Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, January 28, 2025

1 David Yakobson
From: Allan Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 12:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support of SB 450 16 Item to Amend Lot Split and Duplex Ordinance Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
Allan Brown
1014 Broadway, Box 997
Santa Monica, California 90401
28 January 2025
Dear Councilmembers Zwick, Zernitskaya, Hall, and Members of the City Council I am writing this letter to express my support for amending the city’s regulations in favor of certain lot splits and duplexes on areas zoned for single-unit residences.

In July 2013, I visited Santa Monica and immediately fell in love with the city. No matter where I was in Santa Monica, I could feel the ocean breeze yet still easily connected to all the excitement of LA county. I knew this was the city I wanted to be in. After graduating college in June 2014, I started my life in Santa Monica by renting a room of a homeowner; it was the perfect scenario for a young professional just getting started with his post-college life. After 3 years, my career grew, but my housing options didn’t.

The homeowner I was renting a room from had put his house on the market, and I had to explore another living situation. There were hardly any options for me. Finding an apartment with individuals looking for roommates proved difficult, and the limited one-bedroom apartments available were just financially impossible for me. I had to leave the city. I moved to Redondo Beach, a nice city, but not without its own problems with available rental options. I rented a room of a 3-bedroom backhouse with 2 other roommates. It was a good experience, but certainly not the life I had envisioned for myself post college.

In December 2023, I found an apartment in Santa Monica, and I returned to the city I love. That process wasn’t easy, because my options were so limited. In West Hollywood, and other parts of LA county, there are more options of apartments because of more duplexes and middle housing throughout their city. In Santa Monica, more usage of under-utilized land could bring back more businesses, improve enrollment Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
2 in our schools, and make the community thrive with a diverse population of working professionals and their families.

Santa Monica has unique characteristics and a rich history. I acknowledge that we must remember its history and preserve its unique characteristics that make Santa Monica so appealing. However, the world is changing, and it’s important that Santa Monica doesn’t fall behind our changing world. Without duplexes and more housing options, most that remain are housing options of single-family units, which are financially inaccessible to younger, working professionals like me. Without more multi-family units, we will continue to see properties held by older generations with their grown children in other, distant communities. These relics will leave our storefronts empty and our streets full of the un-housed due to ever-decreasing foot-traffic.

Thank you for your consideration to this matter. I believe that such amendments will attract people that will contribute positively to the city of Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Allan Brown

Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 9:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White; Douglas Sloan Subject: Agenda Item 16-N -- OPPOSE removing the owner-occupancy requirement - Jan. 28 City Council Agenda

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
Northeast Neighbors OPPOSE the proposed change to SB9 that removes the owneroccupancy requirement in lot spits and duplexes. (Agenda Item 16-N) This change will provide no affordability. This change will not benefit the City or community.

What it will result in is larger units and more opportunities for developers.

It is in the City’s interest to encourage owner-occupancy of these projects.

Tricia Crane, Chair of Northeast Neighbors
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Daniel Gehman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 11:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Stephen Anderson
Subject: Support of SB 450 16 Item to amend lot split ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers Zwick, Zernitskaya, Hall, and Members of the City Council, I strongly support your request to explore amendments to the City’s regulations governing ministerial approval for certain lot splits and duplexes on parcels zoned for single-unit residential. This is an important step toward addressing Santa Monica’s growing need for diverse housing options and supporting the long-term vibrancy in the community.

Allowing for thoughtful updates—such as removing the owner-occupancy requirement, clarifying eligibility for vacant or demolished parcels, and permitting roof decks—will help create much needed new housing types. These changes will help alleviate the pressure on Santa Monica’s housing market, where the current supply cannot meet the demand. By enabling the increased density on eligible lots, we can provide opportunities for families and individuals who might otherwise be priced out of the community.

I commend the City Council for taking proactive steps to address these issues and for ensuring that any impacts from the ordinance are carefully monitored and assessed. The success of this initiative will not only be measured in new housing units but also in how it strengthens the diverse, inclusive, and vibrant character that makes Santa Monica such a special place to live and work.

Thank you for y our consideration of this important matter. I am confident that these updates will help pave the way for a more sustainable and equitable future for Santa Monica.

Sincerely,

DANIEL GEHMAN, AIA LEED AP
principal
Irvine | Los Angeles | Nashville
60 Corporate Park, Irvine, CA 92606
oƯice 949.474.6030 ext. 122 cell 949.412.2697
www.danielian.com
Schedule a meeting with me via Calendly.

Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 11:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: Bruce Leddy; Nancy Coleman
Subject: Item 16N, Jan 28th, 2025 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

TO: Mayor Negrete, Council Members, & City Manager White RE: Item 16N - Oppose
The Board of NOMA objects to Item 16N, the directive to staff to provide an update of our ordinances governing ministerial approval of duplexes and lot splits. Specifically, the item requests removal of the owner occupancy requirement, the removal of which is NOT required by state law and is at odds with the intent of state law to limit the availability of ministerial approval to property owners who reside on a property from the date of approval. Removing the owner occupancy provision – as well as all limitations to demolition – will open all single-family residential properties to speculative purchase by developers.

This will lead to the destruction of family neighborhoods in favor of profit-driven development.

We urge you to vote NO on item 16N, or to modify it to retain an owner occupancy requirement that is consistent with current state law and is crucial to our not ceding all control of our existing residential neighborhoods to developers.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Bruce Leddy for
The NOMA Board
NOMA'S Next Meeting: THUR. FEBRUARY 6TH
at 7PM on ZOOM
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81526517066
smnoma.org
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
3 [email protected]
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Amy Horwath <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 11:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16.N - Support for SB450 to Amend Lot Split & Duplex Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon,
I am writing to the city council in support of agenda item 16.N to amend the City's regulations for certain lot splits and duplexes on parcels zoned for single-unit residential.

My husband and I recently lost our home in the Palisades Fire and are now renting a townhome and are residents of Santa Monica. We encountered significant difficulties with high demand and a lack of inventory when securing temporary housing in Santa Monica.

We strongly support as many rental and for-sale market rate duplexes and ADUs as possible, particularly in single family neighborhoods where no new housing has been created in our lifetime. The creation of more “missing middle” homes would help to alleviate housing pressure in the market.

Thank you,
Amy Horwath
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
5 David Yakobson
From: Roger Sanchez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 11:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support of SB 450 - Item 16: To Amend Lot Split and Duplex Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers Zwick, Zernitskaya, Hall, and Members of the City Council, I am writing in strong support of your request to explore amendments to the City’s regulations governing ministerial approval for certain lot splits and duplexes on parcels zoned for single-unit residential. This is an important step toward addressing Santa Monica’s growing need for diverse housing options and supporting the long-term vibrancy of our community.

As a Santa Monica resident who started a business here shortly after college, I have experienced firsthand the challenges that arise from the lack of housing in our city. Currently, the choices available are largely limited to single-family homes, older apartment buildings, or small condominiums converted from apartments. There is little room for the “missing middle” housing that would provide attainable options for a broader range of residents.

Allowing for thoughtful updates—such as removing the owner-occupancy requirement, clarifying eligibility for vacant or demolished parcels, and permitting roof decks—will help create much-needed new housing types. These changes will alleviate the pressure on Santa Monica’s housing market, where the current supply cannot meet demand. By enabling the increased density on eligible lots, we can provide opportunities for families and individuals who might otherwise be priced out of the community.

Additional housing of this nature will also provide direct economic and community benefits. Santa Monica’s businesses, including restaurants, shops, and service providers, rely on a robust local population to thrive. By increasing housing opportunities within the city, we reduce the strain on those commuting from outside Santa Monica due to a lack of supply or affordability. This aligns with the city’s sustainability goals, as reducing commuter traffic contributes to lower carbon emissions and a more livable urban environment.

I commend the City Council for taking proactive steps to address these issues and for ensuring that any impacts from the ordinance are carefully monitored and assessed. The success of this initiative will not only be measured in new housing units but in how it strengthens the diverse, inclusive, and vibrant character that makes Santa Monica such a special place to live and work.

Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. I am confident that these updates will help pave the way for a more sustainable and equitable future for Santa Monica.

Best,
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
6 Roger Sanchez
President and CEO | Uncomn Projects ®
Powering Your Brand™
805 878 6887
[email protected]
www.Uncomn-Projects.com
8581 Santa Monica Blvd #511, West Hollywood, CA 90069
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
7 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 10:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council 1/28/25 agenda item 16-N -- OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
January 27, 2025

To: Mayor Negrete and City Council members

From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park

RE: 1/28/25 agenda item 16-N -- Administrative Approval for Development in Non-Residential Zones – OPPOSE

Dear City Council Members:

Now you are proposing ministerial approvals in single family neighborhoods for more duplexes and lot splits than the state requires, which undermines both the residents and “little d” democracy.

We are writing to oppose Item 16.N., which would allow “ministerial approval for certain lot splits and duplexes on parcels zoned for single-unit residential by: (1) removing the owner-occupancy requirement for lot splits and duplexes and clarifying that vacant or demolished parcels, as well as lots with approved demolition permits, are eligible for lot splits and duplexes, (2) allowing one roof deck per unit, and (3) ensuring that no standard within this ordinance or the underlying zoning district shall preclude the construction of 2 units, not including ADUs, of at least 1200 square feet each.”

Owner-occupancy is a requirement in R1 because, absent the presence of an owner, you have just converted R1 to R2 in violation of the LUCE. Furthermore, expanding ministerial approval for full demolitions will encourage the sale, demolition, and construction of rental units in neighborhoods characterized by home ownership. The upzoning and demolition prospects makes these lots much more likely to be purchased by developers than homeowners.

We are very concerned that you would move forward with this without the following information, which you have not sought:

1. No Baseline or Progress Established. You aren’t asking for any data relating to our development activity before instructing staff. We expect decisions that impact residents to be based on data. Prior to any procedural changes being made, you must request data from staff that includes: number of applications, status of each application, number of units in process by number of bedrooms and income Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
8 levels, size of units, height of buildings, FAR of buildings, and aggregate progress toward each incomelevel RHNA target now.

2. No Evidence Process Needs to be Faster, that this Process Slows or Would be Faster With Change. Without the information from #1, you don’t know we are “behind” and need to “speed up.” Furthermore, you have presented no information about the difference in timelines of a housing project with and without a public process.

3. No Evidence Process is More Expensive, that the Expense is Preventing Housing, or the that Cost Savings for a Project Resulting from the Change. Again, without the information from #1, you don’t know we are “behind” and need to “speed up.” Furthermore, you have presented no information about the costs of the process with and without a public process. We have yet to see any full public accounting of a project so that we can see not only what the public process costs, but how that compares to the overall costs and profits of a project. We shouldn’t be asked to forego public engagement for an unknown benefit to developers.

4. No Information About How Many Parcels are Impacted. “Parcels zoned for single-unit residential” is a huge area and includes parcels of many sizes and with different topography. We need an inventory of all parcels by size, along with an analysis of what the impact would be if all of them were to be modified under this change.

5. No Analysis of Impact on State Housing Laws. Given the fluidity of state housing laws, it’s imperative to understand how such an ordinance relates to our compliance with the current housing element and how it impacts our future obligations to build more market rate units. We already saw that council is unwilling to request an amendment to current the staff “error” upzoning Ocean Park Boulevard based on the unsubstantiated claim that it would trigger Builder’s Remedy. We are very concerned that enacting this ordinance could then never be reversed, lest staff and council claim a reversal would throw us into another Builder’s Remedy.

6. No Evidence Such an Ordinance Makes Housing More Affordable. We have said many times before that we do not object to affordable housing, we object to projects that do not comply with local zoning. Here, there are no affordability requirements in this proposal. We do NOT need more marketrate housing and we cannot continue to approve projects with no affordable units, which leaves us unable to meet our affordability targets while overburdening our limited resources with market-rate units. Trickle down housing does not work. Furthermore, we are disappointed that council fails to require 30% affordable consistent with Prop A.

As we have shown, there are simply too many unknowns, both respect to where we are and what the impacts would be of this ordinance. The new council’s decision to push this forward, among other similar changes, merely confirms our fears – that they will be governing based on ideology, not data or evidence, for the purposes of increasing market rate housing density regardless of its impact on existing neighborhoods and residents.

No ordinance should be ordered, and no ordinance can be taken seriously, without first requesting all of the information above from staff. Then, ONLY IF a need can be demonstrated for expanding the existing streamlining provisions, it still should be limited as follows:

· Ministerial approval should not be available if one of the units will not be occupied by the owner; · Ministerial approval should not be available for duplexes and lot splits that exceed SB450’s demolition caps;
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
9 · Streamlining should ONLY be provided to those projects that conform to existing zoning, without any state bonuses; and
· Streamlining should only be allowed for projects that achieve 30% affordable AND are consistent with local zoning WITHOUT state bonuses.

Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
10 David Yakobson
From: Eli Gill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 10:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Support for Agenda Items L and N – Public Safety and Housing Choice Initiatives

EXTERNAL
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing to express my strong support for two critical agenda items under consideration:

Agenda Item L – Prioritizing the Deterrence of Dangerous Driving Agenda Item N – Expanding Diverse Housing Choices in Santa Monica Support for Agenda Item L – Public Safety and Traffic Enforcement Dangerous driving continues to pose a significant threat to the safety and well-being of Santa Monica’s residents, visitors, and vulnerable road users. Agenda Item L, proposed by Councilmembers Zwick and Hall, is an essential step toward improving traffic safety and preventing unnecessary injuries and fatalities.

The proposed actions to increase high-visibility enforcement operations, provide transparent quarterly data reporting on traffic stops and violations, and develop a proposal to restore traffic enforcement capabilities to pre-2020 levels will enhance accountability and ensure progress in reducing dangerous driving behavior. These initiatives reflect Santa Monica’s commitment to public safety and are deserving of unanimous Council support.

Support for Agenda Item N - Expanding Diverse Housing Choices I also strongly support the request by Councilmembers Zwick, Zernitskaya, and Hall to amend Santa Monica’s regulations for ministerial approval of lot splits and duplexes in single-unit residential zones. In line with SB 450 and the city’s goals of providing diverse and equitable housing options, this proposal represents a forward-thinking approach to addressing the housing crisis.

The specific amendments proposed, including removing owner-occupancy requirements, allowing roof decks, and ensuring construction feasibility for two units of at least 1,200 square feet each, will help foster the development of more affordable “missing middle” homes. Additionally, I appreciate the inclusion of a one-year review process to assess impacts such as housing production, displacement, and progress toward affirmatively furthering fair housing.

Santa Monica must take bold action to provide diverse housing options in high-opportunity areas while maintaining a commitment to equity and sustainability. This ordinance is a critical step toward achieving those goals.

Together, these two agenda items exemplify Santa Monica’s dedication to enhancing public safety and addressing the housing needs of our community. I urge the Council to approve both measures and continue prioritizing initiatives that make Santa Monica a safer, more equitable, and more vibrant city for all.

Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
11 Thank you for your leadership and thoughtful consideration of these important issues.

Sincerely,
Eli Gill
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
12 David Yakobson
From: Taylor Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 10:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: No on agenda Item 16N

EXTERNAL
Please vote no on 1/28/2025 agenda item 16N.

Owner occupancy assures we have neighbors, not developers, which is a reasonable and important cornerstone of the SB9 legislation, and the balance of interests negotiated by our state representatives.

Furthermore, rooftop decks are a luxury amenity which will serve to push rents well beyond the "missing middle" this agenda item proposes to restore.

Lastly, by all appearances, this agenda item is in response to the difficulties of the developers of the highly unpopular 1101 Stanford and 1230 Ashland projects. There are many other SB9 developments that appear to be progressing successfully and without neighborhood opposition under the current ordinance. The law was known to these developers when they purchased the properties and there are plenty of options for them under it. It is not your duty to ensure maximum profit for these specific developers and the mere request for this agenda item questions the integrity of the City Council.

Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 12:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Re: Item 16.N. Administrative Approval for Development in Non-Residential Zones – OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Re: Item 16.N. Administrative Approval for Development in Non-Residential Zones – OPPOSE

Dear City Council Members:

We wrote to you in December asking you to not remove the voice of the residents by expanding development “streamlining”. But you moved forward with a plan for ministerial approval of “housing projects” in all nonresidential zones. Now you are proposing ministerial approvals in single family neighborhoods for more duplexes and lot splits than the state requires, which undermines both the residents and “little d” democracy.

We are very concerned that you would move forward with this without the following information, which you have not sought:

1. No Baseline or Progress Established. You aren’t asking for any data relating to our development activity before instructing staff. We expect decisions that impact residents to be based on data. Prior to any procedural changes being made, you must request data from staff that includes: number of applications, status of each application, number of units in process by number of bedrooms and income levels, size of units, height of buildings, FAR of buildings, and aggregate progress toward each income-level RHNA target now.

2. No Evidence Process Needs to be Faster, that this Process Slows or Would be Faster With Change. Without the information from #1, you don’t know we are “behind” and need to “speed Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
2 up.” Furthermore, you have presented no information about the difference in timelines of a housing project with and without a public process.

· Ministerial approval should not be available if one of the units will not be occupied by the owner; · Ministerial approval should not be available for duplexes and lot splits that exceed SB450’s demolition caps;
· Streamlining should ONLY be provided to those projects that conform to existing zoning, without any state bonuses; and
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
3 · Streamlining should only be allowed for projects that achieve 30% affordable AND are consistent with local zoning WITHOUT state bonuses
Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 10:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Cc: David White; [email protected]; Santa Monica Forward Subject: Support for Agenda Items 16k and 16N
Attachments: 2025-01 CC Support items 16K and 16N SaMoSSA-SMF.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and City Council members, Please find a joint support letter for agenda items 16K and 16N from the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance and Santa Monica Forward.

With sincere appreciation,
Cynthia Rose, Cris Gutierrez, Brad Ewing & Carl Hansen
--
Cynthia Rose and Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chairs
Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance
SaMoSafeStreets.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.

Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
January 27, 2024
RE: Support for Agenda Items 16K and 16N
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and City Council members:

The Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance and Santa Monica Forward would like to express our full support for the following items:

Support item 16K to undo the previous harm that criminalized homelessness and targeted our most vulnerable with the abject cruelty of taking warmth and basic comfort from folks without a home by adding the mere existence of “sleeping bags, or bedrolls” to the description of an encampment to section 1A. We applaud the proposed updated ordinance for section 1.1 to remove reference to “sleeping bags” and “bedrolls.” We also appreciate the renewed compassion of adding to section 1D “This ordinance does not prohibit those who are unhoused or homeless from using sleeping bags, blankets, pillows, and/or bedrolls while sleeping.” to the existing no camping ordinance. These updates better represent who we are in Santa Monica. Thank you.

Support item 16N: With the ongoing housing crisis we thank Council for taking leadership to facilitate diverse housing choices in the City of Santa Monica - specifically proposing an ordinance to amend the City’s regulations governing ministerial approval for certain lot splits and duplexes on parcels zoned for single-unit residential in the highest opportunity areas. In this current housing crisis we applaud our leadership for proposing to “removing the owner-occupancy requirement for lot splits and duplexes and clarifying that vacant or demolished parcels, as well as lots with approved demolition permits, are eligible for lot splits and duplexes” and for ensuring that no standards within the ordinance or the underlying zoning district shall preclude the construction of 2 units, not including ADUs. Thank you
Thank you, City Council, for being leaders with intelligence, responsibility and a heart as you solve problems. We support and thank you for the proposed items 16K and 16N, and for leading responsibly and honorably.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance SaMoSafeStreets.org
Brad Ewing and Carl Hansen
Co-chairs, Santa Monica Forward
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
5 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 10:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council -- 1/28/25 -- item 16-N -- Oppose removing the owner-occupancy requirement

EXTERNAL
January 27, 2025
To: Mayor Negrete and City Council members
From: Zina Josephs
RE: 1/28/25 agenda item 16-N -- Removing the owner-occupancy requirement in lot splits and duplexes I oppose the portion of item 16-N that removes the owner-occupancy requirement in lot spits and duplexes in R1 neighborhoods.

In 2021, the Friends of Sunset Park Boar opposed SB-9 because there was no affordability requirement.

Regarding affordability, I observed a few years ago the sale of two older single family homes on R-2 lots, one on Bay Street in Sunset Park and the other on 19th Street in the Pico neighborhood.

Each house sold for $2 million, and was then replaced by 3 townhouse-style condos which sold for $2 million EACH. Splitting the lot did not improve affordability.

Allowing a homeowner to rent out all of the units resulting from a lot split or duplex will not improve affordability.

So what's the point? Density for density's sake? Encouraging the reduction of greenspace in our residential neighborhoods? Already, with the increase in ADU's, there are fewer backyards in R-1 neighborhoods where kids can play. How does this improve the quality of life in our city? ********************************************************************* SB 9 – FOSP position in 2021:

Vancouver urban planner and University of British Columbia Professor Patrick Condon is the author of the new book Sick Cities. He says that unaffordability is caused by “an ever-increasing gap between wages and the price of urban land. In Vancouver there is no such thing as single-family zoning anymore.

We have incrementally quadrupled density … but we haven’t seen any decrease in per square foot housing costs. That evidence is indisputable….To summarize: Zoning is not the problem.” Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
6 A prime example of this in Santa Monica is an area of the Pico neighborhood that’s been zoned “multifamily” where a single-family home has recently been replaced by 3 townhouse-style condos. The three condos are currently on the market for $2 million each. Increased density has NOT resulted in increased affordability.

SB 9 is a proposed up-zoning law that would end single-family zoning in California by allowing 8 housing units where there is now one single-family lot (i.e., one parcel). Here is how this would happen:

1. SB 9 would add Govt Code section 65852.21 (allowing 2 units on a single parcel in a single-family residential zone (the so-called “duplex” provision, but in reality a “two residential units” provision) and Govt Code 66411.7 (the lot-split provision).
a) The “two-residential-units-on-one-parcel provision” authorizes two residential units on a single lot, in a single-family residential zone.
b) The “lot-split” provision authorizes a single lot to be split into two lots of equal size. c) An application to do either or both of these is processed ministerially (approved by staff, not by Planning Commissions or City Councils), by right.
d) There is no requirement for affordable housing and no CEQA review.

2. Under existing law, there is already a right to one Accessory Dwelling Unit and one Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit per parcel (Govt Code 65852.2).
a) An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) can be attached, or detached from an existing home, or a conversion of an existing space such as a garage. A local agency is prohibited from establishing a maximum size of an ADU of less than 850 square feet, or 1,000 square feet if the ADU contains more than one bedroom. When ADUs are created through the conversion of a garage, carport, or covered parking structure, replacement off-street parking spaces cannot be required by the local agency (Gov.

Code 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(D)(xi)).
b) A Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) is allowed to be created within the walls of a proposed or existing single-family residence or garage and shall contain no more than 500 square feet. c) A local agency can limit the places within its jurisdiction where ADUs can be located, only based on the adequacy of water and sewer service, and the impacts on traffic flow and public safety, if the agency chooses to pass an ordinance.
d) “Although cities and counties are mandated to permit ADUs and JADUs, they are not required to adopt ADU and JADU ordinances. However, any city/county that does adopt an ADU ordinance, must submit the ordinance to HCD (California Dept. of Housing and Community Development) within 60 days.”
e) There is no requirement that an ADU or a JADU be limited to any category of affordable housing.
f) Here is link to the HCD website:
https://hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/accessorydwellingunits.shtml Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
7 g) Here is a link to the HCD Handbook:
https://hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/adu-ta-handbook-final.pdf

3. Under SB 9, there are three scenarios that illustrate how many units could be built on one existing lot (parcel):
a) Scenario One: The “two residential units” provision of SB 9 (sometimes mistakenly called the “duplex” provision, but not limited to “duplexes”) is invoked, but not the lot-split provision: The single lot can now have two free-standing houses, two townhouses, or a duplex. There is no requirement as to whether the two residential units must be a “duplex,” or attached to each other, or free-standing. In addition, an ADU and a JADU are allowed as of right on the parcel. Total of 4 units: “Two residential units” plus an ADU and a JADU on the single lot.
b) Scenario Two: The lot-split provision of SB 9 is invoked, but not the “two residential units” provision allowed on each of the two new lots. One lot becomes two lots. Each lot can have one freestanding house or townhouse, PLUS an ADU and a JADU. Total of 6 units: “Two residential units” plus two ADUs and two JADUs, on a single lot that has been halved into two lots. c) Scenario Three: Both the lot-split provision and the “two residential units” provision are invoked.

One lot becomes two lots. Each lot can have two free-standing houses or townhouses, PLUS each lot is entitled to an ADU and a JADU. Total of
8 units: Four “residential units,” plus two ADUs and two JADUs, on a single lot that has been halved into two lots.

N. Request of Councilmembers Zwick, Zernitskaya, and Hall that, in conjunction with necessary updates arising out of SB 450, and in order to facilitate diverse housing choices in the City’s highest opportunity areas, the City Council directs the City Manager and the City Attorney to return with an ordinance to amend the City’s regulations governing ministerial approval for certain lot splits and duplexes on parcels zoned for single-unit residential by: (1) removing the owner-occupancy requirement for lot splits and duplexes and clarifying that vacant or demolished parcels, as well as lots with approved demolition permits, are eligible for lot splits and duplexes, (2) allowing one roof deck per unit, and (3) ensuring that no standard within this ordinance or the underlying zoning district shall preclude the construction of 2 units, not including ADUs, of at least 1200 square feet each. One year after implementation, city staff shall return with a report on any impacts of the ordinance, as amended, including data on net new housing units permitted, effects on displacement (if any), concentration of ownership, and other pertinent information to evaluate its success in affirmatively furthering fair housing and creating more affordable “missing middle” homes.

To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.Revised Title. 1/24/2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
8 David Yakobson
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 9:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Item 16N

EXTERNAL
Good evening Council,
Please support item 16N to facilitate more housing choices in Santa Monica. We need to build more of every type of housing for the city and county to recover from decades of inadequate construction.

Missing middle types of housing are a critical piece that should be encouraged at every opportunity.

Dustin Shahan
90401
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Peter Borenstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 2:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Discussion Item 16N

EXTERNAL
This amendment would conflict with Gov Code s 66411.7(g)(1) which imposes the owner-occupancy requirement for SB 9 lot splits statewide.

SB 450 changed a lot of things but it did not remove the owner-occupancy requirement, which is what the title of Item 16N suggests.

Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 11:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I support item 16N

EXTERNAL
Dear council,
I fully support item 16N.

As if the housing crisis wasn't already bad enough, the climate catastrophe the LA region is currently going through (which sprawl and single-family neighborhoods surely contribute to) will only make the issue worse; it's already showing.

We must do everything we can to allow more people to live in our amazing, walkable, bikeable, livable city and this item is a great move in that direction.

It also happens to be a great use of state law.

I hope you all support item 16N.

Caro Vilain, 90404
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025

Santa Monica City CouncilJanuary 28, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
January 28, 2025