1 David Yakobson
From: Jack Farrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 12:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Yimby Law Letter of Comment
Attachments: YL Comment Santa Monica SB9 Lawsuit.docx
EXTERNAL
Hello,
Please find attached correspondence relating to tonight's closed session of the City Council.
Sincerely,
Jack Farrell he/him
Research Attorney
267-218-1147
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
8/26/2024
Santa Monica City Council
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Via email: [email protected].
Re: Stanford Neighbors Against City Overreach v. City of Santa Monica Dear Santa Monica City Council,
YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Element Law.
Should the City fail to follow the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to file suit to ensure that the law is enforced.
On August 27th, this Council will review its litigation response to Stanford Neighbors Against City Overreach v. of Santa Monica, which requests a stay of SB9 and Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9.31.125 while City of Redondo Beach remains on appeal.
We urge the City to uphold its legal obligations and the integrity of its own authority by vigorously defending against this lawsuit, and swiftly filing for its dismissal.
Section 9.31.125 codifies Senate Bill 9, allowing ministerial approval of certain duplex and ADU projects, facilitating approvals and making way for greater accessibility to individuals hoping to live within the City. While the recent decision in City of Redondo Beach et al v. Bonta excluded charter cities from SB9, Santa Monica’s ordinance stands Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
on the city’s authority and its obligations under California’s Housing Element law. The provision was a requirement of the city’s AFFH strategy as submitted to HCD. If the ordinance is amended, repealed, or rendered inoperable following this pending lawsuit, Santa Monica could suffer serious consequences: it risks decertification of its housing element, rendering the city non-compliant, and opening up the entirety of Santa Monica to Builder’s Remedy projects.1
The current challenge ignores Santa Monica’s authority to enact its own ordinances and its obligations under state AFFH law. If the city does not successfully dismiss the lawsuit, it could be forced to expend considerable resources redrafting its housing element and developing new AFFH programs. With respect to the sincerity of Santa Monica’s Council in making those agreements and the laws that Council committed to in response, Yimby Law asks the city to defend its policies and ensure this lawsuit is dispensed with as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Jack Farrell, Esq.
1 See the City’s official position: Santa Monica City Attorney's Office. "Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office Provides Update on Senate Bill 9." City of Santa Monica, accessed 26 Aug. 2023, www.santamonica.gov/blog/santa-monica-city-attorney-s-office-provides-update-on-senate-bill-9.
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
2 David Yakobson
From: Christine Donald <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 12:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27/24 agenda item #4-----Stanford St neighbors lawsuit
EXTERNAL
I live across the street from 1101 Stanford St. and have great interest as to what is to become of the property. I watched as the property was sold in '21 and the teardown of the house in Jan'22. And again when the property was sold in '23. I definitely was unhappy with the proposed monster house to be built at that time and am even more unhappy with the SB9 build of 8 units.
Is not one of the primary requirements that there be an existing house on the property? So before you even begin the approval process for a SB9 build the first requirement isn't even met and should be disqualified. Moving on to the lot split that allows 2 dwelling units on each lot, that has been doubled to 8 units with the addition of 2 adus on each lot!! Only 4 parking spaces have been allowed for the 4 units as we're close to public transportation on Wilshire. The neighborhood is faced with the possibility of 16 additional cars.....allowing 2 cars per unit. Where are they supposed to park?? Along with the increased traffic on Stanford and Lipton, which is already treated as a mini freeway.
I understand that the builders need to maximize the build so much, as nearly $4 million has been spent for the property! But at what cost to our neighborhood and other neighborhoods facing the same predicament??
Thank you
Christine Donald
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: nikki hochstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 4a for August 27th Santa Monica City Council Meeting
EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern:
As a dedicated real-estate agent with over 20 years of experience serving the westside and Santa Monica, I am compelled to address the recent lawsuit challenging the SB9 ordinance and the associated project on Stanford Avenue. This lawsuit and the potential halt in the implementation of SB9 by the city are of great concern to me and many others in the community.
The success of this lawsuit could significantly undermine the city’s efforts to provide more affordable housing options. As someone who has been very involved in the Westside and Santa Monica's real estate market for the past two decades, I have witnessed firsthand, the acute shortage of housing that has made it increasingly difficult for both homebuyers and renters to find affordable options in the community.
Santa Monica is already one of the least affordable cities in the nation for prospective homebuyers. The SB9 ordinance presents a vital opportunity to address this issue by allowing for the development of additional housing units in single-family neighborhoods, thereby helping to alleviate some of the pressure on the housing market. It is crucial that we continue to explore and implement policies that create more housing opportunities, rather than placing obstacles in their path.
Sincerely,
Nikki
Nikki Hochstein
Estates Director | Residential Sales Compass
BRE #01338003
m: 310.968.1116
a: 2115 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90405
e: [email protected]
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: Gabriel Schlumberger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 5:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stanford St. Development Project
EXTERNAL
Dear City CouncilWe are neighbors of the proposed project on Stanford St. While in principle we are pro-development and densification, bending the SB-9 law in a way it was explicitly never intended to create 8 units on a single family family property isn't the way to go about it. We will continue to oppose this and similar projects, in court if necessary, but urge you to follow a more reasonable and legal framework to achieve the goal of adding housing stock to Santa Monica.
Thank you for your consideration.
Gabriel Schlumberger
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: Marc Abraham <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 11:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 8/27/24 agenda item #4 - Stanford neighbors lawsuit
EXTERNAL
I have lived in Santa Monica for 45 years. I have seen many positive and sadly, lately, many ill-conceived and badly executed actions. Degrading the quality of neighborhood life (SB 9) has to be one of the most ill-conceived. Driven by state legislators who are frankly, unfamiliar with the city’s their laws would impact; driven my legislators who often live in rural areas; unconcerned with the impact of having state law override municipalities that are governed by local residents … and all in the name of housing that will by definition in these areas be out of the reach of lower income people and only benefit developers who are profiting by the idea that they are the people who will solve a housing crisis. Building larger structures, filling lots with concrete, putting up looming structures, while by practical necessity, eliminating lawns and trees ( btw Santa Monica was a leader in limiting the size of homes in relation to the size of their lots) … well what a terrible approach and system. SM will likely lose this lawsuit and spend valuable resources fighting that result. Do the right thing and join other California cities by not enforcing this bad idea.
Thank you,
Marc Abraham
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: Steve Rogers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: "City Council 8/27/24 agenda item #4 - Stanford neighbors lawsuit"
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members. I reside at 1123 Stanford St., down the block from the parcel at issue. My family moved into the neighborhood about 14 years ago. I don't understand why the city would consider changing the zoning in the middle of single family residences. If the city wants more multi-family housing it should do so by starting on the edges of the single family zoned area near Wilshire, not in the middle of it. It doesn't seem right to change the nature of our single family neighborhood, and it will cause the rest of the single family parcels around it to lose value. Please reconsider.
Thank you,
Steve Rogers
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
2 David Yakobson
From: stevan hill <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 9:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 1101 Stanford - lot split in R1 neighbor
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
Please cancel the 1101 Stanford lot split LLC Project.
It is illegal and outrageous to R1 property owners.
In fairness to you, you may not be fully aware of the City's intent on flooding R1 neighborhoods with 8 units on a single parcel. Why!
Thank you very much,
(Stanford Neighbors Against City Overreach)
Stevan Hill
Business Development for North America
310-880-9200
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
3 David Yakobson
From: Richard Milanesi <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 5:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: M Gail Denney Milanesi; Mark Borenstein; Stevan Hill; Zina Josephs; [email protected]
Subject: 1101 Stanford Illegal SB9 Project
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
Please cancel the 1101 Stanford Street split lot LLC Project.
It is illegal and outrageous to R1 property owners.
In fairness to you, you may not be fully aware of the City's intent on flooding R1 neighborhoods with 8 units on a single parcel. Why!
Thank you very much,
Richard Milanesi (Stanford Neighbors Against City Overreach) Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
4 David Yakobson
From: Paul Deason <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 2:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: "City Council 8/27/24 agenda item #4 - Stanford neighbors lawsuit"
EXTERNAL
The concept of single family houses on single family lots is what makes Santa Monica a wonderful place to live and gives the character of Santa Monica to the entire region. Your overreach will make the neighborhoods of single family houses look like the Promenade: A disaster ! Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
5 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 1:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: "City Council 8/27/24 agenda item #4 - Stanford neighbors lawsuit"
EXTERNAL
Good Afternoon,
As of resident of Santa Monica for over 35 years, I am very disappointed with the City Planners (David Martin, Ross Fehrman) and City Attorneys (Doug Sloan, Heidi Jame Tongel).
They have made it very clear they are moving forward with the approval of the lot split at 1101 Stanford St and the building of 8 residential housing units on a single R-1 lot despite our neighborhood objections.
The City’s position is more than inexplicable as a state court judge held that SB9 was unconstitutional, thereby rendering The City of Santa Monica ordinance unconstitutional.
As a result of the positions of the developers and the City, our options to stop the 8 unit developments is limited to litigation.
We want to preserve our beautiful Santa Monica neighborhoods not destroy them! We SNACO are asking for your help to defeat this SB9 project.
Thank you
Sincerely
Gail Denney
Gail Denney
Consultant - Retail/Strategic Sales
[email protected]
310 621 7486
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024
Item 4-A
August 27, 2024