Item 10.A
03/21/23
1 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
Item 10.A
03/21/23
2 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
Item 10.A
03/21/23
3 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
Item 10.A
03/21/23
4 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
Item 10.A
03/21/23
5 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
Item 10.A
03/21/23
6 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 8:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re zoning
EXTERNAL
Dear council members:
I have lived in Santa Monica and owned my home on Virginia Avenue for 47 years. I am learning from a neighbor this morning that there is a plan to re‐zone her property and her neighbor’s property (around the corner from me and down the block) from single family housing to multi‐unit housing. We absolutely love our neighborhood just the way it is, thank you. This seems like an unnecessary change and somebody somewhere is simply looking to make a profit at our expense. My neighbor, especially, stands to lose a lot. She and her husband just purchased their home and there is a non‐disclosure factor here. I strongly urge you to vote no on this issue.
I would also suggest that matters such as this be presented in a much much more public forum and with much more lead time to property owners in the future. Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10.A
03/21/23
7 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Katina Metzidakis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 8:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Potential Rezoning on Warwick avenue
EXTERNAL
Dear council members‐
I was shocked to find out this morning that the house next to and behind mine (1805 Warwick Avenue) are being considered for Rezoning. We just bought our home‐ the biggest investment of our lifetimes‐ less than one year ago with a price tag that very much reflected a single family home street. This is nothing short of a bait and switch. How is it possible that the house NEXT door to mine is up for rezoning and there was no obligation by the town or the real estate agents to let us know??? In fact I remember asking specifically about this issue. This rezoning essentially makes my house an orphan on what was once a single family home Street. We will be stuck between a multi family unit and exposition. Why not build more multi family units in the other more expensive areas of Santa Monica? I am disgusted that you would choose the least expensive single family home neighborhood to disrupt. Why not look elsewhere, north of here? There are already MANY multi family Units on exposition. My family and I are vehemently against this proposed change and absolutely disgusted that our investment could be put in such jeaopardy without any notice.
Please vote NO on fundamentally changing my neighborhood.
Thank you,
Karina Metzidakis
Item 10.A
03/21/23
8 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
3 Item 10.A
03/21/23
9 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
(310) 451-4138
March 20, 2023
VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]
Re: Housing Element Implementation
City Council Hearing Date: March 21, 2023
Item 10-A – Implementation of 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element Our Client: Stanford & Nebraska Properties LTD
BAP’s Conservation: Creative Sector (CCS) Zoning District Our File No. 1224.009
Dear Councilmembers:
This letter is submitted on behalf of Stanford & Nebraska Properties LTD, the owner of two properties in the Conservation: Creative Sector (“CCS”) of the Bergamot area – 1757 Stanford Street (“Stanford Site”) and 1716 Berkeley Street (“Berkeley Site”). (See Figure 1 below.) The property owner is considering the feasibility of developing mixed-use housing on these sites, which are roughly a 10-minute walk (0.5 miles) from the 16th Street/Bergamot Station light rail stop as well as benefitting from convenient access to the I-10 freeway.
The purpose of this letter is to request a change in the zoning of a portion of the CCS to 3.25 FAR/70’ for mixed-use housing. This can be done without compromising a stepped down buffer area next to the closest R2 Zoning District.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Below is a site map showing the subject properties to provide some orientation.
Both sites are within the CCS Zoning District. The 26th Street/Bergamot Station is approximately a 10-minute walk away, and there is quick and easy vehicular access to the I-10 freeway.
[email protected]
Item 10.A
03/21/23
10 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
Santa Monica City Council
March 20, 2023
Figure 1
Stanford Site and Berkeley Site
The Stanford Site is currently being used as a warehouse, and the Berkeley Site is a parking lot.
1. Stanford Site
The approximately 53,600 square foot (1.23 acre) Stanford Site is a corner parcel bordering Nebraska Avenue and Stanford Street and insulated by non-residential uses.
The entire Stanford Site is within the CCS Zoning District and the southernmost 40 feet of lot depth is also within the Retail Priority and Pedestrian Priority Corridor overlays.
The Stanford Site is improved with an approximately 47,000 square-foot warehouse building and is currently used for warehousing purposes.
Item 10.A
03/21/23
11 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
Santa Monica City Council
March 20, 2023
Figure 2
Bird’s Eye Photo of Stanford Site
As stated above, the Stanford Site is approximately a 10-minute walk to the 26th Street/Bergamot Station light rail stop, making this an excellent site for future housing.
The property owner is contemplating developing several stories of housing units with an active ground floor use along the Nebraska frontage.
2. Berkeley Site
The approximately 11,700 square foot Berkeley Site is a mid-block parcel just northeast of the Stanford Site and in the CCS district surrounded by non-residential uses/zoning districts. The Berkeley Site is currently improved with a surface parking lot.
The Property owner is in the preliminary stages of assessing site feasibility for a mixed-use housing project on the Berkeley Site as well the Stanford Site.
Item 10.A
03/21/23
12 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
Santa Monica City Council
March 20, 2023
POTENTIAL FOR MIXED-USE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Our client has been exploring various commercial/nonresidential options for the properties and is open to considering housing options provided they are financially viable. Providing additional up-zoning for at least the portion of the CCS district in which they are located as discussed in this letter will assist in making housing a more economically viable option at the sites, while also being consistent with the City’s intention of stepping down development towards the surrounding R2 zoned properties.
A. Proposed Zoning
The City has acknowledged that the Bergamot area is one of the major places in the City where housing production should be encouraged given its proximity to transit and that development of this former-light-manufacturing area means minimal residential displacement.
The draft ordinance prepared by Staff proposes upzoning the CCS to a maximum
2.5 FAR and 55-foot height (an increase from the existing 1.50 FAR and 32-foot height limit). Instead, to increase the viability of achieving housing rather than commercial redevelopment, we urge the City Council to consider further changing at least that portion of the CCS bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue to the north, Berkeley Street to the east, Nebraska Avenue to the south and Stanford Street to the west as shown on Figure 3 below (“CCS Up-Zone Area”) to 3.25 FAR/70’.
Item 10.A
03/21/23
13 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
Santa Monica City Council
March 20, 2023
Figure 3
Proposed Up-Zone Area of CCS
Further increasing the maximum density and height of this area would meet City objectives to maximize housing production, focus the development of new housing in areas close to transit without displacing existing residents and would also mirror the approach of bifurcating the MUC district directly west of this area in order to provide additional density and height along Nebraska while stepping down areas closer to the residential neighborhoods. (See Figure 3 above.)
The CCS Up-Zone Area we identify above is bordered to the south by Nebraska Avenue, which the City envisions as one of the Bergamot area’s major pedestrian and retail corridors. The northern border of the CCS Up-Zone is Pennsylvania Avenue. The CCS Up-Zone Area is also bordered by commercial districts to the east and west (MUC and CCS, respectively).
Item 10.A
03/21/23
14 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
Santa Monica City Council
March 20, 2023
In proposing the appropriate density and height for the portion of the MUC district immediately west of the CCS Up-Zone Area, Staff found it appropriate to allow the highest density and height (4.0/84’) along Nebraska Avenue (which is insulated by commercial districts) and stepped down the height and density for the portion of the MUC area north of Pennsylvania Avenue and across the street of the R2 district (3.25/70’).
Similarly, we request expanding this approach to a defined area immediately to the east by allowing higher height and density in the portion of the CCS bounded by Nebraska Avenue to the south and Pennsylvania Avenue to the north between Stanford Street and Berkeley Street (our proposed CCS Up-Zone Area). The CCS Up-Zone Area is not bordered by any “Transitional Zones” identified in the Bergamot Area Plan and is appropriately insulated by the MUC and remaining CCS area. The excluded CCS area also provides an additional step down toward the residential district.
Further increasing the height and density for housing in the CCS Up-Zone Area would afford the opportunity for additional housing (including affordable housing) while still being conscientious of the R2 residential district.
B. CCS Sites and Their Up-Zoning Potential for Housing Development Michael W. Folonis Architects prepared a preliminary feasibility study for the Stanford Site to evaluate the benefit of further up-zoning in this area to encourage housing production.
Table 1
Stanford Site Feasibility Study Summary
2.5 FAR
and 55’ With
Density
Bonus
3.25 FAR
and 70’ With
Density
Bonus
Estimated
Number of
Housing Units
278 371
Increasing the FAR and height from 2.5 FAR/ 55’ to 3.25 FAR/70’ for the Stanford Site would allow for a 32% increase in the number of housing units that could be developed on the Stanford Site (93-unit increase). And there would still be a stepped down buffer area between the CCS Up-Zone Area and the R2 residential district.
Item 10.A
03/21/23
15 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
Santa Monica City Council
March 20, 2023
The Property owner is in the preliminary stages of assessing site feasibility for a mixed-use housing project on the Berkeley Site as well, but recommending the proposed CCS Up-Zoning Area would be consistent with the City’s desires to (i) incentivize housing and remove surface parking lots in the City, (ii) encourage housing in areas of the City that have not typically been used for housing, (iii) avoid residential displacement, and (iv) promote housing development in transit-rich areas.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons described above, we request that the Council modify the zoning of the CCS Area as depicted in Figure 3 above.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kevin V. Kozal
cc: David White
David Martin
Roxanne Tanemori
Heidi von Tongeln
Stanford & Nebraska Properties LTD
F:\WPDATA\1224\009 (1757 Stanford)\Cor\CC 2023.03.20.docx Item 10.A
03/21/23
16 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Brian O'Neil <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 11:40 PM
To: Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; PNA SM; Brian ONeil
Subject: City Council Meeting March 21, 2023: VOTE NO on Agenda Item 10-A – Attachment G (Rezoning of 1811 Warwick Ave. & 1808 34th St. from R1 to R2)
EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council, City Manager, City Attorney From: PNA Board of Directors
Re: City Council Meeting March 21, 2023 Agenda Item 10-A – Attachment G (Rezoning of 1811 Warwick Ave. & 1808 34th St. from R1 to R2)
The Board of the Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) wishes to convey strong opposition to the City Council’s approval of Agenda Item 10-A, Attachment G, as recommended by City Staff. Attachment G would rezone two R1 single-family lots (1811 Warwick Ave. & 1808 34th St.) into R2 zoned parcels with NO PUBLIC INPUT or transparency as to why such changes are warranted.
We find the proposed rezoning of these two single-family R1 lots quite baffling and contrary to the LUCE’s emphasis of preserving the character of our residential neighborhoods. Both of the lots that are proposed for the R2 designation are in the middle of rows of R1 single-family homes near the eastern edge of the Gandara Park neighborhood. In 2018, the City approved a CUP in the same neighborhood at 2953 Delaware Ave to turn an R1 single-family home into a commercial business (a preschool in the middle of an R1 block), an action that favored a special interest over the residents of Gandara Park neighborhood. The rezoning of 1811 Warwick Ave & 1808 34th St. as R2, a proposal buried in a long list of staff zoning recommendations that have had no public input, smacks of the City ignoring the needs or desires of residents by bowing down to more special interests preying on a residential neighborhood already under siege from surrounding commercial and infrastructure development.
The lack of transparency and commitment to a fair and impartial process is quite troubling, indeed. It is our understanding that neither the property owners nor the surrounding neighbors have been properly notified of the proposed zoning changes contained in 10-A, Attachment G.
Item 10.A
03/21/23
17 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
2 The Pico Neighborhood is already the most densely populated of all the residential neighborhoods in Santa Monica. At the very least, approval of the zoning changes in Attachment G should be shelved until an appropriate, transparent public process is held whereby the property owners and surrounding residents can deliberate on the impacts of the proposed zoning changes. Further, a cogent explanation for why a change in zoning to these two lots in an R1 neighborhood, followed by an invitation for public comment and an independent study on the impact of this targeted rezoning is the least the City could do before serious consideration and a vote are taken on making this radical change.
In the absence of these necessary steps, please remove Attachment G from the Housing Element Implementation vote at the 3/21/23 City Council meeting.
We thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
PNA Board of Directors
Item 10.A
03/21/23
18 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Miriam Macias <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 10:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Ice; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Rezoning of 1811 Warwick Ave and 1808 34th Street Dear Council Members,
I am a resident of Gandara park and the next door neighbor of the properties involved in the rezoning being considered in today's meeting. I am aware that the owners of the dwellings at issue did not request the rezoning from single family to multi‐family and were not notified of this change by the city. We all learned about it this morning from another neighbor.
I am appalled by the lack of transparency displayed by the city by inserting this rezoning matter into your agenda without actually notifying the affected people who live in the neighborhood, including the owners of the properties in question and the adjacent residents. This is unacceptable and contrary to the rules that Santa Monica residents and businesses are subject to.
The decision to rezone two properties in the middle of the neighborhood is arbitrary, unprincipled and deceptive. I know how meticulous the city is with respect to posting demolition notices, making residents go through substantial inspections whenever a dwelling is built or modified so I cannot understand why this change would be so inconspicuously inserted into your agenda without even taking into account the residents who stand to lose the most from this change. I urge to apply this same standard to your Please focus on actual issues that will improve the lives of Santa Monica residents rather than create problems for those of us who live in this small, quiet neighborhood. Rezoning these two properties would be just the beginning and the city would surely expand the change into other homes. We vehemently object to a rezoning that changes the character of our quiet neighborhood and affects our property value.
Please vote NO.
Miriam Macias
Item 10.A
03/21/23
19 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
(310) 451-3669
March 21, 2023
VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Item 10-A (Housing Element Implementation)
Our File No. 639.67
Dear Councilmembers:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the Santa Monica Housing Council (“SMHC”).
SMHC has followed and been engaged with housing policies in Santa Monica for more than 30 years.
We are writing to reiterate the importance of residential upzoning in the Downtown and along the commercial boulevards. This approach to addressing Santa Monica’s fair share of the State’s need for substantially more housing production at all income levels (Gov’t Code §§ 65583(c)(1) & 65584) is generally consistent with the 2010 LUCE goals of protecting multifamily zones from major redevelopment. (See LUCE Goal LU1.) As was noted in SMHC’s comments on November 13, 2020, at the outset of the 6th Cycle Update, simply tinkering at the margins of City housing regulations will not come close to satisfying the City’s legal obligations under California Housing Element Law. The upzoning presented for the City Council’s adoption this evening is much more in line with achieving the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”).
Accordingly, we urge adoption of this first round of Ordinances and Resolutions in the first phase of implementation of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, as amended to bring it into compliance with State Housing Element Law. SMHC has been a staunch housing advocate throughout the 6th Cycle Housing Element process. It is important for the City to follow through on the upzoning called for in the certified Housing Element.
The implementation measures also include critical amendments needed to bringing Santa Monica housing regulations into compliance with other State laws, including, importantly, the State Density Bonus Law (Gov’t Code §§ 65915, et seq.).
In this regard, we strongly support the establishment of processing timelines for housing [email protected]
Item 10.A
03/21/23
20 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
Santa Monica City Council
March 21, 2023
projects, including density bonus projects, along the lines discussed in the Staff Report, and we urge the City Council to provide that direction to City Staff. Indeed, such timelines are legally required as to density bonus applications. (Gov’t Code § 65915(a)(3)(A).)
While there remain many regulatory barriers (i.e., local governmental constraints) to housing production in Santa Monica (see Gov’t Code § 65583(c)(3)), the State Density Bonus Law’s opportunities for incentives/concessions and waivers/reductions (see Gov’t Code § 65915(d) & (e)) provide vital paths to relief from those regulatory barriers for housing development with affordable housing components.
In closing, we urge the City Council to proceed with adoption of the Resolutions and Ordinances as presented by City Staff, together with direction to proceed with publication of needed processing timelines for ministerial housing projects. SMHC also endorses the concept of a periodic monitoring report that would recap for the City Council actual timelines experienced for ministerial review of housing projects.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
KLK:sna
cc: David White
David Martin
Rachel Kwok
Douglas Sloan
Heidi von Tongeln
Michelle Hugard
SMHC Board of Directors
F:\WPDATA\639\639.67 (Santa Monica Housing Element 2021)\Cor\CC 2023.03.21.docx Item 10.A
03/21/23
21 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Riyanka daga <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: amit bhura
Subject: Converting of Zones from R1 - R2 around 90404
EXTERNAL
hello City Council
We live in the Virginia/Yorkshire intersection of the 90404 zip code. It was brought to our attention that many homes around my neighborhood were being converted from Single Family R1 Zone to multi‐family R2 Zones.
This would be very detrimental to the entire neighborhood and we would like to oppose the passing of this to protect our Neighbourhood.
Thanks
‐‐
Regards,
Riyanka
(213)-880-3471
Item 10.A
03/21/23
22 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23