Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, September 12, 2023

1 Vernice Hankins
From: Dan Hall <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2023 11:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 16C: Oppose proposal to direct city lobbyist to oppose SB 423

EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, Councilmembers Brock, Parra, de la Torre, Torosis, and Zwick, I urge you to pull or oppose Item 16C on Tuesday’s agenda. I am frustrated that this item is on the agenda for several reasons:

First, several of you, if not all, have spent many hours on the Council dais and on the campaign trail discussing how Santa Monica goes above and beyond to produce affordable housing - a fact which I know we are all proud of - and that other municipalities are not pulling their weight in producing housing. SB 35, and now SB 423, is a tool to force other municipalities to do just that. We will continue to produce affordable housing because it is one of our core values as a community. That is not the case for other cities. Opposing this bill is against our own interests to hold other municipalities accountable to their housing production goals.

Second, although we know the data is imperfect, housing experts are noting that SB 35 is working. UC Berkeley’s Terner Center has reported that since the passage of SB 35 through the end of 2021 over 18,000 new units were proposed across the state under SB 35, over three quarters of which are affordable to those in the very low or low income categories. In San Francisco alone, 93% of 2,000 new units that have been added under SB 35 are affordable. Additionally, SB 423 allows for expedited review of affordable housing developments, getting these units into production months, if not years, sooner.

Third, it’s simply too late and this is a waste of time and resources - both at Council and for our lobbyist team.

Our own Assemblymember, Rick Chavez Zbur, was one of the four speakers chosen by Assembly leadership to speak in favor of passage of SB 423 on Friday, September 8th, when it passed overwhelmingly. Given the bill previously passed the Senate 29-5 in May, I am certain it will pass in concurrence again on Monday, September 11th, after I write but before the Council meeting. Even if Governor Newsom vetoes the bill, which is unlikely, it has veto-proof support in the legislature. This is a waste of everyone’s time.

Please do not lobby against a tool that would help hold other communities accountable to meet their housing goals and is proving useful to increase and speed up production of affordable housing. I believe this is a supreme waste of city resources.

Please pull or oppose Item 16C.

Dan Hall
Item 16.C
09/12/23
1 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Mark Edwards <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 7:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Item 16C and Instead Support SB 423

EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City Council,
Please oppose item 16C and instead support SB 423 and direct the City Manager to have the City’s State lobbyist take all action necessary to advocate on the City’s behalf in support of this important state housing legislation.

Thank you,
Mark Edwards
[email protected]
1174 N. Curson Avenue, #8
West Hollywood, California 90046
Item 16.C
09/12/23
2 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Shelley Pearce <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 6:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Item 16C and Instead Support SB 423

Thank you,
Shelley Pearce
[email protected]
2021 ocean ave
santa monica, California 90405
Item 16.C
09/12/23
3 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: James Davidson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 6:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Item 16C and Instead Support SB 423

I’ve followed this issue closely. Not fair for SM to not do its share in the housing crisis. Zero growth is not achievable, ethically or practically. We must do our share for the unhoused. We must grow. This is part of it.

Thank you,
James Davidson
[email protected]
943 19th Street, Apt. 3
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 16.C
09/12/23
4 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 6:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Item 16C and Instead Support SB 423

Thank you,
Caro Vilain
[email protected]
1410 15th st
Santa Monica, California 90404
Item 16.C
09/12/23
5 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Babak Mozaffari <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 8:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Item 16C and Instead Support SB 423

Thank you,
Babak Mozaffari
[email protected]
525 Santa Monica Blvd, 404
Santa Monica, California 90401
Item 16.C
09/12/23
6 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Joey Knightbrook <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 8:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Item 16C and Instead Support SB 423

Thank you,
Joey Knightbrook
[email protected]
2433 14th Street
Santa Monica, 90405
Item 16.C
09/12/23
7 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Patricia Meyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 8:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Item 16C and Instead Support SB 423

Thank you,
Patricia Meyer
[email protected]
2319 Oak Street Apt #6,
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 16.C
09/12/23
8 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Alan Toy <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 7:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Item 16C and Instead Support SB 423

Thank you,
Alan Toy
[email protected]
156 San Vincente Blvd 32
Santa Monica, California 90402
Item 16.C
09/12/23
9 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Sandra Gruner-Domic <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 9:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Item 16C and Instead Support SB 423

Thank you,
Sandra Gruner-Domic
[email protected]
2708 Arizona Ave
Santa Monica, California 90404
Item 16.C
09/12/23
10 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Item 16C and Instead Support SB 423

EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City Council,
Please oppose item 16C and instead support SB 423 and direct the City Manager to have the City’s State lobbyist take all action necessary to advocate on the City’s behalf in support of this important state housing legislation.

We need more housing and more affordable housing in Santa Monica to bring down housing costs. SB 423 will allow affordable housing to move faster and be constructed in this city.

Thank you,
Jacob Wasserman
90403
Jacob Wasserman
[email protected]
1027 11th Street, Apartment C
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 16.C
09/12/23
11 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Tara Barauskas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 7:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: September 12th Agenda Item 16C - oppose
Importance: High

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and Members of the City Council,

I am writing to express my opposition to Item 16C which proposes that the City oppose SB423. This critical housing bill is desperately needed. Not only will it codify SB35, which has helped Community Corp and many other affordable housing developers to produce affordable housing (over 18,000 units produced under SB35 so far), it will help projects like ours in Coastal Zones to avail themselves of the affordable housing streamlining available outside coastal zones. The bill doesn’t upzone/rezone land, it just ensures that compliant projects can be streamlined. This has been a hindrance for some of our projects in the Coastal zone, causing delays (which means additional costs as well) and can be prevented with this bill. It will also hold other cities accountable to produce affordable housing.

Instead of opposing this bill, we ask you SUPPORT SB423 and demonstrate the City’s commitment to affordable housing.

Thank you,
Tara

Tara Barauskas, LEED AP
Executive Director
Community Corporation of Santa Monica
1423 2nd Street, Suite B
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 394‐8487 ext. 133
[email protected]
www.communitycorp.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.

Item 16.C
09/12/23
12 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jon Katz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 12:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 16C - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and City Council, I am writing in my personal capacity to recommend that you oppose Item 16C.

Through my work at the Santa Monica Democratic Club, I have extensively researched and studied SB423 and its effects.

The bill allows the state to approve housing development within cities that are not in compliance of state housing allocation requirements such as the "builders remedy" issue from earlier this year.

However, Santa Monica is in compliance with our RHNA requirement with the current Housing Element. Therefore, Santa Monica would not be penalized by this law in any way. Instead, this law would apply to other cities that have chosen not to comply with housing requirements.

I have heard members of our City Council complain that other cities are not meeting their requirements, and that there should be more housing built in those communities. This law would help to ensure this shared goal, that cities who do not follow the state law are still building their fair share.

Given the great lengths that Santa Monica went to over the last two years to make sure our Housing Element was in compliance, I would expect our city council to support SB423.

Thank you,
‐‐
Jon Katz
[email protected]
cell: (215) 962‐4357
Item 16.C
09/12/23
13 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Kent Strumpell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 11:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Item 16C and Instead Support SB 423

Thank you,
Kent Strumpell
[email protected]
6483 Nancy Street
Los Angeles, California 90045
Item 16.C
09/12/23
14 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Leslie Lambert <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 12:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16C

EXTERNAL
I am writing to express strong opposition to the recommendation that the City oppose Senate Bill 423. There are so many reasons why this is a bad idea and an unnecessary action that it is hard to know where to begin.

First, the only impact SB 423 will have on the City's current ministerial processing of Code compliant housing projects is to impose time limits on this expedited review. Since expedited processing is an objective of the Housing Element and a subject raised by the City Council on many occasions, I do not understand the recommendation to oppose the bill as it relates to Santa Moncia. Further, I assume we are all committed to meeting our RHNA goals (to avoid SB35 and SB 423 sanctions) so supporting expedited review should be an obvious position for the City to take.

Second, the bill will extend the SB 35 process to projects within the Coastal Zone. If this is a basis for opposing the bill, I am again perplexed. Hundreds of housing units have been built or are in the pipeline within Santa Monica's Coastal Zone. The Housing Element and the revised Zoning Ordinance have upzoned the Downtown in order to target new development and protect our neighborhoods. So why should this provision of SB 423 be a problem? Third, and speaking of neighborhoods, SB 423 explicitly protects our neighborhoods. SB 423 exempts any site from qualifying for its provisions if the project proposes the demolition of any of the following:
 Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons or families of moderate, low or very low income.  Housing that is subject to any form of rent of price control through a public entity's valid exercise of its police power.
 Housing that has been occupied by tenants within the past 10 years.

Fourth, SB 423's inclusionary requirement of 10% very low income is subordinate to the City's inclusionary housing program (AHPP).

Fifth, SB 423 extends and revises the provisions of SB 35, which is the State sanction for noncompliance with annually meeting the City's RHNA goals. To date,Santa Monica has never been subject to these sanctions.

Finally, I fear that the recommendation to oppose SB 423 is a message to the State to mind its own business, which is way too late because that train left the station decades ago. Hopefully, I am wrong in judging the motives, but the perception will result in lumping Santa Monica into the group of anti‐housing and anti‐oversight cities that no doubt also oppose SB 423. Santa Monica has never been included in that group and should not be now. It does not define our community's ethos..One pragmatic consideration in discussing this action should be how the State H/CD will perceive it.

This is particularly relevant given our to date unanswered request of H/CD to amend the City's Housing Element's upzoning of Neighborhood Commercial Districts. Food for thought.

Thanks for your consideration.

Item 16.C
09/12/23
15 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
2 Item 16.C
09/12/23
16 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica Democratic Club <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 16C - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and City Council, With regard to Item 16C, respectfully, the bill SB423 has passed the California Assembly and Senate and is now headed to Governor Newsom's desk for his signature. The time to take a position on this bill has passed.

Our Club took a position to support the bill with specific caveats, and we voiced those reservations to Assemblymember Zbur and Senator Allen. Asm. Zbur then contacted Senator Wiener to negotiate a version of the bill that would be more in line with the needs of our district.

Had the Council voted to take this position earlier in the bill's process, the City could have participated in this dialogue with the author to craft a better bill.

Respectfully, we suggest that you withdraw Item 16C since the bill passed in between the time the item was added to the agenda and the time of the Council meeting, making it a moot point and would only serve to embarrass the City by being on the wrong side of a bill that is about to become the law.

Thank you,
Jon Katz,
President, Santa Monica Democratic Club
On Behalf Of Its Membership
Item 16.C
09/12/23
17 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Vivian Rothstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Item 16C and Instead Support SB 423

EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City Council,
The housing shortage and the high cost of housing are holding California back. Not only are people suffering but our state's economy is at risk.

Please oppose item 16C and instead support SB 423 and direct the City Manager to have the City’s State lobbyist take all action necessary to advocate on the City’s behalf in support of this important state housing legislation.

Thank you,
Vivian Rothstein
Vivian Rothstein
[email protected]
1107 Pacific St.

Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 16.C
09/12/23
18 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 2:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan Subject: City Council Must Oppose "Optional" SB10 and Take a Stand Against Allowing Multi-Unit projects in single family neighborhoods

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Our City Council must take action to protect our city against one state densification measure that is "optional:" Senate Bill 10.

SB 10 allows the development of multi-unit projects in single family neighborhoods.

SB10 would “authorize a local government to adopt an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area or an urban infill site.” It would override HOA agreements and voter initiatives that prohibit or limit such development in those areas.

A local legislative body must pass an ordinance to adopt the plan.

We ask that this Council place SB10 on a future Agenda and vote to take a position prohibiting its approval in the City of Santa Monica.

Given the declining population in the state, county and city, and the fact that it is entirely a market rate initiative, this would be purely a gratuitous profiteering ordinance that delivers no benefits to the community whatsoever.

There are several very serious issues embedded in the upzoning this bill would authorize.

1. SB10 is entirely focused on market rate development and therefore does nothing to lower the costs of housing in the city.

3. SB10 would densify areas that do not have the infrastructure necessary to handle such densification, leading to additional taxes and fees on existing residents to pay for such improvements.

Item 16.C
09/12/23
19 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
2 4. SB10 would overload residential areas with street parking cars since other state legislation is seeking to eliminate minimum parking requirements; this would also create a discriminated class of residents that would be increasingly shut out of access to the city by denial of facilities for charging electric vehicles. This is in direct violation of the state’s requirement to affirmatively further fair housing.

5. SB10 would not allow parcels to be down zoned in the future for any reason.

6. SB10 exposes residents to future increased regressive taxation if the property tax regime ever changes to include provisions of a land value tax which is based on the entitlements of a parcel rather than its current use.

Acting now would prevent the need for a campaign of opposition. Acting now would mean we are retaining local control and getting out in front of the issue before it becomes a campaign issue in the 2024 election.

We are happy to meet with any and all Councilmembers to discuss.

Warm regards and many thanks for your hard work for our community, The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Item 16.C
09/12/23
20 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 10:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16c Push back on State

EXTERNAL
I strongly support this item.

Sincerely,
Peter DiChellis
Santa Monica 90403
Item 16.C
09/12/23
21 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
September 12, 2023
Santa Monica City Council
c/o City Clerk
1685 Main St., Room 250
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Agenda Item 16-C (Request of Councilmember Brock and Councilmember Parra that the City of Santa Monica oppose SB 423 and direct the City Manager to have the City’s State lobbyist take all action necessary to advocate on the City’s behalf) Dear Hon. Councilmembers,
As you know, I serve as Vice Chair of the Santa Monica Planning Commission. I am submitting this comment letter in my individual capacity as a concerned citizen.

I also know that you are acutely aware of the ongoing housing affordability crisis in our city. We will need to use every tool in our toolbelt to build the required 8,874 new housing units (i.e., Santa Monica’s RHNA allocation), of which about 70% must be for lower income households. If we do not do so, we risk another builder’s remedy situation. SB 423 will provide one potential pathway for helping to avoid our Housing Element falling out of compliance.

Here in Santa Monica, the vast majority of projects that would be eligible for SB 423 streamlining will already go through a ministerial approval process. This City Council already approved Zoning Code reforms that allow for residential projects on sites less than one-acre in size to go through the ministerial administrative approval process (see Mun.

Code, § 9.39.020; there are only a handful of project sites that exceed this threshold).

Accordingly, opposing SB 423 will have little practical effect on local procedures.

And there are two other points that bear emphasis. First, I am not aware of any SB 35 projects that were proposed in Santa Monica since the adoption of SB 35 (but I realize that’s a more complicated story for another day). Second, it appears that SB 423 is already destined to become law. It has been approved by both houses of our Legislature, and it now awaits the Governor’s Signature.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to not invest City resources in opposing this bill.

Best,
Ellis Raskin
Item 16.C
09/12/23
22 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 9/12/2023 council item 16C

EXTERNAL
It's truly amazing how certain councilmembers are determined to find new ways to waste everyone's time because they feel they have egg on their face for not reading what they were voting on before they voted on it.

Item 16.C
09/12/23
23 of 23 Item 16.C
09/12/23

Santa Monica City CouncilSeptember 12, 2023

Santa Monica City Council
September 12, 2023