strongly in supporting the local businesses on Montana Avenue, and in maintaining the quality and walkability of the area. From my understanding, "upzoning" would allow a level of development on Montana Avenue that would destroy the very character and charm of this neighborhood where I shop, eat, and spend a lot of my time. I don't own a car, so living within walking distance of this low‐key, quiet, and very safe neighborhood commercial district is a big part of what makes my day‐to‐day life not only possible but also enjoyable. Allowing the personality of this neighborhood to be stripped away in favor of commercial interests would be a terrible disservice to not only everyone who lives in or spends time visiting the area but also to the city itself.

It was my dream for many years to move to Santa Monica; I came back year after year to vacation in the area with my daughter, which is how I knew it was where I wanted to live out the rest of my life. Working remotely due to Covid gave me a window of opportunity, and I made the move here exactly two years ago. Other than its proximity to the ocean, the north of Wilshire/Montana Avenue area's walkability, suburban feel, and safety are the main reasons I relocated here.

Frankly, I'm incredibly upset to hear that the city is willing to consider substantially altering the essential composition, look, feel, and experience of Montana Avenue ‐‐ all for profit and money. Doing so would make Montana Avenue indistinguishable from so many other areas of the city, stuffed to the brim with chain stores and high rises and traffic. If you allow developers to combine lots and build five‐ or six‐story buildings on Montana Avenue, it will no longer BE Montana Avenue.

I sincerely hope the Santa Monica City Council will think long and hard about this issue and its long‐term implications.

Please don't destroy the essence of the very place I longed for years to ‐‐ and now happily do ‐‐ call "home." Sincerely,
Karen Sampson
Proud Santa Monica resident (for now)
Item 7.A
02/14/23
405 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Tracy Kahaner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:43 AM
To: Shana Kaplan
Cc: 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!

EXTERNAL
AMEN!
On Feb 14, 2023, at 5:13 AM, Shana Kaplan <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Councilmembers:

Please vote no on upzoning and lot consolidation.  Please do not ruin our special city.

Shana Kaplan
922 14th Street
SM  90403
Item 7.A
02/14/23
406 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Danny Guggenheim <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:37 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
Dear Council,
We are strongly opposed to the proposal to upzone in our Sunset Park neighborhood.

We have lived in Sunset Park for 17 years, and have children attending Grant and JAMS.  The existing character of our neighborhood would be forever changed for the worse by the NC upzone proposal for Ocean Park and Pico.  We and our kids regularly walk around the neighborhood, visiting our favorite locally‐owned small businesses along Pico and Ocean Park, including Ghisallo, SM Yoga, Bob’s Market, Local Kitchen, Thyme Market, Blossom, Il Forno, Vito, Olympia Club barber shop, Lunetta, Gilbert’s and Lares.  Our neighborhood revolves around the sense of community anchored by (1) our strong public schools to which many students walk or ride bikes, and (2) flourishing small businesses to which many of us walk or bike, with owners and staff who live among us, welcome us and participate and support our community activities ‐ all mostly in the sunshine with a sense of openness and (usually) light traffic thanks to the low density and low building heights.

Many of those who choose to move into (or stay) in these neighborhoods despite rising costs cite the uniqueness of the neighborhood and local community that revolve around these features.  More density and higher building heights would be devastating to the Sunset Park identity and character  ‐ there would be new development just for development’s sake, necessarily increasing the costs of operating, which will push out the small businesses and bring in large national businesses who can afford to operate without profits in desirable locations.  This would also have the hugely detrimental, depressing, and irreversible effect of our main streets ‐ often lined with students, families and other residents going about their day on foot or on bikes, often with their pets ‐ being transformed from bright and airy corridors to industrial‐like, uninviting, and unsafe‐feeling areas that are deprived from sunshine, open sky and transparency.  We don’t want to turn into downtown!
Several of you campaigned in front of our schools, introducing yourselves to parents who had walked or biked to school with their kids, petting our dogs, and telling us how you’re just like us and share a vision for preserving and enhancing our neighborhood and community, and want to focus the Council’s attention on the needs of our city’s residents.  How then could you even consider this proposal?  Don’t forget who put you in office (hint: it wasn’t the staff who live outside of SM), or what you said to us in person to get our votes ‐ we certainly have not forgotten ‐ and it would be a major betrayal of trust to now decide to pull the rug out from under us by upzoning the NC districts on Pico and Ocean Park.

Respectfully,
Daniel Guggenheim
Sunset Park resident since 2006
Item 7.A
02/14/23
407 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Mimi Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 2/24/23 agenda item 7a

EXTERNAL
I am writing this email to indicate my very strong opposition to the "upscaling" proposition for Ocean Park Blvd and other Santa Monica neighborhoods. I am a 30 year resident of the Sunset Park area of Santa Monica. I patronize the local businesses. I also am concerned about the traffic in my neighborhood. This proposal would make the traffic situation even worse than it already is. Please vote NO . Thank you. Mimi Brown 310 963-7588 Item 7.A
02/14/23
408 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: RONNA JOSEPH <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:06 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 home owner in the Ocean Park area of Santa Monica. I live on Hill Street. I am horrified at the notion of up‐zoning the area of Ocean Park Blvd. Please do not allow this over commercializing over populating to take over this street that has so many charming businesses.

NO on up zoning.

Thank you,
Ronna Joseph
Sent from my iPad
Item 7.A
02/14/23
409 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Sarah A Spitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: NO TO UPZONING

EXTERNAL
On this Valentine’s Day, do NOT break the hearts of Santa Monicans by approving upzoning in commercial districts.

There HAS TO BE A BETTER WAY to meet the state’s requirements than complete displacement of neighborhood‐serving small businesses, increasing traffic (BAD for the environment so not in line with sustainability goals) and HIGHER RENTS and PARKING PROBLEMS.

Do not give in to the pressure to create a Santa Monica no one recognizes! NO ON COMMERCIAL ZONE UPZONING!

Sarah Spitz, KCRW Producer/Publicity Director (retired) Culture writer, The Canyon Chronicle (current)
Former “Culture Watch” columnist, Santa Monica Daily Press (2011‐2020) UC/CE LA County Master Gardener (2006‐active); Certified Master Food Preserver (2011‐2014) Food Forward Kitchen Cabinet Advisory Board www.foodforward.org CERT (Community Emergency Response Team 10) Santa Monica Volunteer Item 7.A
02/14/23
410 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: 5 story building code Pico ocean park?
From: pattyhmj <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 5:06 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: 5 story building code Pico ocean park?

EXTERNAL
Dear City Santa Monica's council members.

Hearing about a new code to be voted on for 5 Story building Pico Ocean Park? Is this correct? Please keep the code the same The impact would be disasterious in our area of dense schools and walking streets.

Please do not add to crowding and construction...this is why we voted you in to keep taller buildings out and keep our area safe.

Thank you
Patty
68 years in Santa Monica local resident.

Sent from my Galaxy
Item 7.A
02/14/23
411 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: billie williams <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:09 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
Please Vote NO on Agenda Item 7a
I strongly oppose the suggested upzoning and expansion in these areas.

Billie Williams
24th Street
90405
Item 7.A
02/14/23
412 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Keep Montana and Main Street as is!
From: Katherine Reuter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 4:21 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Keep Montana and Main Street as is!

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
Santa Monica's charm, and economic and tourist draw come from the City's charming neighborhood districts.

Please see if there is anything you can do with the State zoning requirements to especially keep Main Street and Montana just as they are, and any new construction is in line with the current buildings. Are these historical zones? If not these should be.

Thank you,
Katherine Reuter
1210 Grant Street
90405
Item 7.A
02/14/23
413 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Sara Sluss <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:46 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
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.

Sara Sluss
2129 Glencoe
Venice, CA
Item 7.A
02/14/23
414 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Janis Flax <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please don’t up-zone Santa Monica!!

EXTERNAL
Save Bobs’s Market, Save Santa Monica Yoga, Save Yoga‐urt! Do not get rid of the small businesses that make Santa Monica a neighborhood! Please!!!
Janis Flax
2694 31st Street
Santa Monica 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A
02/14/23
415 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Ann Maggio
Subject: 2/14/23 Council Meeting - Item 7A

EXTERNAL
Show me a city where chain stores and vanity spaces didn't take over retail and restaurant spaces when cities upzoned and I'll sell you a bridge to Mars for a dollar.

NO DOUBLEWIDE LOTS!
Moral bankruptcy could lie in the majority and if Gleam has her way she'll gut the folks fighting to make home ownership a reality for the renters in this town.

Thanks in advance to those of you who will vote NO on the upzoning of Montana, Pico and OP Blvd.

You already know there is little to NO OPEN SPACE within walking distance for the vast majority of SM children because they live in apartments and have no yards. So, WHERE WILL THEY PLAY? Your individual decisions have been made so on with your charade.

Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."  ‐ Albert Einstein Item 7.A
02/14/23
416 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Paula Kayton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:36 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 7a

EXTERNAL
Please do NOT vote to up‐zone Santa Monica commercial districts including Montana Avenue, Main Street, Ocean Park and Pico Boulevard. We, who live in Santa Monica, need to be able to be listened to and do NOT approve of this possibility. Please protect the current streets and businesses.

Paula Kayton
722 Adelaide Place
Santa Monica 90402
Item 7.A
02/14/23
417 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: BStolier <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:32 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 have recently become aware of the “upzoning” and lot consolidation recommendation for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana Avenue.   As a
40+ year resident and homeowner in Ocean Park, we vehemently oppose this idea.  It will completely ruin the unique character and charm of these neighborhoods and
turn them into cookie‐cutter retail chain abominations.

Horrible, horrible, horrible idea and a ghastly mistake.

We are not opposed to growth and density, but these are not the places to do it.  Leave the larger development to Lincoln Blvd and downtown Santa Monica.

Thank you for listening and please don’t ruin these unique neighborhoods and the unique local businesses.

William Stolier
Kathy Weber
2707 Highland Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405
To help protect your privacy,
Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
418 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Ellen Hiura <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda item 7a

EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPhone
Dear Council Member(s):

As long term Santa Monica homeowners in Sunset Park, we wish to express our vehement opposition to up zoning on Ocean Park Bl, Main St and Montana Ave.

Sincerely,
Ellen and Howard Hiura
Item 7.A
02/14/23
419 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Housing element amendment
From: ejs2514 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 3:52 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; councilmtgitems <[email protected]> Subject: Housing element amendment

EXTERNAL
Please approve the proposed upzoning of the Bergamot Plan area Replacement Site at 1757 Stanford Street, as requested by the property owner.

Please reject the proposal to undo existing upzoned areas along Main, Montana, Pico, and Ocean Park.

As a resident of Sunset Park, both Ocean Park and Pico need upzoning for increased pedestrian/retail activity and vitality. Significantly, retail uses are consistent with upzoning, and neighborhood commercial (NC) zoning uses can be incorporated as street level occupancies within new developments (example: the recent development at 28th and Pico).

Best wishes
Ed Salisbury
2514 30th Street
Santa Monica
Item 7.A
02/14/23
420 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: No upzoning
From: Richard Orton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:01 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No upzoning

EXTERNAL
I've lived in Santa Monica since 1970 and I don't want the council to vote for increased density this would involve. We already have 10,000 people per square mile and it is crowded enough.

Don't make it worse.

Richard Orton
Ocean Park
Item 7.A
02/14/23
421 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 8 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
From: Faustino Garza <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 7:40 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
As a 35‐year homeowner and resident of Santa Monica, I wish to express my strong opposition to any proposal to "upzone" our commercial district walk‐streets:  Ocean Park Ave; Montana Ave; Main Street, and Pico Blvd.

I also oppose any proposal for "lot consolidation" along Ocean Park Blvd; Pico Blvd and Montana Ave.

Such proposals would lead to the closing of many, if not most, of our remaining local businesses while turning over these sites to corporate investment and development.

I urge you to enact policies to maintain existing heights and densities along these streets, which are vital to maintaining any remaining local character to our city.

We've had more than enough destruction of our quality of life.

Faustino Garza
Sunset Park
Item 7.A
02/14/23
422 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 9 Item 7.A
02/14/23
423 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: joey brighton reynolds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A -- OPPOSE upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial districts

EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern,
I have lived on Ocean Park Blvd (and 14th) for almost 17 years. I love my sweet, quiet neighborhood. I love the small town feeling that it still has. I OPPOSE upzoning any neighborhood in Santa Monica and especially mine.

Thank you and sending some extra love on this Feb 14th.

Joey Brighton Reynolds
Life Coach with a side of woowoo
ACC, CPC, ELI‐MP
www.joeybrightonreynolds.com
Join me on Tuesdays…
Item 7.A
02/14/23
424 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Erin Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:03 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,
I oppose the proposed upzoning of Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue.

If you allow these unique streets to be developed with new five or six‐story projects, what will happen to our loved and valued small businesses? Santa Monica Yoga, Bob’s Market, Merrihew’s, Rita’s Rags, Art’s Table, Caffe Luxxe to name only a few!
It saddens me to think of these charming streets losing their homey neighborhood feel, with tall buildings blocking out the sun and with traffic to match Lincoln Boulevard. No thank you! 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.

Let our long‐standing business maintain their foothold ‐ please honor their contributions to our City! Let Santa Monicans continue to support our treasured small businesses, and enjoy the walkability of our neighborhood commercial districts!
Find another solution to the housing mandates!

Erin Jones
Wilmont Neighborhood Resident and Avid Walker
Item 7.A
02/14/23
425 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: nancy GOODSTEIN <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Upzoning in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Currently  the city of Santa Monica already struggles to protect and maintain its homes and businesses. Upzoning would invite  investors whose motivation is to make money, not create community. Even if it does not lead to empty buildings and unfinished projects, which is likely, it still is very likely to lack the charm and personality  which draws tourists, businesses and residents. There will be increased traffic, and even higher crime rates and disenchantment with what used to be the city others aspired to be. Invest in our current residents and business owners to encourage organic growth which will inherently is built upon both capital and heart. That is what makes a great city and community. That is real vision.

Sincerely,
Nancy Goodstein
310‐709‐1839
Item 7.A
02/14/23
426 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Linda Larson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 2/14/23 Agenda Item 7-A

EXTERNAL
Dear Counsel members,
I have been living in Sunset Park since 1988. I moved to this area with my two daughters because of the walking distance to schools, Clover Park, Bob’s Market, Sunset Gardens Nursery, the Fairview Library, and the various shops and cafes within the immediate area. These smaller businesses are the HEART of our neighborhood. Families thrive on the familiarity and convenience of these things. Our “smaller, independent" businesses have provided us community and opportunities to engage with and support one another. Allowing for the development and construction of larger buildings along Ocean Park Blvd. would destroy what is loved, appreciated and important to our community.

PLEASE do not promote a zoning change to this area.

A Zoning change would be damaging to this neighborhood and the people who live here.

Please VOTE AGAINST a change to the Zoning Ordinance.

Sincerely,
Linda Larson
Item 7.A
02/14/23
427 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Brent Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:58 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,
We are writing to ask that you do your job to protect our city’s neighborhoods and small businesses. I urge you to follow the Planning Commission’s recommendations to keep current zoning and NOT allow lot consolidation on Main Street Ocean Park Boulevard Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue.

It’s time the city shows more care and consideration to its residents and spend less time, money and attention catering to developers.

Thank you.
‐ Brent & Wendy Cohen, 2254 Cloverfield Blvd.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
428 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Esther Hickman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Cnl. meeting 2/14/23 - Item 7A- Do not allow changes to NC districts that will eliminate local and small businesses + a master plan

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
Please do not authorize the upzoning or any zoning change to Neighborhood Commercial districts on Pico Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard and Montana Avenue which will irreversibly harm small and local businesses.

Making it more profitable for developers to transform our industrial and commercial zones into residential/mixed used housing could make for a more elegant transition.  Other cities throughout the world have successfully adopted this model.  Santa Monica can accommodate far more density while keeping it's beautiful beach side facade, attracting people from all over the world.

Please help reverse the reputation that Santa Monica doesn't support local and small businesses and that Santa Monica adopts a provincial view when it comes to master city planning. ‐‐
Esther Hickman (Pico Neighborhood Resident)
310.600.7306
Item 7.A
02/14/23
429 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: Nancy Ong <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Upzoning

EXTERNAL
Please, please vote against upzoning and stop the “Manhattanization” of Santa Monica!  We have enough apartment buildings replacing businesses already, which no one can afford, and creating a traffic nightmare and do not need to destroy the diversity of our neighborhoods further. SLOW DOWM all these changes and see the ramifications of projects already in development before doing any more.  Nancy Ong Item 7.A
02/14/23
430 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Margaret Bach <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 7: Housing Element and Neighborhood Commercial

EXTERNAL
To the City Council,
For the well‐being of our community, neighborhoods, and our local small businesses, I urge you to refrain from any upzoning to the neighborhood commercial zoning designation. Any increase in heights and density along our treasured shopping districts would have a deleterious effect on their viability and role as neighborhood‐serving businesses. Small businesses would be priced out of the market with the higher rents that would result from new developments ‐‐ thus creating a double‐whammy: for residents and for our valued local businesses.

Surely there is a way of satisfying the requirements of the Housing Element without sacrificing our neighborhood commercial districts.

Please listen to the voices of your constituents, the residents of Santa Monica, and reject any modifications to the Neighborhood Commercial zoning now in place.

Sincerely,
Margaret Bach
Item 7.A
02/14/23
431 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Esther Hickman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:33 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 7A: Prioritize Affordable Home Ownership Opportunities

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor David and Members of the City Council,
While all of these city planning decisions are made I hope that Santa Monica can lead the way in affordable homeownership opportunities for current resident renters.  This has been done in many ways throughout the country.  We don't even have to reinvent the wheel but we could be West coast leaders.  So many incredible models!  TORCA 2 is brilliant, 80/20 developments, Industrial/Commercial Conversions with 80/20 models, Habitat for Humanity partnerships, Land lease models on church and city owned land.  Endless.  Let's think 20% Affordable Deed Restricted Units.  Why should all the wealth be consolidated with developers and non‐profit affordable housing corporations.  Why aren't we empowering our renters to become homeowners or worse yet, they keep their rent control units and buy investment properties outside of Santa Monica.  Let's empower people to pay property taxes in Santa Monica.  AND you don't need to upzone or change zoning in Neighborhood Commercial districts on Pico Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard and Montana Avenue which will irreversibly harm small and local businesses.  There is plenty of land and opportunity and sustainable city planning with your leadership! THANK YOU!
Esther Hickman
310.600.7306
Item 7.A
02/14/23
432 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:29 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
It is the small locally owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that make Sunset Park neighborhood special. I have lived in this neighborhood /community for over 29 years and my daily walks are so inspiring. I love the locally owned business that create this community, along with the engaged residents.

As I see it. there would be no benefit nor is there a need for upzoning in this community.

Karyn Benkendorfer
2027 Euclid Street, Apt. F
90405
Item 7.A
02/14/23
433 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Mathew Millen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Oscar de La Torre; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra Subject: 2/14 #11A STOP DUMPING REGIONAL SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE PICO NEIGHBORHOOD

EXTERNAL
Stop Dumping Regional Social Services In the Historically Segregated Pico Neighborhood The Pico Neighborhood has the following Regional Social Service Programs

1. CLARE Fdn residential housing for substance abusers

2. Salvation Army residential housing for substance abusers

3. Two Ocean Park Community Center 55 bed homeless shelters

4. Two  facilities The Manor housing for the mentally ill (whose residents have committed 2 murders)

5. 55 Unit 4 story homeless housing at 14th and Michigan w/ 5 parking spaces for residents, across the street from a pre school

6. 84 Unit SEVEN STORY HIGH homeless housing w/ 26 parking  spaces at 1634 20th St. 1 block from Crossroads school (architectural renderings look like the LA County Jail)

7. City developed low income housing projects on almost every block that the State of Calif. Dept of Housing determined "perpetuated segregation"

IF THE CITY INTENDS TO USE THIS DECLARATION OF AN EMERGENCY TO APPLY FOR FUNDS TO HOUSE THE

HOMELESS WHO COME HERE FROM

EVERYWHERE, THERE MUST BE A PROHIBITION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE PROJECTS IN THE PICO NEIGHBORHOOD.  We have more than our fair share, now the Wilshire to San Vicente Blvd neighborhood can provide these services.  if the City wants more facilities., build a 7 story homeless housing project on Montana Ave if the Council wants more Regional homeless housing.

The City should offer our highly paid grant applicant staff  to other cities so those cities can provide homeless housing.  Call La Canada Flintridge, San Marino, Bradbury, Arcadia, Cerritos, Altadena, Rancho Palos Verdes, Manhattan, Redondo and Hermosa Beach  and assist those cities in applying for grant money to build homeless housing.

Mathew Millen
16th St. 90404
Item 7.A
02/14/23
434 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Angelique Glennon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Cnl. meeting 2/14/23 - Item 7A- Do not allow changes to NC districts that will eliminate local and small businesses.

EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
I am a resident of Santa Monica and I do not want my Neighborhood Commercial districts on Pico Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard and Montana Avenue to be upzoned which will eliminate small and local businesses. Neither do I want a change in zoning to allow lots on Pico Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard or Montana Avenue to be consolidated which also will eliminate small and local businesses that provide residential needs.

Thank‐you for supporting local and small businesses,
Angélique Glennon
Santa Monica
Item 7.A
02/14/23
435 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Kathy KelleherMcCarthy <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: re: Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd and the south side of Pico Blvd.

EXTERNAL
February 14, 2023

To: Santa Monica City Council
RE: 1/18/23 agenda item 7-A

Dear Santa Monica City Council,

It is the small, locally-owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd that make Sunset Park neighborhood unique and wonderful for people who live here but also patrons who come for the particular small town feel of OP Blvd and south of Pico. I am a 30+ year homeowner of Sunset Park. I’m particularly interested in retaining the existing heights and FARs (Floor Area Ratio) in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts on Pico Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd., rather than increasing them, as proposed in the certified Housing Element.

Upzoning our NC districts on Pico Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd. could potentially displace locally-owned businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to Sunset Park residents.

The loss of these neighborhood-serving businesses will also be in direct conflict with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives.

The Issue: Upzoning of Sunset Park’s Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District from a 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and 32’ maximum height to an FAR of 2.50 and 55’ height.

The NC districts in Sunset Park are
 Ocean Park Blvd. between 16th and 18th (Merrihew's Sunset Gardens, Bob's Market, etc.), and between 25th Street and Centinela (Ocean Park Pharmacy, National Mailbox Center, tailor shops, numerous small restaurants, UPS, etc.) Item 7.A
02/14/23
436 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 7  South side of Pico Blvd. between Euclid and 16th, and between 20th and 31st (Campos Famous Burritos, Superfast Copying, Sunset Car Wash, Gilbert's El Indio, Paws & Effect dog grooming, Laura's Nails, etc.)

Selected Sites Inventory (SSI) – The SSI is part of the Housing Element and lists properties “likely” to be redeveloped as housing during the Element’s term (from now until 2029). Sites are listed using HCD’s site selection criteria.

There are 203 properties on the City’s SSI, of which only 13 are in Neighborhood Commercial Districts. 12 are on Pico Blvd. and one is on Ocean Park Blvd. (the NE corner of 17th & OPB). The total housing unit capacity, if the SSI sites are developed, is 13,000+ units. Of these, only 165 are in the NC Districts.

The Housing Element calls for the upzoning of 1,171 acres along the boulevards, in Bergamot, and Downtown. Of these, only 71 are in NC Districts.

Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd. is not necessary to meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing goals.

1. 50% of Sunset Park households have annual incomes at or below the Moderate Income level.

2. Two Sunset Park schools (Rogers & JAMS) qualify for the Title 1 Federal lunch program, meaning that at least 35% of students are from families at or below the Federal poverty level. The majority of students in both schools are children and youth of color.

3. Of the approximately 7,000 housing units in Sunset Park, 3,309 are rent controlled apartments with median rents affordable to households at moderate income and below; 2,645 are single family houses; and the remainder are condominiums or post-1979 apartment units.

4. The required (LUCE) specific plan to be prepared for the Santa Monica Business Park will focus on mixed income housing, which makes new housing in NC unnecessary.

Impacts of Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd.

1. Displacement of locally owned businesses, a number of which are minority owned.

2. Loss of the commercial district altogether since ground floor commercial space will not be required for new projects given the likely unmarketability of this space Item 7.A
02/14/23
437 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 8 for neighborhood serving businesses. (This could include the Bob’s Market property, which is currently for sale.)
Conclusion -- To reiterate, I support the letter from the 3 Planning Commissioners regarding retaining the existing FAR and height limit in the Neighborhood Commercial areas of Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd.

Sincerely,
Kathleen Kelleher McCarthy
1206 Grant St.

Santa Monica, CA 90405

Item 7.A
02/14/23
438 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 9 Vernice Hankins
From: Jan Cherubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Upzoning

EXTERNAL
Hi Council People,
I'm a longtime resident of Sunset Park and I'm concerned about the plan for Santa Monica that involves upzoning. What's good for Pico Boulevard is not necessarily good for Ocean Park Boulevard. Pico with its tire stores, gas stations, and motels could use more housing and a vibrant street life. But Ocean Park Boulevard already provides housing for diverse income levels, with a mix of locally-owned retail shops that serve the neighborhood. Please don't paint with such a broad brush. Why not upzone Pico and see how that goes? That makes more sense than bulldozing so many neighborhoods and paving them with good intentions.

Sincerely,
Jan Cherubin
1710 Oak Street
Santa Monica 90405
Item 7.A
02/14/23
439 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter Spelman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:45 AM
To: Bea Nemlaha
Cc: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Re: City Council 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A; Protect Neighborhood Serving Streets

EXTERNAL
Hello All:

I totally and completely agree with Ms. Nemlaha's comments.  Please do your part to keep this little section of Santa Monica as beautiful and people‐friendly as it has always been.

Thank you.

Peter Spelman
45 year Ocean Park resident
730 Marine St.

SM 90405
On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 11:02 AM Bea Nemlaha <[email protected]> wrote:

Honorable Council Members,
Please use your authority to protect Santa Monica’s unique Main and Montana Streets and portions of Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards from ever higher buildings and more density.  Greater density and taller buildings would inevitably result in loss of their sunny walkable appeal and neighborhood serving businesses.

Apply to the State to modify our City’s Housing Element to exempt these Neighborhood Commercial Districts from upzoning.  Upzoning would allow significantly taller buildings than these streets currently host.  Resulting increasing rents would drive out small, local businesses.

Main Street in particular is a draw for many Santa Monica visitors and tourists.  Its one and two story low rise buildings, many historic and beautiful, create an appealing destination for them.  Please don’t lose that.  Certainly there are a few places in our City where we can afford to save a bit of what was and is special about Santa Monica.   Main Street is one.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
440 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 2 Bea Nemlaha,
43 year Ocean Park Resident
Item 7.A
02/14/23
441 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: BC <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:45 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 - Please NO to Upzoning!

EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council,
The city has allowed developers to consolidate lots and build larger, mega projects on our streets for at least the last 10 years.

We urge the City Council to please protect OUR neighborhood and small businesses by keeping the current zoning and NOT allowing lot consolidation.

Sincerely,
Billy
Item 7.A
02/14/23
442 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Will von Bernuth <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:42 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
Santa Monica City Council,
As a long time Santa Monica resident I am concerned about the proposal to upzone neighborhood commercial districts such as Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd., Pico Blvd., and Montana Ave. I'm also concerned with the proposal to allow lot consolidation in these areas.

I'd like to voice my opposition to these proposals and am glad to hear the city planning commission is also opposed to them.

I enjoy the local feel and flavor of these communities and believe with upzoning local merchants and eateries will be forced out due to higher rents. I also believe 5 and 6 story buildings will block out the open feel and nature of these streets leaving us with dark corridors.

These street are wonderful places for our community to shop, eat, and lead our daily lives. I do not want to see them upzoned and I do not want lot consolidation to be approved.

Thank you for your time,
Will von Bernuth
Item 7.A
02/14/23
443 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Kathy Knight <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:42 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

EXTERNAL
February 13, 2023
To: Council Members Phil Brock, Gleam Davis, Oscar Delatorre, Lana Negrete, Christine Parra, Caroline Torosis, Jesse Zwick
From:  Kathy Knight and Joe Faris,
Sunset Park Residents on Oak St. for 36 years
[email protected]
(310) 613‐1175
PLEASE DO NOT approve ANY change in the allowed height of the Neighborhood Commercial Districts on Ocean Park Blvd., Pico Blvd. or Montana Ave.  Such a change could end up up with our wonderful neighborhood business districts ruined by the businesses taken out and up to 5 story high residential buildings with retail on the bottom.   Our local businesses that we love would not be able to survive in such an environment.

Such a plan is also very bad for the following reasons:

1.  There has not been proper notification to our local Neighborhood Commercial District businesses on Ocean Park Blvd.  Today, February 13, 2023, I and another person walked Ocean Park Blvd. between 16th St. and 18th St.    We talked to representatives in most of the businesses.    We were surprised to learn that all the businesses except one did NOT KNOW about this proposal! They were shocked and upset by the news.

2.  There needs to be full disclosure to each business in these NCD’s of what is being proposed.

3.  These neighborhood businesses are very popular with the local population.    Today on our walk, Bob’s Market at 17th St. was totally full inside and the parking lot was totally full.

Thyme Cafe in the same block was jammed at lunch time.   We had to go back later to talk to them.

4.  Having these NCD’s cuts down on car trips.   We can WALK to these businesses.   We walk to Bob’s Market every other day to do shopping.  We not only get our healthy organic food there, but we also get good exercise in walking that keeps us in very good health.

AGAIN, PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES TO OUR WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.

Thank you.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
444 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 6 Item 7.A
02/14/23
445 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Upzoning Pico Blvd/Ocean Park Blvd.

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I and my husband have lived in our home on Cloverfield Blvd. since 1971.  We have witness the continual building in Santa Monica.

I write to ask you NOT to up zone Pico Blvd and Ocean Park Blvd.  To have no more than 2 stories in these areas helps maintain some sense
of community and livability.  There are already so many multi storied buildings built or under construction in the city.

When they are completed and occupied, I can only guess at the difference in traffic and congestion.

Leave at least some areas with limitation of 2 stories and DO NOT UPZONE  parts of Pico Blvd … and Ocean Park Blvd.

Also the plans for the Gelson’s market area are so inhuman in skill and size.  City Council needs to protect our city.

Thank you for  your attention to my thoughts.

Sincerely,
Leota Flaten
Item 7.A
02/14/23
446 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 8 Vernice Hankins
From: Kelley McIntosh <[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
Cc: [email protected]
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,
Kelley
Kelley McIntosh
SM small business owner and Sunset Park resident
310-460-6096
[email protected]
Item 7.A
02/14/23
447 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 9 Vernice Hankins
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Charles Andrews
Subject: Upzoning

EXTERNAL
I am writing to oppose up zoning on Ocean Park and Main Street. It is a strong community that absolutely depends on our small mom and pop shops. I also firmly believe that Mayor Gleam should recuse herself from voting on this the because her husband is a real estate lawyer who makes money from development in Santa Monica. I don’t know if any others on CC profit from development but they should also recuse themselves if they do. If any CC members were elected from developer funds and they vote for Upzoning, it will become time for a criminal investigation into bribery.

Do the right thing. Save Ocean Park blvd and Main Street so that Santa Monica is a special city that people will want to visit. Keep it special and Santa Monica will be profitable again. Which you all desperately need.

Thank you,
Karen Croner and Jonathan Feldman
Santa Monica residents.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
448 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jackie Stansbury <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Council Agenda Item 7a

EXTERNAL
No upzoning!  The density in our city has become unsustainable.  Protect our existing small businesses and the quality of life for our residents.

Overdevelopment of a seaside community will NEVER lead to affordable housing.  You will be creating problems, not solving them.

Sincerely,
Jackie Stansbury

Jackie Stansbury
[email protected]
(310) 339-9417
Item 7.A
02/14/23
449 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: JC <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:52 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 Santa Monica City Council,
In regards to today’s agenda item 7a, I urge the City Council to please protect these neighborhood and small businesses by keeping the current zoning and NOT allowing lot consolidation.

Thank You!
Jacqueline
Item 7.A
02/14/23
450 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Korin Tarin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Objection to "upzoning: Montana Ave

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I would like to voice my objection to the possible plan to change the zoning on Montana Ave to anything more than the 2 stories currently allowed. I believe time and money would be better spent doing something about the already built Third Street Promenade, just a thought.

Thank you for your time,
Korin Tarin
Item 7.A
02/14/23
451 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Karen M. Fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Cc: Karen M. Fisher
Subject: FOSP: City Council 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A -- OPPOSE upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial districts February 13, 2023

EXTERNAL
The FOSP Board supportsthe January 23rd letter from the Planning Commission in Attachment F and opposes upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial districts on Main Street, Montana Avenue, and especially on the two Neighborhood Commercial districtsin our neighborhood: Ocean Park Blvd. and the south side of Pico Blvd. It isthe small locally‐owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and the south side of Pico Blvd. that "make" the Sunset Park neighborhood. Please do not throw these businessesto the wolves by upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts. We want to retain the existing heights and FARsin the Neighborhood Commercial districts on Pico Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd., rather than increasing them, as proposed in the certified Housing Element.    Upzoning of our NC districts hasthe strong potential to displace locally‐owned businessesthat provide affordable retail and essentialservicesto Sunset Park residents. The loss of these neighborhood‐serving businesses will also be in direct conflict with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives. The Issue: Upzoning of Sunset Park’s Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District from a 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and 32 ft maximum height to an FAR of 2.5 and 55 ft maximum height. The NC districtsin our neighborhood are the following areas on: Ocean Park Blvd. from 16th to 18th: Merrihew's Sunset Gardens, Ghisallo (wood fire pizza and bread baked on the premises), Hair Brainssalon, Brooke Rodd Boutique, Wild Moon Kids, Bicycle Workshop, Santa Monica Yoga, Bob's Market, Yoga‐urt (plant‐based softserve), Antequera Bakery (Mexican breads, cakes, cookies, and tamales), Edelweiss Flower Boutique, Goods LA (handcrafted artisan goodsfrom around the world), Quinnie & B – A Tiny Toy Shoppe, Local Kitchen & Wine Bar, Thyme Café & Market, The First School (relationship‐based, developmental preschool & transitional kindergarten), and Café Bolivar (coffee,sandwiches & South American arepas) Ocean Park Blvd. from roughly 25th Street to Centinela: OP Market, Ocean Park Pharmacy, Classic Tailors, Juice Crafters, Blossom Vietnamese, Bubble Boba, Miyako Sushi, National Mailbox Center/FedEx, The Counter, Il Forno Trattoria, Hurry Curry of Tokyo, Menchie’s Frozen Yogurt, Crimson (Mediterranean kabobs), a small UPS store, and Caruso Enzo Custom Tailor Pico Blvd.south side from Euclid to 16th: Cosmoprof (cosmetics), Byron Woodley Tire, and Nostalgia Bar & Lounge Pico Blvd. from 20th to 31st: Campos Famous Burritos, Tel’s Barber Shop (3 generations of barbers), Santa Monica Lock & Safe, Kick/Goju Ryu Karate, Westwood Appliances, Lo/Cal Coffee & Market, Sundance Physical Therapy, Wilson Brothers Appliance Repair, Lazy Daisy, Z Garden Mediterranean, Lunetta, Sunset Car Wash, Gilbert's El Indio, Paws & Effect Pet Spa, Tim Clarke Design, Eco Heads Salon, and Laura's Nails   Selected SitesInventory (SSI) – The SSI is part of the Housing Element and lists properties “likely” to be redeveloped as housing during the Element’sterm (from now until 2029).  Sites are listed using HCD’ssite selection criteria. There are 203 properties on the City’s SSI, of which 13 are in Neighborhood Commercial Districts.  12 are on Pico Blvd. and one is on Ocean Park Blvd. (the NE corner of 17th & OPB).

The total housing unit capacity, if the SSIsites are developed, is 13,000+ units. Of these, only 165 are in the NC Districts.

The Housing Element callsfor the upzoning of 1,171 acres along the boulevards, in Bergamot, and Downtown.  Of these, only 71 are in NC Districts.  Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd. is unnecessary to meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing goals. 1) 50% of Sunset Park households have annual incomes at or below the Moderate Income level. 2) Two Sunset Park schools(Rogers & JAMS) qualify for the Title 1 Federal lunch program, meaning that at least 35% ofstudents are from families at or below the Federal poverty level. The majority ofstudentsin both schools are children and youth of color. 3) Of the approximately 7,000 housing unitsin Sunset Park, 3,309 are rent controlled apartments with median rents affordable to households at moderate income and below; 2,645 are single family houses; and the remainder are Item 7.A
02/14/23
452 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 5 condominiums or post‐1979 apartment units. 4) The required (LUCE)specific plan to be prepared for the Santa Monica Business Park will focus on mixed income housing, which makes new housing in NC unnecessary. Impacts of Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd. 1) Displacement of locally owned businesses, a number of which are minority owned. 2) Loss of the commercial district altogethersince ground floor commercialspace will not be required for new projects given the likely unmarketability of thisspace for neighborhood serving businesses.

Item 7.A
02/14/23
453 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Julie Kim <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Edmund Kim
Subject: Proposed Upzoning of SM Commercial Districts

EXTERNAL
Good morning,
As residents of Santa Monica, we respectfully request that the City Council VOTE AGAINST upzoning the commercial districts nestled in our residential neighborhoods.  We understand the extreme pressure you must be under to build bigger/taller buildings to address the housing shortage and parking issues.  However, doing so would come at a huge cost to our community.

We used to live in New York City and raised our young children surrounded by dangerous traffic, loud honking and fumes from cars and trucks, the constant noise of construction, and crowds of people visiting soulless chain stores. It was a stressful place to raise our kids. And despite the swarms of people around us, it was easy to feel lonely.

When we moved to Santa Monica 8 years ago, we were delighted to join a lovely community that values peacefulness and civility.  We got to know our local store owners and became regulars at local coffee shops and restaurants.  Today, we often run into people we know while walking, and the friendly atmosphere of the shops along Pico, Main Street, Ocean Park and Montana encourages us to stop and chat.  Montana Avenue is especially wonderful with its annual traditions that bring the community together, such as the Art Walk and winter holiday celebration.  Such a tradition would be logistically impossible due to congestion if Montana Avenue were built up with enormous box stores and apartment complexes.

As you already know, Santa Monica is very special because it's a city but still a livable place. We can still feel a sense of community when leisurely walking by the shops and restaurants near our homes.  Please don't fall prey to the view that upzoning is inevitable or represents "progress."  Our residents' sense of connection and collective mental health matter as well. We hope you too have felt the joys of walking along our streets and agree with us that Santa Monica's neighborhoods deserve to be protected.  Thank you, as always, for your hard work.

Best regards,
Julie & Edmund Kim
Item 7.A
02/14/23
454 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: Bruce Leddy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: ITEM 7 A. - SUPPORT

EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers -
I urge you to support the Planning Commission's recommended amendment to the Housing Element which would omit Neighborhood Commercial areas from upzoning. These are some of the last remaining areas in our city that have character and appropriate scale and would be destroyed by the development upzoning would allow.

Contrary to what the Santa Monica Forward group has convinced its members, this amendment is NOT antihousing. It is not in any way dodging our responsibility to address the serious housing crisis or meet our statemandated needs. The amendment applies to 71 acres throughout the city (Main Street, Montana, etc.) and leaves the other 1171 acres of boulevards, Downtown, and Bergamot to be upzoned. These upzoned areas have capacity for over 13,000 units of development, well beyond the state's requirements.

We face a sea change of development in this city, due to the state's mandates. This amendment is a chance for Santa Monica to at least retain the smallest of control over how and where the onslaught of development will take place, allowing small businesses to survive while retaining some of the unique character of our city.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Bruce Leddy
23 year Santa Monica resident
Item 7.A
02/14/23
455 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 8 Vernice Hankins
From: Judy Kramer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick Subject: Fw: 2/14 /2023 City Council agenda item 7a

EXTERNAL
These are terrible things listed below.  Santa Monica is being ruined.  This wonderful city that I have lived in for 40 years is becoming something that is difficult to watch happen.  We don't need bigger buildings and complexes.  We have enough traffic and congestion and difficult parking.  I know you want everyone to ride transit and bikes but that is not the reality.  The unique streets with small businesses, restaurants and shopping are what makes Santa Monica special.  Don't continue to allow it to be spoiled.

Please don't pass upzoning !!!!
Judy Kramer
1325 Pine Street
Help save small businesses on Ocean Park and Pico
Oppose Proposed Upzoning
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

This Tuesday, February 14, the Santa Monica City Council will be discussing whether to “upzone” Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue.

If you are a Santa Monica resident, please let your city council members know that you oppose this change.

“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
456 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 9 When the Planning Commission recently reviewed these changes it made a strong, wellsupported recommendation to Council against upzoning these Streets and urged the Council to keep the existing heights and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts.

The City Council needs to hear our voices. If you agree it’s important to “buy local” and support local small businesses and maintain the quality of these walkable Streets, please email the City Council by noon on Tuesday February 14, and tell them to protect these Streets.

Please refer to 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a in your email subject line and send it to:

[email protected]
[email protected],
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Item 7.A
02/14/23
457 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Wendy Murray <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council meeting for today. Item 7A

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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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.

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.

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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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 &ldquo;upzoning&rdquo; of Santa Monica&rsquo;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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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 &ldquo;upzoning&rdquo; of Santa Monica&rsquo;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
473 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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
474 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 4 Ruthann Lehrer
Resident, Northeast Neighborhood

Item 7.A
02/14/23
478 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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.A.i
Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

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
489 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

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
490 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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:

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
491 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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.

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
493 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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:

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
494 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

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. And in fact, we should be upzoning everywhere.

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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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.

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
517 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))

(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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023

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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023

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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023

(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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023

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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023

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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023

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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023

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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023

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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 6 Item 7.A
02/14/23
578 of 594 Item 7.A
02/14/23

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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.

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,
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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 997 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 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

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) P.O. BOX 653
SANTA MONICA, CA 90406
310-496-3146
www.smconservancy.org
February 14, 2023
City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA. 90401
Re: City Council Item 7A, February 14, 2023, Study Session on Implementation of 6th Cycle (2021- 2029) Housing Element Programs
Dear City Council,
We salute the city’s diligent efforts to meet Santa Monica’s housing goals, particularly regarding affordable housing. However, we are concerned about some recommendations in the current proposal that upzone neighborhood commercial districts, threatening some of our most valuable community assets.

We are commenting on the section of the Staff Report which refers to Planning Commission discussions as to whether rezoning the Neighborhood Commercial (“NC”) district to 55 feet in height with a 2.5 FAR as required by the Housing Element was necessary to meet the goals of the Housing Element. We are very concerned about the impact on the character of the Main Street, Montana Avenue, and the Pico and Ocean Park Boulevard NC districts.

Main Street is one of Santa Monica’s most appealing pedestrian streets with unique character and distinctive historical ambience. Importantly, it contains a very high concentration of designated landmarks: the Mendota block, the Elks Club, the Biedler-Heuer Building, the Ocean Park Library, the first Roy Jones house, the Merle Norman Building, the Parkhurst Building, the Horizons West Surf Shop. This is an unusually dense group of identified and protected historic resources compared with other commercial streets. Additionally, it’s directly adjacent to the Third Street Historic District.

The proposal to allow 55 ft. high heights on Main Street potentially threatens its existing streetscape scale and viability. The existing height limit of 32 ft. should be maintained, and lot consolidation should not be allowed. This staff-proposed zone change is not needed for our overall housing production goals and will only undermine one of our strongest neighborhood commercial areas.

We look to the LUCE for guidance on goals and policies for our neighborhood commercial areas; here is what it says about Main Street:
 Goal D31: Preserve and enhance the distinctive qualities of Main Street that allow it to be a vibrant local and regional shopping and dining destination.  Goal D32: Ensure that new and remodeled buildings on Main Street are compatible in scale and character with existing buildings and the surrounding residential neighborhood.

Montana Avenue presents a similar unique pedestrian-oriented street with special character and small-scale businesses. Several historic resources are listed on the Historic Resource Inventory.

The eastern part contains older apartment buildings that have been identified in the HRI as the Montana Avenue Multi-Family Residential Historic District. As with the San Vicente Courtyards Historic District, they contain primarily affordable rental housing. For Montana Avenue, the LUCE contains a set of goals targeted to protecting and enhancing its high-quality pedestrian and

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 2 retail environment, such as Goal D35: Ensure that new and remodeled buildings on Montana Avenue are compatible in scale and character with existing buildings and the surrounding residential neighborhood.

Pico Boulevard is where a concentration of the city’s locally owned legacy businesses serve our most integrated neighborhood. Disruption of the delicate balance of Mexican eateries, small entertainment venues and practical services by displacement and construction of new, large ground-floor-plate retail that attracts corporate tenants will erase decades of living histories of Mexican and African American businesses and families who have been in Santa Monica for generations.

Ocean Park Boulevard has become a thriving hub of small businesses in a setting representative of the historic character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Large floorplate new retail spaces affordable only to corporate tenants would not be marketable in such a small “inside Santa Monica” neighborhood, likely wiping out the district all together.

The City’s major commercial corridors and other parts of the City have underutilized potential for new housing opportunities. Please do not affirm zoning changes to Main Street, Montana Avenue and parts of Ocean Park and Pico Boulevards that threaten their future survival.

Thank you for your consideration.

Tom Cleys
President of the Board

8.A.i
Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 3 8.A.i
Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) City Council
Housing Element Implementation Study Session
February 22, 2023

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Tonight's Agenda
• Study Session on Implementation of Housing Element Programs • Commitments to implement by October 15, 2023
• Most relevant to housing production
• Consistency with existing State law
• Overview of Implementation of Housing Element Programs • Parts 1&2: Streamlining and Rezoning Programs
• Parts 3&4: Special Programs to Encourage Housing and Consistency with State Law
• Discussion guided by 11 Key Policy Questions for Council Consideration
• Highlighted because they differ from prior Council discussions or direction • Need to confirm policy direction

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Why Implement the Housing Element?
• Housing Element certified on October 14, 2022
• Certified Housing Element represents City’s contractual commitment to the State to implement Housing Element
programs
• It is possible to fall out of compliance with Housing Element law for failing to implement Housing Element programs by deadlines cited in Housing Element

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Planning Commission Recommendation
• Planning Commission held discussions October 2022 – February 2023 • Commission voted 5-0 (2 absent) to recommend that Council adopt proposed amendments to LUCE, BAP, DCP, and Zoning Ordinance consistent with the certified Housing Element
• Upzoning Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and not further upzoning Bergamot Area Plan was the Planning Commission’s final recommendation • Due to extensive discussion and prior letter from Planning Commission, background provided in staff reportregarding Commission's robust discussion on whether to rezone the NC District and further upzone a small portion of the Bergamot Area Plan • Consultation phone calls with HCD on December 19, 2022 and February 17, 2023
• Housing Element amendment process
• How HCD would review a potential amendment

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 How HCD Would Review Potential Housing Element
Amendment
• Review would focus on proposed amendments through lens of:
• Total housing capacity
• Impacts on the Suitable Sites Inventory
• Distribution of housing capacity across the city
• Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
• Emphasized that review would not solely be about meeting RHNA and total capacity
• AFFH is about opening possibility of new housing choices in high opportunity areas and was significant component of HCD’s review • Standards must not be a constraint on housing production • Keeping existing development standards in the NC zone would be a continued constraint on housing

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Process to Amend Housing Element
• HCD can provide preliminary technical assistance feedback through letter but would need to receive details of a proposal to revise certified Housing Element • Steps to Amend Housing Element – Timeline dependent on HCD requests for additional information/analysis and timelines for review

1. City Council provides direction to staff to prepare revised draft

2. Would need to assess compliance with California Environmental Quality Act

3. Staff prepares revised draft (prior amendment resulted in extensive process due to multiple consultations with HCD)

4. Revised draft presented to Planning Commission for recommendation – not required by Zoning Ordinance (must be posted for public review for at least 7 days before PC hearings)

5. Revised draft reviewed by Council for direction to submit to HCD

6. HCD 60-day review period of revised draft – there is no guarantee that HCD will issue a "draft in compliance" letter after first review

7. If HCD issues "draft in compliance" letter
• Draft presented to Planning Commission for formal recommendation to City Council • City Council adoption of revised Housing Element
• HCD 60-day review period to certify revised adopted Housing Element

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Out of Compliance - Consequences
Immediate short-term consequences
• Re-open potential for filing of "builder's remedy" projects • Loss of funding for affordable housing
Long-term consequences
• SB35 determination based on building permits issued relative to pro- rated RHNA • If Above Moderate RHNA not met – streamlined process for projects with at 10% affordability
• If Lower Income RHNA not met – streamlined process for projects with at least 50% affordability • Requires ministerial approval process for housing projects that include these affordability levels
State can also seek judicial relief and impose penalties and fines

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Housing Element Programs Study Session Topics
Date Discussion Topic
Streamlined Process for Housing Projects (1A, 1B)
February 22 (continued
from February 14)
• Definition of a Housing Project
• Streamlined Process for Housing Projects
• Streamlined Architectural Design Review
Rezoning for Housing (1F, 1J, 2C, 2D, 4A)
February 22 (continued
from February 14)
• Development Standards – Zoning Ordinance, DCP, BAP, LUCE • Affordable Housing Production Program
• Density Bonus
Special Standards to Encourage Housing Production (1C, 2A, 2E, 4B, 4C) February 22 (continued
from February 14)
• Housing on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking Lots
• Moderate Income Housing Overlay
• Housing on Community Assembly Sites
• Applicability of Zoning Ordinance for City-owned sites Consistency with State Law (1D, 1G, 4E)
February 22 (continued
from February 14)
• Parking and AB2097
• SB9 & ADUs
• SB 478 – Zoning in Multi-Unit Residential Districts
• Reconciliation of LUCE/Zoning Map Inconsistencies

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Streamlined Process for Housing Projects
 Program 1.A (By-Right Approvals for Housing Projects)  Program 1.B (Streamline the Architectural Review Process)

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 By-Right Approvals for Housing Projects
• Make permanent process thresholds in IZO 2692– expires May 31, 2023 What Amendments Would Do:
• By-Right Approvals (No public hearings) for:
• 100% Affordable housing projects
• Moderate Income Housing Overlay Projects
• Housing projects on 5th Cycle HE sites inventory that include at least 20% of units on-site as affordable to lower-income households [Government Code Section 65583.2(c)] • Streamlined housing projects
• Outside of Downtown: Housing projects on parcels less than 43,560 sf ( 1 acre) • Downtown: Housing projects that do not exceed 90,000 sf • Require community meeting and posting of decisions on website as part of administrative processing of housing projects
Objective: Provide Approval Certainty for Housing Providers

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 New Definitions of “Housing Project” vs
“Streamlined Housing Projects”
• Housing Project
• Based on definition in the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) • Residential units only
• Mixed use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses with no more than 33% of floor area designated for non-residential use
• Transitional or supportive housing
• Benefit
• Receives the increased FAR/height for housing projects • Requires public hearing but City would have little ability to disapprove • Streamlined Housing Project
• Based on definition that originated in the Downtown Community Plan • Citywide: Streamlined Housing Projects of no more than 25% non-residential on sites less than 1 acre (consistent with IZO on January 25, 2022)
• DCP: Streamlined Housing Projects of no more than 25% non-residential and up to 90,000 sf • Benefit
• Receives the increased FAR/height for housing projects • No public hearing for having more residential floor area Prior
Council
Direction

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1013 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Definition of Downtown “Housing Project”
• YES means:
• Downtown housing projects
allowed up to 33% nonresidential floor area for
increased height/FAR instead
of existing 25% nonresidential floor area
• Housing projects citywide are
treated the same
Policy Question #1
For consistency with the remainder of the city, should the definition of a housing project in Downtown be amended to allow up to 33% non-residential floor area consistent with the Housing Accountability Act? • NO means:
• Housing projects treated
differently for increased
FARs/heights
• Citywide: Limited to 33% nonresidential
• Downtown: Limited to 25% nonresidential
• No real policy reason to
differentiate in this manner
PC/Staff Recommendation

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1014 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Definition of Downtown "Streamlined" Housing Project
• YES means:
• No change to DCP for
housing projects to qualify for
no public hearings
• Streamlined housing projects
citywide are treated the
same
Policy Question #2
For consistency with the remainder of the city, should the definition of a “streamlined” housing project that is eligible for administrative approval in Downtown be amended to allow up to 25% non-residential floor area? • NO means:
• Creating a new maximum
percentage of nonresidential floor area for
Downtown housing project in
order to qualify for no public
hearings
• Confusing implementation
PC/Staff Recommendation

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Downtown Streamlined Process Thresholds
• Prior Council Action
• DCP amended to allow administrative approvals of housing projects that are less than 90,000 sf (equates to 22,500 sf site or essentially 3 parcels)
• Planning Commission Recommendation
• Increase threshold for no public hearings to 1 acre parcel size, consistent with rest of city
• Analysis
• 21 Downtown parcels of 1 acre or more
• None on Suitable Sites Inventory (i.e. high probability of turnover) due to existing entitlements or are City-owned

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1016 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Downtown Streamlined Process Thresholds
• YES means:
• Housing projects on sites 1
acre or more would be
subject to public hearing
• No sites likely to meet this
criteria in Downtown
Policy Question #3
Should the administrative approval threshold for housing projects in Downtown be changed from 90,000 square feet (sf) project size to a site size of 1 acre, consistent with the remainder of the city? • NO means:
• No change to existing
Downtown process
thresholds
• Projects of 90,000 sf or less
would have no public hearing
(equates to approximately
22,500 sf parcel)
PC Recommendation Staff Recommendation

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1017 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Streamlined Design Review + Objective Design Standards
• Increase staff level approval for
smaller housing projects
• Expedite design review for larger
projects
• Ensure design review cannot
unreasonably delay housing project
approval (e.g. # of hearings, time
limits)
• Develop objective design standards
• Will be brought forward in Summer
2023
Objective: Streamline Housing Approvals

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Streamlined Design Review
• What the Amendments Do
• Design review aligned with entitlement review for more efficient processing • Projects with public hearing
• Design review occurs before Planning Commission
• Projects with no public hearing
• Design review occurs before determination is issued
• Increased staff approval authority
• Up to 10,000 sf in residential districts
• Up to 7,500 sf everywhere else
• SB330 time limitations
• Code compliance comments issued within 30 or 60 days depending on size of project • 5 hearing limit

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1019 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Rezoning for Housing
 Program 1.F (Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards)  Program 1.J (Revise Development Standards for Housing Projects)  Program 4.A (Permit Multi-Unit Housing in Non-Residential Zones where Currently not Permitted)
 Program 2.C (Update the City’s AHPP)
 Program 2.D (Update Density Bonus Ordinance)

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1020 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards
Rezoning for Housing Projects
• Increase maximum FAR and
Height in all zones
• Eliminate tiers for housing
projects
Remove Constraints
• Allow housing on ground-floor
except in Bayside Conservation
zone (Promenade, 2nd & 4th St)
• Apply uniform standards for unit
mix requirements consistent
with remainder of City
• Modify other development
standards that were identified to
be constraints

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1021 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 • What the Amendments Do
• Heights/FAR
• Eliminate tier system for housing
projects and establish single set of
FAR/height standards based on
higher of Tier 2 or Tier 3
• Increase Wilshire Transition (WT)
zone to 3.25 and 70 feet to match
rezoning for rest of Wilshire Blvd
Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1022 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 DCP
Existing
Tier 1
w/Housing
Existing
Tier 2
w/Housing
Existing
Tier 3
w/Housing
NEW Housing
Project
Standards
15% On-site/ 20%
Off-site, evenly
split
FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height
LT (east) 1.50 39' 2.25 50' - 3.00 65'
LT (west) 1.50 39' 2.75 60' - 3.00 65'
NV 2.25 39' 3.50 60' - 4.00 84'
BC
(Promenade) 2.25 39' 2.75 60' - 3.00 65'
BC (2nd and
4th) 2.25 39' 3.50 60' - 3.50 70’
TA 2.25 39' 3.50 60' 4.00 84' 4.00 84'
OT 2.25 39' 2.75 50' - 3.00 65'
WT 1.50 39' 2.25 50' - 3.25 70’
Existing vs. New Housing Standards
Downtown Community Plan
Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1023 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 • YES means:
• No more tiers for housing
projects across commercial
zones in City
• Downtown housing projects
are provided a single set of
FAR/height standards,
simplifying implementation
Policy Question #4
For consistency with development standards established for housing projects outside of Downtown, should the tier system in Downtown be eliminated for housing projects?
• NO means:
• Existing 3-tier system would
be retained
• Applicants most likely seek SDB
off Tier 1
• Tier 1 FARs/heights in the
Downtown would be lower than
rest of City
PC/Staff Recommendation
Downtown Tier System

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1024 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 • What the Amendments Do
• Affordability Requirements
• Eliminate Downtown’s current
sliding scale of affordability
requirements tied to building
height and replace with uniform
15% on-site inclusionary
requirement
Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards
Height (Feet) On-Site
Affordable Housing
Off-Site
Affordable Housing
40-50 20% 25%
52 21% 26%
54 22% 27%
56 23% 28%
58 24% 29%
60 25% 30%
62 26% 31%
64 27% 32%
66 28% 33%
68 29% 34%
70-84 30% 35%
Existing Downtown Affordable Housing Requirements

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1025 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Downtown Affordability Requirement
• Public comments from housing developers and Planning Commission concerned about establishing minimum 20% inclusionary requirement in Downtown • Comments have cited changing market conditions (e.g. construction costs, land costs, interest rates) and potential effects of Measure GS
• AB1505
• Established parameters for HCD’s review of ordinances that require more than 15% affordability • Can request review of economic feasibility study to ensure that inclusionary requirement does not constrain housing
• Analysis
• Market conditions are out of City’s control and will change constantly • Considering State law and shifting market conditions, best to establish uniform inclusionary housing requirement citywide
• Healthy pipeline of typical mixed-use, mixed-income housing projects that support 15% inclusionary requirement as evidence of development interest at this level • Under Construction – 622 units
• Approved – 2,234 units
• Pending Review – 2,427 units

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1026 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Downtown Affordability Requirement
• YES means:
• Housing projects across the
City have the same on-site
inclusionary requirement at
15%
Policy Question #5
In light of public comments from housing developers and the Planning Commission expressing concern regarding increased development/construction costs and State law parameters (AB1505) related to inclusionary requirements that exceed 15%, should the affordable housing requirement for Downtown housing project be lowered from 20% to 15% consistent with the remainder of the city?
• NO means:
• Housing projects in the
Downtown must include 20%
on-site affordable units as
compared to 15% in the
remainder of the City
• Invites HCD review of
Downtown inclusionary
requirement
PC/Staff Recommendation

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1027 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Revise Development Standards for Housing Projects
Rezoning for Housing Projects • Increase maximum FAR and Height in all commercial zones
• Eliminate tiers for housing projects
• Allow residential uses in zones where
currently not permitted
Remove Constraints • Allow housing on ground-floor except on Main and Montana
• Apply uniform standards for unit mix
requirements consistent with remainder
of City
• Modify other development standards that
were identified to be constraints
• In zones with housing as a newly
permitted use, allow other land uses such
as retail/restaurant to support the
introduction of residential uses

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1028 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Revise Development Standards for Housing Projects
Housing
previously
not allowed
Zone District Existing Tier 1
(Non-Housing Projects)
Existing
Tier 1 Housing Projects
Existing Tier 2 Housing
Projects
Recommended
Housing Project Standards
FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height
Mixed Use Districts
MUBL – N. of I-10 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/36’ 1.75 36’ 3.25 70’ MUBL – Pico 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/36’ 1.75 36’ 2.00 45’
MUBL – Pico w. of
Lincoln 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/36’ 1.75 36’ 2.50 55’
MUBL – Lincoln 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/36’ 1.75 36’ 2.50 55’
MUB 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/39’ 2.25 50’ 3.25 70’
GC (SMB) 1.00 2/32’ 1.25 N/A 1.50 35’ 3.25 70’
GC (Lincoln) 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/36’ 2.00 36’ 2.50 55’
GC (Pico) 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/36’ 2.00 36’ 2.00 45’
NC 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 2/32’ N/A N/A 2.25 50’
NC (Main) 0.75 2/27’ 1.00 2/27’ N/A N/A 2.50 55’
NC (Ocean Park) 0.75 2/32’ 1.00 2/32’ N/A N/A 2.50 55’
NC (Montana) 0.75 2/32’ 1.00 2/32’ N/A N/A 2.50 55’
Employment Districts
IC 1.00 2/32’ N/A N/A 1.75 3/45’ 3.00 65’
OC 1.50 2/32’ N/A N/A 1.75 3/45’ 2.75 60’
HMU 1.50 3/45’ N/A N/A 2.50 5/70’ 2.50 70’
CAC 1.00 32’ 1.00 60' 1.00 75' 2.50 55’
Existing vs. New Housing Standards – Mixed Use and Employment Districts

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1029 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Equitable Distribution of Housing Capacity
across Santa Mnica

2.5 55’

2.0 45’

3.0 65’

2.75 60’

2.5 55’

2.5 55’

2.25 50’

2.25 50’

2.5 55’

3.25 70’

2.5 70’

2.5 55’

2.75 60’
• Adding housing as a
permitted use in areas
where it has been
prohibited
• Office Campus and
Industrial Conservation
• AFFH -Upzonefor housing
potential in areas that
have not accommodated
housing in the past
• Main Street, Montana,
Ocean Park Boulevard,
Office Campus, and
Industrial Conservation
Map of FAR/Height - Citywide

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1030 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Map of Height/FAR - Bergamot Area Plan

4.0 84’

2.50 55’

2.50 55’

4.0 84’

4.0 84’

2.50 55’

2.50 55’

4.0 84’

3.25 70’

3.25 70’
Zone District
Existing Tier 1
(Non-Housing
Projects)
Existing
Tier 1 Housing
Projects
Existing Tier 2
Housing
Projects
Recommeded
Housing Project
Standards
FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height
BTV 1.75 32’ 2.00 60' 2.50 75' 4.0 84’
MUC North of
Pennsylvania or South
of Expo Bike path

1.50 32’ 1.70 47’ 2.20 75’ 3.25 70’
MUC 1.50 32’ 1.70 47' 2.20 57' 4.0 84’
CCS 1.50 32’ N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.50 55’
CAC 1.00 32’ 1.00 60' 1.00 75' 2.50 55’
Existing vs. New Housing Standards
Bergamot Area Plan

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1031 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Ground Floor Commercial Requirement in NC Zone
• YES means:
• Housing projects in the NC zone
on Pico Boulevard and Ocean
Park Boulevard would continue
to be required to have
commercial uses on the ground
floor
• Inconsistent with prior Council
direction to increase flexibility
for ground floor residential
Policy Question #6
In addition to what is already required for Main Street and Montana Avenue, should ground floor commercial also be required in the Neighborhood Commercial zones on Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard? • NO means:
• Greater flexibility for housing
projects – allow option for
ground floor housing or
commercial uses
PC Recommendation Staff Recommendation

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1032 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Update the City’s
Affordable Housing Production Program
• Eliminate current menu option
• Establish minimum 15% inclusionary requirement for
new housing projects
• Increase threshold to at least 6 units where on-site units are required
Objective: Ensure that the AHPP provides housing developers viable options for compliance
# of Units Minimum Requirement
0-5 units Pay fee
6-19 units 15% affordable units for up to 80% AMI
20 or more units 15% affordable units with even distribution across VLI, LI, and moderate income

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1033 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Update the City’s AHPP
Off-Site Option for Projects with 20 units or more
• Require off-site % to be higher than on-site (i.e., 20%) • Off-site may be located anywhere in City except in
areas with existing high concentrations of affordable
housing. Map captures Pico neighborhood and
parcels north of I-10.

Area Where Off-Site Affordable
Housing is Prohibited

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1034 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Update State Density Bonus
• State Density Bonus (SDB)
Projects entitled to % increase in
density bonus based on
percentage of on-site affordable
units
• SDB projects are eligible for
concessions/incentives and
waivers or modifications of
development standards
• 100% affordable housing projects
in low vehicle travel areas do not
have maximum density controls
Excerpt from State Density Bonus table (Gov Code 65915) Percentage Very Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
11 35
12 38.75
13 42.5
14 46.25
15 50
Objective: Ensure consistency with State law

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1035 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Update the City's Density Bonus Ordinance
• Convert FAR to units to determine “base” density for which affordable requirements are based
• Example: A project with a maximum 2.5 FAR has a base density of 100 units, of which 15% are very low-income units.
 State Density Bonus law allows 50% bonus so 100 units X 50 % bonus = 150 units
• Create “by-right menu” of incentives and concessions to request relief for certain development standards
• Off-menu incentives may still be requested for any development standard
What the Amendments Would Do
Base Density for
Housing Project
(converted from FAR)
State Density Bonus

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1036 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 State Density Bonus – General Guidelines
• Eligibility to use State Density Bonus (must comply with ALL)

1. Base project has at least 5 units

2. Replacement of all existing low/very low-income units or rent control units

3. Project meets minimum AHPP requirements
• Qualifying projects may utilize incentives, concessions, or waivers regardless of whether the projects incorporates density bonus units
• When there are inconsistencies between the ZO and LUCE, the greater density prevails • Removes unit caps in multi-unit residential districts (R2/R3/R4/OPD/OP2/OP3/OP4) • As mandated by HCD, State Density Bonus law should be integrated into City’s AHPP • Total AHPP requirement (i.e. 15%) would be counted as equivalent to the percentage that achieves the highest bonus or number of incentives/concessions granted under State density bonus law.

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1037 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Council Discussion – Parts 1 & 2
6 Policy Questions:

1. For consistency with the remainder of the city, should the definition of a housing project in Downtown be amended to allow up to 33% non-residential floor area consistent with the Housing Accountability Act?

2. For consistency with the remainder of the city, should the definition of a “streamlined” housing project that is eligible for administrative approval in Downtown be amended to allow up to 25% non-residential floor area?

3. Should the threshold for housing projects to qualify for the administrative approval process be increased from 90,000 square feet (sf) to a 1 acre parcel, consistent with the remainder of the city?

4. For consistency with development standards established for housing projects outside of Downtown, should the tier system in Downtown be eliminated for housing projects?

5. In light of public comments from housing developers and the Planning Commission expressing concern regarding project feasibility and State law parameters (AB1505) related to inclusionary requirements that exceed 20%, should the affordable housing requirement for Downtown housing project be lowered from 20% to 15% consistent with the remainder of the city?

6. In addition to what is already required for Main Street and Montana Avenue, should ground floor commercial use also be required in the Neighborhood Commercial zones on Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard?

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1038 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Special Standards to Encourage Housing
 Program 1.C (Incentivize Housing on Surface Parking Lots in Residential Zones)  Program 2.A (Establish a Moderate Income Housing Zoning Overlay)  Program 2.E (Affordable Housing on City-owned Sites)
 Program 4.B (Housing on Community Assembly Sites)
 Program 4.C (Incentives for Additional ADUs in R1)

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1039 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Incentivize Housing on Surface Parking Lots
in Residential Zones
Incentivize housing on underutilized sites that would not displace existing residentialtenants
• Applicable to surface parking lots in
residential zones
• ~100 sites identified (16 with high potential for
redevelopment)
• Cannot remove existing dwelling units
• Development Incentives:
• Maximum Allowable Density: Based on unit
density for underlying residential district
• Minimum Interior Side Setback:

None required when parking lot redeveloped
together with adjacent commercial parcel
• Parking: Any required parking removed must be
replaced.
• Access: Allow access from the residential
zoned parcel

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1040 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Moderate Income Housing Overlay
120% AMI Targeted to ½ mile radius around Expo
Transit Stations • Must be 100% moderate
-income units
• Projects limited to max 33% non-residential square
footage per Housing Accountability Act
• Development incentives • Extra 33 feet above base height • 50% density bonus above base FARs • Up to 4 incentives/concessions • No minimum parking requirements • Flexibility in unit size/mix in exchange for additional common area amenities

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1041 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Moderate Income Housing Overlay
• What the Amendments Do
• Citywide MHO Overlay except in R1 and OP1 zones
• Establish tenant displacement protections based on SB9 requirements • New definition of "MHO Dwelling Unit" that reduces minimum unit size to 250 sf from 375 sf
• MHO Projects can include up to 33% of total floor area as market rate units and/or non-residential uses
• No more than 25% of total units can be market rate
• Receive local incentives
• Building Height – Additional 33 feet above maximum building height • Local Density Bonus of 50%
• Local Concessions/Incentives - up to four incentives and concessions • Open Space – flexibility in providing common and private outdoor space • No Minimum Parking Requirements

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1042 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Moderate Income Housing Overlay
• YES means:
• MHO projects would be
permitted Citywide, except in
R1 and OP1, but with tenant
displacement protections
Policy Question #7
The MHO Overlay was originally applied only to half-mile from the Expo Stations. Should the MHO Overlay be expanded citywide instead excluding R1 and OP1 zoning districts? • NO means:
• MHO would only apply to
non-residential parcels within
½ mile of Expo Stations
PC/Staff Recommendation

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1043 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Moderate Income Housing Overlay
• YES means:
• Provides flexibility in land uses to
support MHO projects due to
lack of public funding sources
• In addition to the allowance for
non-residential use, MHO
projects would be permitted:
• To have market rate units for up
to 33% of total floor area with no
more than 25% of total units as
market rate
Policy Question #8
Should MHO Projects allow some percentage of market rate units? • NO means:
• MHO project would only be
permitted to include 33% nonresidential floor area
• No flexibility to allow market rate
units
PC/Staff Recommendation

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1044 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Applicability of ZO to City-Owned Sites
• Development of affordable housing on City-owned properties exempt from Zoning Ordinance
• Subject to a public process to be determined by the City Council and determination that the project is consistent with the General Plan.

Sites Unit Capacity Notes
Parking Structure 3 104 RFP already released
Wilshire Parking Lots (3) 130 RFP planned for 2023
4th Street and Arizona 362 Bank leases don’t terminate until 2026 Bergamot Arts Center 707 Property management agreement until April 2027. Annual leases with 30
businesses that renew each calendar
year until redevelopment
Main Street Parking Lots 577 Replacement parking will be necessary (Coastal Zone)
Total 1,880

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1045 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots
Incentivize Community Assembly Surface Parking
Lots for Production of Affordable Housing
• Approximately 41 identified sites
• 7 sites with high potential for redevelopment
• Must retain existing Community Assembly Use
• Projects must include at least 50% affordable
units affordable to 80% AMI households
• Development incentives
• Processed as Administrative Approvals
• Extra 33 feet above base height
• Unlimited density
• No minimum parking requirements

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1046 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Consistency with State Law
 Program 1.D (Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements & AB 2097)  Program 1.G (Incentivize & Facilitate Development of ADUs)  Program 4.E (Incentives for SB9 Units in R1 zones)
 Senate Bill 478
 LUCE /Zoning Map Inconsistencies

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1047 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements
Commits the City to reducing minimum
parking requirements for housing
projects o AB 2097 was signed into law and took
effect January 1, 2022 o Eliminates minimum parking
requirements for all projects (except
hotels/motels) within ½ mile of major
transit stop
o Unclear if AB2097 overrides Coastal zone
parking requirements (awaiting Coastal
Commission guidance on this issue)

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1048 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements
• YES means:
• All housing projects in the City
(except in R1) would not be subject
to min parking requirements
• Ensure equitable application of
minimum parking requirements in
limited remaining non-residential
and multi-unit zoned parcels
outside of ½ mile of major transit
• Approx. 73% of non-residential and
multi-unit zoned parcels in the City are
already within ½ mile of major transit
Policy Question #9
Expanding on AB 2097 and for ease of implementation, should minimum parking requirements be eliminated for all housing projects, alterations/additions to multi-unit buildings, and ADUs citywide, except for R1 zones? PC/Staff Recommendation

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1049 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements
Policy Question #9
Expanding on AB 2097 and for ease of implementation, should minimum parking requirements be eliminated for all housing projects, alterations/additions to multi-unit buildings, and ADUs citywide, except for R1 zones? • NO means:
• Housing projects within ½ mile of major
transit stop would have no minimum
parking requirements
• Housing projects outside of ½ mile of
major transit stop would be subject to
existing Parking Overlay 1 parking
requirements
• Council could also consider:
• Eliminating minimum parking requirements
for housing projects only in commercial zones
citywide (shown on map)
• Providing parking relief for housing units
added to existing commercial properties (e.g.
10 space credit)

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1050 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements
• YES means:
• There would be no maximums to
limit how much parking could be
built outside of the Downtown
• Flexibility for housing provider to
provide the parking that is
necessary for project
Policy Question #10
Should parking maximums within ½ mile of transit and for housing projects outside of ½ mile of transit be eliminated outside of Downtown?
• NO means:
• Maximum parking limits would be
established, similar to the
Downtown
PC/Staff Recommendation

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1051 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Incentivize Development of ADUs
• Develop ADU Accelerator program
• ADU user-friendly handbook
• Illustrative floor plan ideas for ADUs
• Update ADU Ordinance for
consistency with State law
• Aim to issue building permits for an
average of 47 ADUs/year
Objective: Streamline approvals and facilitate development of ADUs

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1052 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Incentivize Development of ADUs
What the Amendments Would Do
• Update ADU Ordinance (SMMC Section 9.31.025) based on latest guidance from HCD ADU Handbook:
o Existing and proposed multiple-unit dwellings may add two detached ADUs o Size limitations for conversion of existing detached accessory structures o Clarification regarding what is considered conversion and new construction in association with parcels developed with multiple-unit dwellings • Language added regarding what is required to be included for permanent provisions for eating and cooking facilities
• Other non-substantive clerical revisions for ease of implementation

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1053 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 New Housing Choice & Affordability in
High Opportunity Areas – Additional ADUs
ADU Incentive Program within the R1 Zone
District
• Existing: Maximum number of units on R1 parcel is
three
• Proposed: One additional ADU if the property owner
is willing to deed restrict one of the ADUs as a rental unit
• Program helps achieve affirmatively furthering fair
housing by providing more affordable rental
housing opportunities within the R1 zone district
Existing:
1 SFR +
1 JADU + 1 ADU
Proposed:
1 SFR + 1 JADU + 1 ADU +
1 deed-restricted ADU
Objective: Increase equitable access
to all neighborhoods through nominal
density increases that may lower
barrier to housing access

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1054 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Provide New Housing Choices and Affordability in
High Opportunity Areas - SB9
• Adopt SB9 ordinance
• Administrative process with no public
hearing
• Strong incentives for R1 Zone parcels
of at least 10,000 sf to add ADUs in
addition to SB9 units
• Would allow potentially up to 6+ units
through multi-step process
Objective: Increase equitable
access to all neighborhoods
through small increases that
may lower barrier to housing
access in high opportunity
neighborhoods
**Illustrative scenario intended to assist in understanding of how SB9 might be used and not intended to represent all possible scenarios under SB9**

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1055 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Implement SB9 and Incentivize on Larger Parcels
SB9 Ordinance based on Council direction from March 15, 2022 What the Amendments Would Do
• SB 9 Pre-Qualifications
LOCATION RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT PARCEL CANNOT BE LOCATED IN:
(unless meeting specified requirements)
 Located in R1, OP1, and select
parcels within multi-unit residential
districts that are limited to one
single-unit dwelling
 Cannot alter or demolish:
• Deed restricted or rent-controlled housing
• Housing occupied by a tenant in the last 3
years
• Housing on parcels with an Ellis Act eviction
in the last 15 years
 Cannot be located within:
• An historic district or contain a historic
resource
• Prime farmland, wetlands, conservation
land/easement, protected species habitat,
etc.*
*not generally applicable to Santa Monica
 Very high fire hazard zone
 Hazardous waste site
 Earthquake fault zone
 Floodplain/floodway

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1056 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Implement SB9 and Incentivize on Larger Parcels
SB9 Ordinance based on Council direction from March 15, 2022 What the Amendments Would Do
• SB 9 Project types
SB9 unit
Primary Unit
Primary Unit

1. Lot Split 2. Duplex
Primary Unit

3. Combination
SB9 unit
SB9 unit

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1057 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Implement SB9 and Incentivize on Larger Parcels
SB9 Ordinance based on Council direction from March 15, 2022 What the Amendments Would Do
• Ministerial review process
• Lot split requirements:
• Minimum parcel size and dimensions
• Access
• Subdivision limitations
• Owner occupancy requirements
• Process
• Development standards and requirements:
• Land uses limitations
• Maximum unit count
• Minimum front setback for alley parcel lines
• Minimum side/rear setbacks
• Guaranteed unit size
• Owner occupancy requirements.
• No parking for projects within ½ mile of
transit
• Rental/sale requirements and lease terms

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1058 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Implement SB9 and Incentivize on Larger Parcels
What the Amendments Would Do
• No lot split scenario
• Less than 10,000 SF = Max. 4 units
• Greater than 10,000 SF = More than 4 units are permitted (based on Council direction from March 15, 2022) SB9 unit
Primary
Unit
Primary
Unit

1. Duplex 2. Duplex with ADUs
SB9 unit
SB9 unit
ADU
Primary
Unit
2 units 3 units 4 units
Primary
Unit
SB9 unit
ADU

ADU ADU
5 units
ADU
ADU
(conversion)
> 10,000 sf

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1059 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Implement SB9 and Incentivize on Larger Parcels
What the Amendments Would Do
• Lot Split Scenarios
• Less than 10,000 SF = Max. 4 units
• Greater than 10,000 SF = More than 4 units are permitted (based on Council direction from March 15, 2022)

3. Combination
SB9 unit
Primary
Unit

1. Lot Split
2 units
Primary
Unit

2. Lot Split with ADUs
SB9 unit
ADU
ADU
4 units
Primary
Unit
SB9 unit
SB9 unit
4 units
Primary
Unit SB9 unit
SB9 unit
ADU
4 units
Primary
Unit SB9 unit
SB9
duplex
ADU
> 10,000 sf
SB9 unit
ADU
SB9
duplex

ADU ADU
8-10 units
ADU
(conversion)

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1060 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Implement SB9 and Incentivize on Larger Parcels
• YES means:
• All impact fees would be waived for
SB9 projects
• Would equalize SB9 projects with
ADUs where impact fees are not
allowed to be charged per State
law
• Would create fee inequity with
similar projects in multi-unit zones
where there are no fee waivers in
place
Policy Question #11
Should SB9 projects be incentivized through development impact fee waivers to include the Affordable Housing Fee, Transportation Impact Fee, Parks & Recreation Development Impact Fee, and Childcare Linkage Fee? • NO means:
• Impact fees would apply to SB9
projects
• If 1 unit is retained - approx. up to $12,000
in impact fees
• If existing units are demolished and
replaced with 2 units – fees will depend on
size of units
• Affordable housing fee would only
apply when 2 units are constructed
(does not apply if existing unit is
retained)
• Other impact fees already have builtin credit for removal of existing units PC Recommendation Staff Recommendation

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1061 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 State Law Consistency – SB478
Overview of SB478
• Guarantees minimum FAR
based on # of units proposed
• 3-7 units – Minimum 1.0 FAR
• 8-10 units – Minimum 1.25 FAR
• Cannot impose lot coverage
requirements that would
physically preclude a housing
project from achieving FARs
• Cannot deny a housing
project on an existing legal
parcel on the sole basis that
parcel does not meet
minimum parcel size
What the amendments would do
• Increase parcel coverage for Tier 1 projects
in multi-unit residential zones to 50%
• Would increase parcel coverage for 2-unit
projects
• Prohibit single-unit dwellings so as to not to
incentivize under development

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1062 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 LUCE/Zoning Map Inconsistencies
• Approximately 40 parcels identified
with inconsistency between LUCE
land use designation and Zoning
classification
• 6 parcels are on SSI
• Proposed amendments guided by
State law
• SB330 prohibits reducing intensity of
land use below what was in effect as
of January 1, 2018
• State density bonus law requires that
where there is inconsistency between
General Plan land use designation and
Zoning, that greater shall prevail

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1063 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Council Discussion – Parts 3 & 4
5 Policy Questions:

7. Should the MHO Overlay be expanded citywide instead excluding R1 and OP1 zoning districts?

8. Should MHO Projects allow some percentage of market rate units?

9. Expanding on AB 2097 and for ease of implementation, should minimum parking requirements be eliminated for all housing projects, alterations/additions to multiunit dwelling buildings, and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) citywide, except for R1 zones?

10. Should parking maximums within ½ mile of transit and for housing projects outside of ½ mile of transit be eliminated outside of Downtown??

11. Should SB9 projects be incentivized through development impact fee waivers to include the Affordable Housing Fee, Transportation Impact Fee, Parks & Recreation Development Impact Fee, and Childcare Linkage Fee?

8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1064 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120