Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, May 13, 2025

City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: Consent
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Elaine Polachek, City Manager
Subject: SB 79 (Wiener) and SB 677 (Wiener) Analysis
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Receive the staff analysis of Senate Bill 79 (Wiener) Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development; and

2. Direct the City Manager to draft a letter expressing the City’s support for SB 79 to be delivered to the bill author, Senator Ben Allen, and Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur.

Summary
This supplemental item replaces the previously submitted staff report which relied on an incorrect TODD Tier-2 definition when determining the areas of the City affected. This report uses the definition as currently described in the amended legislation.

At the April 8, 2025 City Council meeting, the City Council tabled motions to Support SB 79 (Wiener) Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development and SB 677 (Wiener) Housing development: streamlined approvals until a committee analysis had been completed and City staff had time to review the bill for its impacts on the City of Santa Monica.

On April 22, 2025, SB 677 (Wiener) Housing Development: streamlined approvals failed to receive the necessary number of votes to pass the bill out of the Senate Housing Committee (4 Ayes, 3 Noes, 4 Not Voting). SB 677 was granted reconsideration but will not be moving forward at this time so staff have not analyzed this bill.

Staff has completed its analysis of SB 79 and concluded the effect of this bill would be most impactful to the City’s residential zoning districts, which currently has density limitations that are significantly lower than that proposed in SB 79 (e.g., R2 zone - 1 unit per 1,500 sf of parcel area or approximately 29 units/acre). The City’s commercial districts would not be significantly Supplemental Item
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
affected with this bill. With the City’s recent rezoning efforts as part of required by the 6th Cycle Housing Element and State Density Bonus (SDB) law, housing development projects in the commercial zoning districts are already permitted to request heights, densities, and FAR above the limits specified in SB 79. The benefit SB 79 adds to a housing development in our commercially zoned areas is the increase in number of incentives allowed pursuant to State Density Bonus Law.

While SB 79 does not recognize the achievements of Pro-Housing Designated cities by upholding local autonomy over land-use decisions and excluding those cities from onerous new regulations which we have advocated for in the past, SB 79 is consistent with the City’s adopted Legislative Platform in that it has the potential to increase housing production, at a faster pace, and for less cost.

Discussion
Senate Bill 79 (Wiener) Local government land: public transit use: housing development: transitoriented development aims to:

1. Amend current statute that regulates the disposal of “surplus” land owned by a public agency, once the agency determines it is not necessary for public use. SB Page 4 of 8 79 specifically changes the definition of agency use to include land leased to support public transit operations in the definition. By doing so, a public transit operator like Metro could have ample discretion to develop a project within the properties’ limits and without a local government’s discretionary review.

2. SB 79 would require that a housing development project proposed within a specified distance of a transit-oriented development (TOD) stop, as defined, be considered an allowed use on any site zoned for residential, mixed-use, commercial, or light industrial development, provided the project meets applicable requirements. The bill establishes minimum standards for height, density, and floor area ratio based on proximity to highfrequency or high-capacity transit stops, which are categorized into three tiers of TOD: Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. By classifying these projects as allowed uses, cities would be required to process and grant entitlements ministerially according to a development’s proximity to the designated TOD tiers.

3. SB 79 would exempt from CEQA a public or private residential, commercial, or mixed-used project that, at the time the project application is filed, is located entirely or principally on land owned by a public transit agency, or fully or partially encumbered by an existing operating easement in favor of a public transit agency and meets specified requirements.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
According to the bill analysis completed by the Senate Committee on Local Government, all SB 79 projects must comply with the anti-displacement provisions in the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330, Skinner). Projects that meet these requirements are presumed to comply with local zoning and the Housing Accountability Act, limiting local governments' ability to deny or downsize them. In high-resource areas, cities that deny qualifying projects are automatically presumed to be in violation of state housing law and face immediate penalties.

To ensure enforcement, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is given oversight authority, including reviewing local ordinances for compliance and referring noncompliant jurisdictions to the Attorney General.

SB 79 has passed both the Senate Committee on Housing (6-2-3) and the Senate Committee on Loca Government (4-3-0) despite the Chairs of each of the two committees recommending the committee members vote against the bill. It is not common for a bill to pass against the recommendation of the chair, extremely rare for a bill to do so twice back to back. This is a clear sign the Majority Caucus is divided on the issue and there could be significant changes to the bill in the coming months as it proceeds to the Assembly and must garner votes from Assemblymembers who face elections every two years rather than their Senate counterparts who are elected to four-year terms. For complete list of individual/organizational support/opposition registered as of 4/23/25 see Exhibit B.

SB 79 Impacts to Santa Monica
According to the language of the proposed bill, the City of Santa Monica is served by Tier 2 TOD stops which are defined as - a major transit stop served by light rail transit, by highfrequency commuter rail, or by bus rapid transit service, which include full-time dedicated bus lanes or operation in a separate right-of-way dedicated for public transportation with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute peaks.

The City is served by the Exposition Light Rail line (LA Metro’s E Line), which has headways of every 8 minutes during peak periods. The City has a number of transit stops, served by Big Blue Bus and LA Metro but none meet the definition of Bus Rapid Transit. Affected areas are illustrated in the map below
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Green Shaded Ares Show Tier 2 TOD Stop Areas In/Near City of Santa Monica If SB 79 were to become law as currently written, then the regulations in proposed Section 65912.157(a)(3) would apply and housing development projects near a major transit stop would be ministerially approved with the following guarantees.

Distance to
Major Transit
Stop
Height Guarantee
Minimum
Density
Guarantee
Minimum
Residential
Floor Area Ratio
Additional
Concessions
(beyond SDB)
Within ¼ mile
of Tier 2 TOD
stop
65 feet, or local limit,
whichever greater. If
higher than local limit, not
required to grant height
increase under SDB
100 units/acre
(excludes SDB)

3.0 2 additional
Outside of ¼
mile but within
½ Mile of Tier 2
TOD stop
55 feet, or local limit,
whichever greater. If
higher than local limit, not
required to grant height
increase under SDB
80 units/acre
(excludes SDB)

2.4 1 additional
Immediately
adjacent to Tier
2 TOD stop
85 feet, or local limit,
whichever greater. If
higher than local limit, not
required to grant height
increase under SDB
140 units/acre
(excludes SDB)

4.0 2 additional
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
2025-26 State Legislative Platform
The City’s adopted Legislative Platform includes the following relevant statements:
• Support legislation that lowers the cost, speeds the permitting, and promotes the production of infill residential housing and requires all localities to build their fair share. • Support legislation that facilitates increased housing production in the City without undermining the City’s adopted affordability and inclusionary requirements. • Support legislation, and seek amendments to proposed legislation, that recognize the achievements of Pro-Housing Designated cities by upholding local autonomy over landuse decision and excluding these cities from onerous new regulations, provided they remain in compliance with their HCD-approved housing plans.

Environmental Review
No environmental review pursuant to CEQA is required at this time. No actions are being undertaken that will result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.

Attachments:

Attachment A: Text of Senate Bill 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 Attachment B: Senate Committee on Local Government Bill Analysis (4/23/25) Attachment C: Senate Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Michele Perrone <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 4:45 PM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please support local control! I am against SB79 all the way! Sincerely,
Michele Perrone
Ocean Park Resident since 1997
Wilmont resident 1992-1997
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda items 10A, 12A & SB9, 5/13/2025 - oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear council members,
I am a resident of the city of Santa Monica. I oppose the agenda items 10A, 12A, and SB9. I strongly request that all council members to vote NO on 10A, 12A, and SB9.

Thank you,
Mahvash Shafiey
835 Harvard St
Santa Monica. CA 90403
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Kjbloore <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Serious OPPOSITION to 5/13/25 Agenda Items

EXTERNAL
The following Agenda Items are scheduled for your meeting ofMay l3, 1015:

Item 4J - OPPOSE
Item 12A - OPPOSE
Item 10A - OPPOSE
Item 4K - OPPOSE
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Peter A Donald <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE COUNCIL 5/13//25 AGENDA ITEMS 4J, 4K, 10A and 12A

EXTERNAL
Dear Council member,
I am opposing tonight’s agenda items 4J, 4K, 10A and 12A. They all seek to limit residents lives through onerous state control of our land use laws, opening up our public spaces for disruptive use and restricting our right to public interaction with our City Council.

There has to be more equitable solutions to the problems these topics represent.

Thank You,
-pad蚋蚌蚍蚎Peter A Donald
2618 32nd St.

Santa Monica, CA 90405
310 871-4862
[email protected]
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Kim Drobny <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 2:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 5-13 Agenda

EXTERNAL
ITEM 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone. I think this ordinance is short sighted. Who needs to drink alcohol in public at 8am on a Tuesday? How will this do anything other than increase noise, public drunkenness, and mayhem, costing taxpayers more money for security and sanitation? Please vote no 2)ITEM 4J - Letter of Support on SB 79. SB 79 I do not support this free for all building give away. Santa Monica must hold on to its local control.
3)ITEM 4K - Change in Public Input Rules. This is a multi-pronged attempt to reduce our right to comment and provide input on Council actions. It limits comment to 2 minutes per public input section, rather than 2 minutes on each agenda item. It will automatically reduce public comment to 1 minute each if 25 or more people sign up to speak (which is nearly every meeting). In other words, the more upset we are with their actions, the more people who care enough to show up, the less time we will have to speak. Worst of all, it eliminates the ability to donate time to a single speaker.

This is a very useful tool when there is someone who best represents a group and has a more complicated presentation, or is a better speaker. It's hard to make a valid argument in 2 minutes (even worse if it's only 1 minute, which most meetings will now set) and donating time to a spokesperson for a group is an extremely valuable way to express community opinion to Council. Limiting our ability to speak out smacks of the kind of free speech crackdown we are seeing at the federal level. Santa Monica should be better than that.

Thank you
Kim Drobny
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Soledad Ramos <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 3:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building).

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Soledad Ramos
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Annette Tatum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 3:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Annette Tatum
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: A Glennon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 2:58 PM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL

Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members,

SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multi-family story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Many thanks,
Angelique Glennon
Santa Monica Tenant and Resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Meganzemke <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 1:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
[YOUR NAME]
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
5 David Yakobson
From: ede leeuw <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 1:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
SB79 will cause an urban planning catastrophe for Santa Monica at so many levels.

SB 79 endangers the health, safety, livability and character of our City, and civil engineers, geologists, environmental and health professionals could write a book detailing the pitfalls of SB79.

But one reason that is very obvious, and that would be very raw in the memories of many in this community, is the January 7 fires that claimed so many lives - our neighbors, friends, companion animals and wildlife - and reduced to ash the homes and businesses of many thousands more.

Victims are asking, why was planning on the part of government so poor that this was allowed to happen, and who will be held accountable? There are common sense ways to prevent and mitigate mass casualties BEFORE they happen. Allowing high density building in our community flies in the face of common sense planning. It is reckless and dangerous given the risks unique to our environment.

We live adjacent to an extreme fire hazard risk zone, and in the January fires, parts of Santa Monica was engulfed in smoke and evacuated. ALL of Santa Monica at one point was under risk of succumbing to the fires due to the wind direction.

We also live in a high seismic hazard zone and are overdue for a major quake, not only from the San Andreas Fault but also our own Santa Monica fault with its liquefaction zone, which runs along Wilshire Boulevard.

The Palisades fire saw traffic gridlock during evacuation that was so severe people had to abandon their vehicles and run towards the ocean on foot, and this was not even a high density neighborhood. There was no fire fighting nor police presence in some areas, so that citizens got out of their cars to direct evacuation, risking their own lives.

Imagine the possible tragedy if we have multiple high density buildings throughout the city. We already have gridlock without a catastrophe. The developers have no stake in protecting our community. Why are we helping them ?
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
6 David Yakobson
From: Alicia Syres <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 4J- Letter of Support on SB79 - Opposed

EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern,
I have been fortunate to have been a resident of Santa Monica since 1981. Moving here was a dream come true. However, over the years the experience of a lovely beachside City has been eroded. The outof-control building/development has taken that away and it is very sad to experience. It is even sadder to see how it continues.

A letter of support for SB79 now cedes your responsibility for and control of what happens to our CIty. Is that common sense for Santa Monica?
Respectfully submitted
Alicia Syres
Santa Monica, Ca
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
7 David Yakobson
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Zinajosephs
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, We have a beautiful community in sunset park - diverse, working families, children play on the streets under sunshine and ocean breezes. That is something To be valued. In fact I would suggest our shopping district IS THE ONLY ONE thriving besides Montana Ave. Don’t ruin our way of life by building massive Apartments.

Mr. Zwick grew up in my favorite house in Rustic Canyon surrounded by nature. I believe Zwick has a second home in Colorado that has a view of pure nature as far as the eye can see. Zwick, try to imagine for a moment what it is like to live in a modest place full time where the sunshine and fresh ocean air is truly joyful for residents, residents who don’t have the luxury of escaping to wide open places. Why are you determined to take that away from Sunset Park residents? Our low rise neighborhood is OUR Colorado full time. We treasure the low rise community we live in. Clearly much more than you do. You were wrong about Fairview Library and you are wrong about this.

Please recognize this mistake you are making. Yes the city must solve its financial challenges, but this is not the way Yes, the city is circling the drain financially. You must find other ways to solve that problem. But you must get creative in other ways so you don’t constantly put developer concerns over residents. If you destroy Sunset Park, that will be your lifelong legacy. The city is already 70% apartments. The city is already Dense. Crushing this neighborhood with market rate housing is shameful especially after the gigantic Gelson’s development going in.

Do you really want to be known as the city council that ruined a treasured low rise community, the last beach neighborhood in SM? I can only imaging that someone must be personally getting benefits in order to support something so egregious. If so, tell us. Instead, be your better selves! Do you really want your children to see you as the people who destroyed our beautiful southside neighborhood? Find other solutions to our city’s financial woes.

Otherwise, soon there will be “no there there” in Santa Monica.

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
8 We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Karen Croner
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
9 David Yakobson
From: Dwight Flowers <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 4J - Senate Bill 79 (Wiener)

EXTERNAL
As a member of Santa Monica Forward and a long-time resident in the community, I am in generally in support of Item 4J at tonight’s meeting.

We should make every effort to increase available housing of all types in Santa Monica and reduce cost and future rents to the extent possible.
- Enabling duplexes and lot splits in single family neighborhoods will help - Encouraging ADU production throughout the city is most desirable - Extending the existing streamlined approval process would help to expedite housing in larger projects - Changing residential zoning to be based more on FAR
Thank you for consideration of these items in tonight’s meeting. Sincerely, Dwight Flowers Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Gregory Cole <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: RE: citizen comments on items before the city council 5/13/25

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members- As a long term Santa Monica resident and co-homeowner with my wife, I would like to register our opposition with comment in red to the following four items coming before the council:
1) Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 -
We oppose authorizing the City’s support for SB 79 (Wiener) because SB79 would allow 7-story market rate apartment towers and without offering any affordable housing. Like most residents and homeowners, we have all abided the existing regulations limiting our own property buildings and remodels with major investments. Santa Monica is already high density with ever increasing limitations on water and parking and ever increasing congestion. It is flooded with outside visitors beyond this density. It is unacceptable to further damage our lifetime investments in our homes and the quality of life in this city. 2) Agenda Item 12A – End Owner Occupancy Requirement in SB9 We oppose ending this requirement to lose local control and enable developers further latitude to increase density without any of the intended benefits of supporting families trying to house their aging parents and the next generation with fewer and fewer job opportunities as they face the coming AI/ robotics onslaught on jobs. 3) Agenda Item 10A – Promenade Entertainment Zone –
Aside from punishing residents with late night noise, this ordinance will inevitably lead to more visitors coming to party and leaving drunk and disorderly, often behind the wheel and capable of killing people. We see dead people and a council with responsibility.
4) Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules -
We oppose this change which limits the ability of any presentation of fact based reasoned arguments that would inform the council and public opinion. It inflates the impact of outsiders and insiders lobbying the council and city staff and diminish democratic governance that respects resident rights to voice their opinions in meaningful ways.

Thank you for considering our views,
Sincerely,
Greg M. Cole and Sally A. Frautschy
18 Seaview Terrace
Santa Monica, Ca. 90401
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Support agenda Items 4J and 12A
Attachments: 2025-05 Support Agenda items 4J-12A SaMoSSA .pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and Santa Monica City Council Members:

Please find our letter of support as residents, community leaders and on behalf of the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance (SaMoSSA) for agenda Item 4J (as supplemented) addressing Senate Bill 79, and Item 12A, amending Zoning Ordinance in sync with State Law.
--
Cynthia Rose
Co-Chair
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 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

May 13, 2025
RE: Item Items 4J and 12A Please Support
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and Santa Monica City Council Members:

We are pleased to write to your today as climate-sensitive housing advocates to express our support as residents, community leaders and on behalf of the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance (SaMoSSA) for the two agenda Items you are considering this evening: Item 4J (as supplemented) addressing Senate Bill 79, and Item 12A, amending Zoning Ordinance in sync with State Law.

We support the revision of the City’s definition of “housing project” to be consistent with State Law and support the streamlining for all housing projects regardless of the project site’s land area.

Both of these important and timely items represent progress that our city desperately needs to maximize housing along major transit corridors. We welcome the opportunities to update the LUCE to address the housing crisis in concert with the measures set forth in our Climate Action and Adaptation Plan for new housing to be practical and available to welcome new Santa Monica residents to be a part of our community.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance SaMoSafeStreets.org
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: chuck chuckhusting.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Agenda Items 4J - OPPOSE, Item 12A - OPPOSE, Item 10A - OPPOSE, Item4K - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
I STRONGLY OPPOSE the following measures before the City Council on Tuesday, May 13, 2024:
 Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE  Agenda Item 12A – End Owner Occupancy Requirement in SB9 - OPPOSE  Agenda Item 10A – Promenade Entertainment Zone – OPPOSE Make the parking more economical and more people will go to the promenade. I think the counter car culture that has developed is more of a detraction than the leadershop realizes. Even metered parking, dropped from 90 minutes to 60 minutes on Wilshire. It is very difficult to have a business lunch within 60 minutes. These are important nuances. (the Promenade parking structures were free of charge when initially built. They don’t have to be free, but it has gotten more expensive, and the rates seem to change often. People do not like to be surprised with suddenly high parking rates.  Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules - OPPOSE
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Brian Tung <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 4J 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern,
I oppose Agenda Item 4J, which I understand to express support for SB79 permitting seven-story towers across broad regions in Santa Monica.
--
Brian Tung <[email protected]>
Google Voice +1 310 243 6983
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Shannon Duerst <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:47 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members,

SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multi-family story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica.

This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Many thanks,
--
Best,
Shannon
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: Bernd Stephan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Re: ITEM 4J , 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
As a long-time, tax-paying citizen of the City of Santa Monica, I STRONGLY OPPOSE Item 4J - Letter of Support on SB

79. I kindly request our City Council to oppose this proposal.

Sincerely,
Bernd Stephan
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Lori Akian <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 4J , 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
As a long-time, tax-paying citizen of the City of Santa Monica, I STRONGLY OPPOSE Item 4J - Letter of Support on SB

79. I kindly request our City Council to oppose this proposal.

Sincerely,
Lori Stephan
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
5 David Yakobson
From: Jero Books & Templet Co. <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:35 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: SB79 is a destructive housing bill

EXTERNAL
Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I agree with the statement below:

This will open the door!! The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers.

As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? Who do you support??????? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
6 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Thank you for your time, Mary Rojeski 3rd St. Santa Monica

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
7 David Yakobson
From: J Rosenberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:33 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE! Importance: High

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multi-family story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Many thanks.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
8 Sincerely,
Judy Rosenberg
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Nancy Hall
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Michele Modglin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:23 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: city council meeting 5/13/25 item 4J SB79 OPPOSE!!!!

EXTERNAL
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
3 Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multi-family story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Many thanks,
Michele Modglin
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
5 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

Many thanks,
Badria Elnaggar
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: gail gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gail Gordon
Subject: Comments on Agenda Items May13, 2025

EXTERNAL
My name is Gail Gordon I was born in Santa Monica in 1951. My grandfather moved to Santa Monica in 1930. Where he established a Real Estate office and a butcher shop on 18th and Broadway Since 1960’s, Our family has owned and currently owns residential and commercial buildings in Santa Monica. In 1985 I purchased my first home in Santa Monica where I currently Live. My son went though Santa Monica school system. In 1994 I began teaching at SMC and retired in 2017. My family and I have always prided ourselves in living and working in a community we love and respect. I give back as much as I can.

But now the community wishes to deprive me of basically my old age by building me out of my neighborhood. How many of you live in Sunset Park or have even spoken to its residents. How many of you care about the people who are 65 and older, who may not be able to share their homes with their children. Or have the strength to move. We will be forced to live in an uncomfortable congested area with high toxicity due to the increased traffic and exhaust fumes. Has infrastructure even been appraised as well as Water, Electricity?

THE AGENDA ITEMS
Generational Wealth has been one of the few things that allows families to be able to raise themselves out of lowerclass status to middle class. As there are fewer remedies which still allows families this option.

The items in specific Items opposed are:
#J 4. SB79 is a destructive housing bill that is still in committee in Sacramento. It would obliterate Sunset Park by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood, by creating zoning according to– bus stop proximity-All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings will over shadow. #12 A2 Elimination of Owner- occupancy requirement-opens up Sunset Park to a developers heaven. #12 A6. Amend Districting -Changing the zoning (upzoning) of 30th Street/Ocean Park parcel will change a true residential neighborhood into a commercially zoned area with the potential of buildings at 86 ft high. Our kids will not be able to safely ride their bikes or play in their neighborhoods.
“Consistent designation.” A written way around degrading a residential neighborhood.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Jake Simon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:44 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
I am very much in favor of this bill. We need to do our part to help the homeless by building more housing. This bill is a great start.
---------
Jake Simon | Santa Monica, CA | +1-310-701-8331 | [email protected] | @jacobsimon On May 13, 2025, at 8:01 AM, Wilshire-Montana Neighborhood Coalition <[email protected]> wrote:

To: <[email protected]>, Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, Dan Hall <[email protected]>, Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>, Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Anthony Mindlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:57 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members,

SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multi-family story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
3 Many thanks,

Anthony Mindlin

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: beth burns <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:06 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE Item 4-J

EXTERNAL
Council Members,
Please vote NO on Item 4J! The 'unintended consequences' of 7 story Residential Buildings allowed just about EVERYWHERE in Santa Monica (ie, 1/2 mile from bus stops) are Serious! a. It disIncents developers from building affordable and low income housing. The financial benefits of building housing without such requirements are greater. In practicality, this proposal is a big Gift to Developers. It impedes solving the true housing crisis. b. How much does Item 4-J aid current Santa Monica residents, and support their quality of life? Ie, WHO are the true beneficiaries of this proposal? After asking Santa Monicans to vote for you, your responsibility and obligation is to serve us first. Certainly well ahead of special interests, like developers.
c. Sen. Ben Allen has already stated publicly that HE OPPOSES SB 79.

Please prioritize your constituents. . . Not your own 'guesses', re: a denser Santa Monica as guaranteed outcome, becoming more like Manhattan, NY. Please check yourselves, and recall the personal hubris that comes with power.

Thank you,
Beth Burns
2nd Street, Ocean Park
Long Time Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Rachel Bayne <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin
Subject: ITEM 4J 5/13/2025 - OPPOSE and ITEM 10A 5/13/2025 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, Please see reasonings for "oppose" requests below. Thank you.

ITEM 4J - SB 79. OPPOSE.

SB 79 (Weiner) is a giveaway to developers which enables buildings up to 7 stories to be built without formal review or environmental impact study, anywhere within 1/2 mile of mass transit.

There is NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING requirement, which means developers can build 100% market rate apartment towers, anywhere in Santa Monica near a bus line - which is virtually all of the city except the northern and southernmost borders, and even these could be subject to 7 story buildings if a bus line were to be added to San Vicente, for instance. Ben Allen opposes as well.

ITEM 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone -
5/13/2025 - OPPOSE.
- THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA SHOULD NOT SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGE ALCOHOLISM ESPECIALLY OUTSIDE IN PUBLIC SPACES AND ALSO THEN GETTING INTO VEHICLES AND DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED. - THIS WOULD MAKE THE JOB HARDER FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO KEEP SANTA MONICA SAFE FOR ALL - RESIDENTS AND VACATIONERS ALIKE.

SANTA MONICA = HEALTHY LIFESTYLE.

LET'S CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE/FAMILY VACATION.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Brenda Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 10A - 5/13/25 - OPPOSE; ITEM 4J - 5/13/25 - OPPOSE; ITEM 4K - 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
The items above are, in my opinion, proposals that should not be approved, nor even considered.

Open alcohol consumption is a terrible idea. Please do not approve this. Also, The development proposal is also not in alignment with good sense.

Brenda Anderson
475 24th Street
Santa Monica 90402
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Rachel Bayne <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin
Subject: ITEM 4J 5/13/2025 - OPPOSE and ITEM 10A 5/13/2025 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, Please see reasonings for "oppose" requests below. Thank you.

ITEM 4J - SB 79. OPPOSE.

SB 79 (Weiner) is a giveaway to developers which enables buildings up to 7 stories to be built without formal review or environmental impact study, anywhere within 1/2 mile of mass transit.

SANTA MONICA = HEALTHY LIFESTYLE.

LET'S CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE/FAMILY VACATION.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

Many thanks,
Eman Elamin
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:38 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 4 J on tuesday 5/13 agenda

EXTERNAL
5/13/2025 10:30:43 AM
Item 4J OPPOSE

Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members,

SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multifamily story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a "state density bonus" which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too "one-size fits all." Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Many thanks,
Jay P. Johnson
Rachel Sene
1134 Euclid

>
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:32 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 4 J on tuesday 5/13 agenda

EXTERNAL
5/13/2025 10:30:43 AM
Item 4J
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multifamily story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Many thanks,
Jay P. Johnson
Rachel Sene
1134 Euclid
>
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
6 David Yakobson
From: Soloff, Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:22 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: 5.13.25 CC Agenda Item 4.J -- SMRR Opposition Unless Amended to SB 79 Attachments: CC 5.13.25 Agenda Item 4.j - SMRR Letter Opposing SB 79 Unless Amended.pdf; MoveLA Scenarios Presentation - 16 July 2020.pdf

EXTERNAL
Please find attached (1) SMRR’s letter regarding tonight’s Council Agenda Item 4.J that urges Council taking an opposed unless amended to exclude residential sites and to impose meaningful inclusionary housing requirement, and (2) the attachment to that letter.

Mike Soloff
Co-Chair
Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
May 12, 2025
To: Santa Monica City Council
Re: 5.13.25 Agenda Item 4.J—SMRR Urges Council To Adopt An “Oppose Unless Amended To Exclude Residential Sites And To Impose Meaningful Inclusionary Requirements” Position On SB 79
Dear Councilmembers:

Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights (“SMRR”) urges you in the strongest possible terms to reject the request in Item 4-J on your May 13, 2025 Agenda that the City send a letter supporting SB

79. SMRR urges that Council instead adopt an “oppose unless amended to exclude residential sites and to impose meaningful inclusionary requirements” position.

As reflected in SMRR’s platform, (1) SMRR has long supported transit oriented development, and (2) SMRR has long supported protection of existing residents from displacement by such development. Accordingly, as again reflected in SMRR’s platform, SMRR has long advocated for mixed-use development with ground-floor commercial uses to occur along commercial boulevards, in industrial areas, and in the downtown. Santa Monica’s current zoning generally reflects this approach.

But SB 79 does not take this approach. Rather, it blindly upzones all parcels within a one-half mile radius of certain transit stops. As applied to Santa Monica, at present this means that all of Pico and Mid-Cities, as well as part Ocean Park, would be subject to substantial state-mandated upzoning due to their proximity to the Expo line stops. Such upzoning at best threatens the existing residents of those neighborhoods with serious hardship, and at worst with permanent displacement from Santa Monica. That residents of those neighborhoods would once again become subject to hardship and displacement in the name of “transportation progress”—just as they were when the 10 Freeway was created—is simply outrageous.

Moreover, SB 79 threatens to destroy without replacement Santa Monica’s existing housing stock that is affordable to moderate and “missing middle” households. Further, future public transit development (such as Metro D line subway stations, or permanently dedicated bus lanes)—which otherwise would be welcomed—instead would be dreaded and likely opposed if SB 79 is passed, as it could subject many other parts of the renter portion of the City to Statemandated upzoning, with similar negative consequences for existing residents.

Remarkably, the Staff Report does not make any effort to evaluate any of these negative impacts.

It is extremely disappointing that volunteers in a community organization like SMRR have had to put in many, many hours of work since this agenda item was revealed to the public on Friday afternoon to analyze and explain these consequences.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
SB 79’s blind upzoning is almost certain to have similar negative consequences throughout the State. And SB 79’s incomprehensibly vague provisions providing some power to local governments to make some form of adjustments if and only if approved by HCD is no answer, especially given the limited power in most parts of California or renters and other community members where the transit stops are located.

There is no reason to support SB 79’s approach either here in Santa Monica or elsewhere in the State. Rather, the right approach is to support mixed use development along commercial corridors and other areas on non-residential sites, especially near transit. The State already has taken this general approach for purposes of State-imposed streamlining with the passage of the 2022 Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act (and the subsequent amendments thereto).

Imposition of increased density on similar sites near appropriate transit stops is a natural extension of that concept (although SMRR would urge more robust inclusionary housing requirements also be applied to such TOD development). Studies have shown that there is a great deal of available land meeting these criteria in L.A. County (including the Westside) and elsewhere in the State (and therefore no need to displace existing residents).

I. SMRR HAS LONG SUPPORTED TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

THAT IS LOCATED SO AS TO AVOID DISPLACEMENT OF EXISTING

RESIDENTS
As demonstrated by the following long-standing provisions of SMRR’s Platform, SMRR supports transit oriented development that avoids displacement of existing residents by placing it on commercial boulevards, in industrial/commercial zones, and in the Downtown:
[B.5] Most new multifamily building activity should be shifted to mixed-use projects in commercial and industrial areas, with only housing permitted above the first floor and where pedestrian access to retail and transit services can be provided. There should be allowances for first-floor housing for artists and people with special needs.
[D.5] Mixed-use with ground-floor, neighborhood-serving retail and multi-family housing above the first floor, should be prioritized on Santa Monica’s commercial corridors, and in the Downtown. Santa Monica should encourage and facilitate mixed-use transit oriented development (TOD) with maximal affordable housing including live/work housing -- at the deepest levels of affordability -- particularly in neighborhoods near high-service transit corridors and the Expo Light Rail stations. High-density commercial uses should be disallowed where they will worsen already severe traffic burdens. TOD and transit should be designed to work together to relieve existing congestion rather than worsen it.

SMRR has successfully advocated for this approach, and it is now generally reflected in the LUCE and in the current zoning code. Indeed, as the Staff Report on this item notes, in nonresidential areas near transit our existing zoning and State Density Bonus law already permit greater density than the density proposed in SB 79.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
II. SB 79 THREATENS HARDSHIP AND EVEN PERMANENT DISPLACEMENT

FOR EXISTING RESIDENTS IN PICO AND MID-CITIES, AND DESTRUCTION OF MUCH OF SANTA MONICA’S EXISTING MODERATE AND MISSINGMIDDLE HOUSING STOCK Based on the difficult to read map in the revised Staff Report, it appears that all of the Pico neighborhood, all of the Mid-City neighborhood, and a portion of the northern part of the Ocean Park neighborhood at present would be subject to substantial upzoning if SB 79 is adopted.

Additional renter portions of the City would be upzoned in the future if, for example, permanently dedicated bus lanes are created with 15 minute headways during peak commute times, or if the Metro D subway is extended to the sea with stations in Santa Monica.

The most common zoning in the affected areas is R-2.1 R-2 currently has a density limit equivalent to ~22 units per acre.2 While this could be doubled by a developer invoking State Density Bonus law as implemented in Santa Monica, SB 79 would allow it to be increased four / five times for sites located within one-half mile / one-quarter mile of the Expo stations.3 This would greatly increase the chances that existing housing in R-2 would be redeveloped, with the following negative consequences (among others):
(a) With or without relocation benefits, redevelopment of existing housing causes a major disruption of people’s lives. Such disruption would be particularly hard on the elderly, disabled, families with school age children, and anyone who has lived for a long time in our community (a group that, if concentrated in a building, would be particular targets for redevelopment, given that the existing rents would be lowest for buildings with such a concentration of residents). That residents in Pico and Mid-City are once again being targeted for their lives to be upended in the name of “transportation progress”—just as they were when the I-10 was constructed—is shameful.
(b) SB 79 does preserve the right of low income tenants to receive relocation benefits and a right of first refusal on any newly constructed comparable unit offered at an affordable rent, as set forth in SB 330. See Gov. Code §§ 66300.5 to .6. However, one suspects that some number of low income residents—once displaced—will never return either because (1) they will have made a new life elsewhere during the period of construction and not want to move again, or (2) the replacement deed-restricted low income units in the new building are not affordable to them (a particular risk for residents of the remaining ~5800 long-term rent-controlled units). This is a particular concern given that SB 79 targets Pico and Mid-City, our City’s most ethnically/racially diverse areas. 1 See the online Santa Monica zoning map available at https://propzone.gridics.com/city/us/ca/losangeles-county/santa-monica#14.48/34.02012/-118.48483. 2 See Table in Santa Monica Municipal Code § 9.08.030 (R-2 permits one unit per 2000 square feet).
3 See Chart in Staff Report (SB 79 guarantees minimum density of 100 units per acre within one quarter mile of the relevant transit stops, and a minimum density of 80 units per acre within onehalf mile of the relevant transit stops).

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
(c) Any existing residents who are not lower income get no relocation benefits and have no right of first refusal on any units, and could well be driven out of the City altogether. (d) Because all Santa Monica rent-controlled units would have to be replaced with deedrestricted low income affordable units, redevelopment might result in a net addition of units affordable to lower income households. BUT, the City most certainly will lose existing moderate and especially missing-middle housing units. This is because even when rent-control units turn over, the new initial rents are affordable to moderate and/or missing middle households.4 By contrast, no
newly constructed units will be affordable to either moderate or missing-middle households. (e) Encouraging redevelopment of these residential neighborhoods does less to increase the overall housing supply than does driving new development to places that do not currently have housing (commercial boulevards, industrial areas, Downtown). Redevelopment only adds to the overall housing supply by the net of the number of newly constructed units minus the number of demolished units. By contrast, every unit developed on sites that are not currently used for housing adds an additional unit to the overall housing supply. Moreover, driving new development to nonresidential sites exist on commercial boulevards disperses new development throughout the City, not just in Pico and Mid-City.
(f) Encouraging redevelopment of these residential neighborhoods will create increased opposition to siting future transit stations in Santa Monica (and throughout the State) for fear it will cause disruption to and displacement from surrounding neighborhoods due to SB 79 upzoning.

III. THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD ADOPT AN “OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED

TO EXCLUDE RESIDENTIAL SITES AND TO IMPOSE MEANINGFUL
INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS” POSITION
Given the foregoing downsides to Santa Monica should SB 79 be adopted (problems which likely would recur throughout the State), the City Council should the reject the proposed support position for SB 79. There is simply no reason to displace existing residents either here or throughout the State. Rather, City Council should adopt an “oppose unless amended to exclude residential sites and to impose meaningful inclusionary requirements” position.

The State already has taken this general approach for purposes of State-imposed streamlining with the passage of the AB 2011 (Wicks), the 2022 Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act (and the subsequent amendments thereto). See Government Code §§ 65912.120 to .124. It would seem fairly simple to add a State-imposed TOD density requirement to this streamlining 4 Compare 2024 Santa Monica Rent Control Board Annual Report at p. 21, Fig. 19 (showing annual income required to afford at 30% of household income the median initial rents charged for rent-controlled units of various sizes), available at https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Rent_Control/About_the_Rent_Control_Boa rd/Staff_Reports/2025/RcB041025_Item_12A_RCB_2024_Annual_Report.pdf, with HCD’s 2024 State Income Limits at 8 (identifying median income for Los Angeles County for housholds ranging in size from one person to eight persons). For example, a four person household with 145% of the Los Angeles County median income can afford the initial rents charged on half of the rent controlled units that came on the market in 2024 without paying more than 30% of household income.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
for eligible sites that also are located within the distances specified under SB 79. The addition of other types of non-residential sites and/or well-defined local flexibility to use other nonresidential sites might also be appropriate (although more analysis would be required first).5 Studies show that a great deal of under-utilized non-residential land along commercial corridors is available not only in Santa Monica, but throughout Los Angeles County and the State. For example, SMRR Co-Chair Denny Zane—in his day job at MoveLA—arranged in 2020 for one such study and its presentation at MoveLA Conference (and later to a Statewide Housing Advocacy group). A copy is attached as an exhibit to this letter. That study concluded that there was sufficient such land in Los Angeles County alone for 1.6 million dwelling units (at relatively gentle densities), including some 840,000 such units within one-half mile of either TOD locations or high-quality transit corridors (see pages 51-52).

In short, there is no need to displace existing residents here or elsewhere in California in order to achieve TOD. The City Council should oppose SB 79 unless it is amended to avoid this displacement risk (and to impose meaningful inclusionary zoning requirements).

Thank you for considering our views on this important matter.

Sincerely,

Denny Zane Mike Soloff
Co-Chair, Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights Co-Chair, Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights 5 In the brief time SMRR has had to consider this item—and to try to do the work that should have been done by the Staff Report—it has not had a chance to determine whether these or other additional provisions are appropriate if State-mandated TOD density is to be added along commercial boulevards or on other non-residential sites. SMRR reserves its right to suggest further changes.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
California Housing Crisis

SCENARIO CONCEPTS AND ANALYSIS
Proprietary & Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Move LA: Boulevards of
Equity & Opportunity
16 July 2020
Joe DiStefano
CEO,UrbanFootprint
Peter Calthorpe
HDR-Calthorpe
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
2 The housing crisis in
California

BACKGROUND
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
2 million
current housing deficit

1.5 million
new housing demand
1 million
current projected production
50%
of population cannot
afford housing

STATEWIDE
2019-2025
California’s
Housing Crisis
Sources: McKinsey (2016)
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
The Housing Challenge:

Costs
Land Supply
Entitlement Costs
Construction Costs
City Fiscal Impacts and Fees
Affordable Housing Subsidies
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
The Housing Challenge:

Politics
Traffic and Transportation
Neighborhood Character
Community Services
Open Space
Schools
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Solutions:

Grand Boulevards
Low Density Commercial Land Conversion Only
Capacity: Bay Area 1,200,000 Du Potential
LA County
Issues: Residential Adjacencies, City Cost Of Services, Phasing Corridor Improvements
Advantages: Clusters Along Potential Transit Corridors, Infill Throughout Region, No Residential Displacement
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

STANDARD SUBURBAN
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

COMPACT WALKABLE
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
El Camino 120’ Six Lane
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
43 miles of strip Commercial
El Camino Case Study
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
15 + 250,000 Homes
Water Use
Energy Use
Driving
GHG
Compared to average Alameda County household
-$3,100
-45%
-33%
-13%
-40%
Transportation
Costs
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
High capacity
Small parcels (less than 1 acre) Large parcels
4 lane
boulevards
Live/Work townhomes 3-5 story wrap
6+ lane
boulevards
4-story tuck under 4-story + 1 podium
TOD areas
on
boulevards
4-story + 1 podium 5-story + 2 podium
80 units/acre
100
units/acre
60 units/acre
32 units/acre
150
units/acre
100
units/acre
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Townhouse - 32 Du/ac
Small Lot - 4 Lanes
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
3 Story Walk Up - 60 Du/ac
Small Lot - 6 lanes
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
5 story Podium - 100 Du/ac
Small Lot - TOD
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
4 Story - 80 Du/ac
Large Lot - 4 lanes
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
7 Story Podium - 150 Du/ac
Large Lot – TOD
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Next Generation Transit
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
ART (Autonomous Rapid Transit)
Light Rail
Metro Rail
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Boulevards of
Opportunity and Equity
LA County Infill Opportunities
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Southern California
Business As Usual
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Southern California
Growing Smart
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Statewide Action/
State Benefits
‘As of Right’ Zoning
Inclusionary Requirements
Tax Increment Financing
Transit Investments
Economic, Social, and Environmental Benefits
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
LA County Corridors

BACKGROUND
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Ventura County
San Bernardino
County
Riverside
County
Imperial
County
Orange County
Los Angeles
County
Sources: SCAG local profiles (2019), HCD SCAG RHNA (2019) California’s
Housing Crisis
2010-2017
+ 1.2M
jobs
+ 162K
housing units
REGIONAL NEED 2021-2029*
+ 1.3M
housing units
58% moderate income or lower
42% low and very-low income
* 6th cycle RHNA allocation
SCAG 6 COUNTIES
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
California’s
Housing Crisis
2010-2017

1.2M
more jobs than homes
$660K
median home price
Sources: SCAG local profiles (2019), Zillow (2020), SCAG Draft RHNA Estimated Allocations (2019) REGIONAL NEED 2021-2029*
+ 813K
housing units
58% moderate income or lower
42% low and very-low income
* SCAG draft 6th cycle RHNA allocation

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved Sources: SCAG local profiles (2019), Zillow (2020), SCAG Draft RHNA Estimated Allocations (2019) California’s
Housing Crisis

4.1 jobs per home (since 2010)
$750K
median home price
$2,500
median rent
REGIONAL NEED 2021-2029*
+ 455K
housing units
(40% low and very-low income)
* SCAG draft 6th cycle RHNA allocation

CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary, All Rights Reserved
38 The UrbanFootprint
Software Platform
Powering Scenarios and Analytics
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
40 Transit- vs. auto-oriented
areas in the county today

CONTEXT SETTING
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Subway
Light Rail
Metrolink
Lancaster/Palmdale area
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Subway
Light Rail
Metrolink
Lancaster/Palmdale area
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Lancaster/Palmdale area
Transit-oriented
areas (TPAs 2016)
Auto-oriented areas
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Per household performance compared to countywide
averages
100%
Transit-oriented
Auto-oriented

COUNTYWIDE

AVERAGE
15M BTUs
savings
32K gal
savings
9K miles
savings
4 MT
savings
$ 7K
savings
$12,000
$19,00
0 12,00
0 21,000
13 9
67,00
0 99,000
67M
72M
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary, All Rights Reserved
45 Countywide Corridor
Concepts
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Subway
Light Rail
Metrolink
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Existing
Proposed
Proposed transit: Final alignments and stations to be
identified during LA Metro environmental processes
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Lancaster/Palmdale area
2,100+
miles of
boulevards
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
4 lanes
6+ lanes
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Qualifying
parcels ● On qualifying
corridors
● Land use is
commercial, office
or vacant
● 0.5 FAR or less ● 0.2 acres or greater 19,700 acres
of low intensity commercial land
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved

COUNTYWIDE
Up to

1.6 M
new housing units
19,700 acres
of commercial land upzoned countywide
All corridors
½ mile
TOD areas

CITY OF LA
Up to
550 K
new housing units
Mixed use
Residential
Land use
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
½ mile
TOD areas
½ mile high-
quality transit
areas
Transit
corridors

COUNTYWIDE
Up to
840 K
new housing units

CITY OF LA
Up to
360 K
new housing units
9,200 acres
of commercial land upzoned countywide
Mixed use
Residential
Land use
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Development on transit corridors as proportion of current annual countywide household averages
364K
cars off the
road for 1 year
516K
homes water
use for 1 year
765K
cars off the
road for 1 year
263K
homes costs
for 1 year
Savings
equivalent to...
$12,000
savings
savings
savings
8 13,000
31,000
40M
328K
homes
powered for 1
year
savings
savings
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Fire risk
Sea level rise
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary, All Rights Reserved
55 Atlantic • Venice • Slauson
A closer look at
three corridors
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Venice
Atlantic
Slauson
Light rail + BRT stations
Light rail + Metrolink stations
Light rail
+ Metrolink stations
36 miles
22 miles
26 miles
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Venice
Atlantic
Slauson
Light rail extension
Westwood to LAX
BRT connector
Santa Monica to
LAX
BRT/Rail
Vermont Transit
Corridor
Light rail
West Santa Ana Branch
Transit Corridor
Expo Line
light rail
Metrolink
Metrolink
Green Line
light rail
Blue Line
light rail
Light rail
Crenshaw/LAX
Transit Corridor
Existing
Proposed
Proposed transit: Final alignments and stations to be
identified during LA Metro environmental processes
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
N
Subway
Light Rail
Metrolink
Atlantic
36 miles long
Green Line
Light Rail
Metrolink
Blue Line
Light Rail
Gold Line
Light Rail
710
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Existing
Proposed
Metrolink
Light Rail
West Santa Ana Branch
Transit Corridor
Proposed transit: Final alignments and stations to be
identified during LA Metro environmental processes
Green Line
Light Rail
Blue Line
Light Rail
Gold Line
Light Rail
N
710
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Existing land use
Metrolink
N
Green Line
Light Rail
Blue Line
Light Rail
Gold Line
Light Rail
710
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Metrolink
Qualifying parcels
350 acres
of commercial land
upzoned
Up to
24K
new housing units
Next slide
Green Line
Light Rail
Blue Line
Light Rail
Gold Line
Light Rail
710
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
710
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Light rail
West Santa Ana Branch
Transit Corridor
Metrolink
Proposed transit: Final alignments and stations to be
identified during LA Metro environmental processes
710
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
710
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
High capacity
Small parcels (less than 1 acre) Large parcels
4 lane
boulevards
Live/Work townhomes 3-5 story wrap
6+ lane
boulevards
4-story tuck under 4-story + 1 podium
TOD areas
on
boulevards
4-story + 1 podium 5-story + 2 podium
80 units/acre
100
units/acre
60 units/acre
32 units/acre
150
units/acre
100
units/acre
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
4-Lane/Large
3-5 story
wrap
80 units/acre
6-Lane/Small
4 story
tuck under
60 units/acre
TOD/Small
4 story
+ 1 podium
100 units/acre
4-Lane/Small
Live/Work
townhome
32 units/acre
TOD/Large
5 story
+ 2 podium
150 units/acre
6-Lane/Large
4 story
+ 1 podium
100 units/acre
710
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Subway
Light Rail
Metrolink
Venice
22 miles long
Expo Line
Light Rail
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Existing
Proposed
Light Rail
Crenshaw/LAX
Transit Corridor
Expo Line
Light Rail
BRT/Rail
Vermont Transit
Corridor
Light rail extension
Westwood to LAX
BRT connector
Santa Monica to LAX
Proposed transit: Final alignments and stations to be
identified during LA Metro environmental processes
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Existing land use
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Qualifying parcels
120 acres
of commercial land
upzoned
Up to
14K
new housing units
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Subway
Light Rail
Metrolink
Slauson
26 miles long
Metrolink
Blue Line
Light Rail
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Existing
Proposed
Metrolink
Blue Line
Light Rail
Light Rail
Crenshaw/LAX
Transit Corridor
BRT/Rail
Vermont Transit
Corridor
Light rail extension
Westwood to LAX
Light rail
West Santa Ana Branch
Transit Corridor
Proposed transit: Final alignments and stations to be
identified during LA Metro environmental processes
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Existing land use
Metrolink
Blue Line
Light Rail
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Qualifying parcels
240 acres
of commercial land
upzoned
Up to
21K
new housing units
Metrolink
Blue Line
Light Rail
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
7 David Yakobson
From: Mary Gwynn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Mary Gwynn
319 25th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Sent from my iPad
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Janet Heinle <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:07 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Just STOP

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members,

Many thanks,
Janet Heinle
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: James Janda <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 4J, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
James Janda
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Paula Mayerson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Items 4J & 10A & 4K

EXTERNAL
As long time residents of Santa Monica we oppose resolutions 10A, 4J and 4K on the agenda for this week's city council meeting. Resolution 10A will increase crime and noise in the already unsafe and over crowded Promenade. Item 4J allows developers to over build large, expensive, tall structures without being subject to the rules ordinary citizens must obey, and Item 4K silences dissent from ordinary citizens who are already frustrated by not having their voices heard. The city council should represent the wishes of their residents. Paula Mayerson and Lawrence Karr 445 15th Street, Santa Monica Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: M Wickline <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Marcy Hardart
Subject: OPPOSE Items 4J, 4K, and 10A

EXTERNAL
This is insanity--to allow developers to build these large buildings without formal review or environmental impact studies. It is wrongheaded and smells of corruption.

And then, to limit our ability to speak and comment on these changes at city meetings? What is happening to Santa Monica?
And you also want to allow day drinking in public in the 1200 block of the promenade!? It would be one thing to allow cafe tables assigned to licensed restaurants to serve beverages within 20 feet of the bistro or bar. But turning the whole block into a party zone? For some kind of daily 8 am frat party? Were you raving drunk when you put this item up for review? 8am to 2 am drinking in a public space. I at least thank you for allowing nearby residents some quiet time to recover for 6 hours between the 2 and 8 am block parties. Maybe some part of you does still care about residents! PLEASE do not let these outrages to go through.

Matt Wickline
( resident since 1990 )

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Suzanne Hunt <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE 4J, OPPOSE 4K, OPPOSE 10A, OPPOSE 12A

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am resident of the Northeast Neighborhood. Please stop the overbuilding, we cannot get from point A to point B in this city any more in any reasonable time frame. Since the fires, all of the PCH traffic is diverted through our town that used to go north through PCH. This city is becoming unlivable. We have small children, and just getting them home from school can take 20-30 minutes. They have practices in our city, that takes 45 minutes round trip just to cross through the city.

Focus on our residents. Stop putting these builders profits ahead of all of those who live here.

OPPOSE 4J
Stop the overbuilding. We do not need to weigh in on this bill. Leave our city alone, you are ruining it.

OPPOSE 4K -
The public deserves to have a voice in their city.

OPPOSE 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone.

If you stopped the free needle exchange program, many of these businesses problems would be solved. People are afraid to dine in our city with the mental health crisis that we have with many of our homeless. Help get the homeless to somewhere they can be safe and live.

OPPOSE 12A - End Owner Occupancy Requirement
STOP THE OVERBUILDING. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

Thank you
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
2 Suzanne
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Daniel Galamba
Subject: City Council Meeting on May 13, 2025: Please oppose items 4J, 12A, 10A and 4K

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I must urge you to oppose items 4J, 12A, 10A and 4K on the May 13, 2025 calendar. 1) Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE SB79 would allow 7-story market rate apartment towers in almost all of Santa Monica without offering any affordable housing.
2) Agenda Item 12A – End Owner Occupancy Requirement in SB9 - OPPOSE The owner occupancy requirement in SB9 was meant to encourage multi-generational housing. Removing it will open up neighborhoods to land speculators.
3) Agenda Item 10A – Promenade Entertainment Zone – OPPOSE This ordinance would allow open alcohol consumption on The Promenade in the 1200 block (Wilshire end) from 8am to 2am, 7 days a week. How will this do anything other than increase noise, public drunkenness, and mayhem, costing taxpayers more money for security and sanitation? This will also scare away non-alcohol users to the Promenade and we need these people to revitalize the Promenade. 4) Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules - OPPOSE
This Agenda Item seeks to limit comments from the public to 2 minutes per public input section, rather than 2 minutes on each agenda item. It will automatically reduce public comment to 1 minute each if 25 or more people sign up to speak. It also eliminates the ability to donate time to a single speaker, which is helpful when there is someone who best represents a group and has a more complicated presentation that requires more than 2 minutes.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Laura M. Gallant <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: Regarding upcoming votes on development issues

EXTERNAL
Dear council members,
I understand you are considering the following items in an upcoming meeting:
* Removing Owner Occupancy Requirement for single-family lot splits * Eliminating public input on commercial development
* Upzoning of 2644 30th St (30th/Ocean Park Blvd)
* Approving SB79
* Changing the length of public input at Council meetings I am strongly opposed to the actions above and ask you to take the residents' opinions into consideration ahead of your vote. These actions run highly counter to the views of residents of Sunset Park and require meaningful discussion ahead of any changes.

Thank you for your consideration.

Laura Gallant
Resident
2225 26th St, Santa Monica
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: T GROSSMAN <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: [email protected]; zinajosephs; [email protected] Subject: Say no! Re council agenda items for May 13

EXTERNAL
Hello, I'm writing to voice my strong opposition to the following items on your agenda tonight and asking you to vote no to:

Owner Occupancy Requirement Removal
Elimination of public input on commercial development
Changing the length of public input and abolishing time donation at Council Mtgs Changing zoning (upzoning) of 30th Street/Ocean Park parcel SB78 housing bill
There is a public perception the council is encouraging the destruction of our neighborhoods in favor of overdevelopment. What will you do to demonstrate your support of our neighborhoods, residents and livable communities? Say no to the five items listed above.

District elections are coming and for some of us, not soon enough. Residents will still be here, fighting for our environment and the communities that make Santa Monica vibrant and a place to truly call home.

Thank you,
Tina Grossman
Resident of Sunset Park since 1992
Resident of Santa Monica since 1979
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Chris Rowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Friends of Sunset Park Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

Construction NOISE is always an issue, but the construction process for large buildings is way too intense for all the retired folks around here. I live on 22nd St in Sunset Park, and there is currently a new house being built with a basement that is so loud and heavy that my parents have had to seek refuge each day elsewhere as giant beams and cranes swing over their heads.

Imagine how bad it would be for a 7-story, steel-framed behemoth! They'd probably have to dig 30-40 feet deep into the sandy soil to place the foundation, which causes settling and shaking to all the neighboring lots.

Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
And you know they'll just end up being units that are too expensive for my kids; they'll just be occupied by out of town people who need a part time apartment.

Thank you,
Chris Rowe
2442 22nd St
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Andrew Solomon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:24 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for SB 79

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Councilmembers,
I am writing to urge the City of Santa Monica to formally voice its support for Senate Bill 79, a critical measure to advance housing production and affordability across our region.

Last month, West Hollywood voted to support SB 79, recognizing the role cities must play in addressing California’s housing crisis. As neighbors in a deeply interconnected housing market, we must work together and align our policies to meet the challenge.

No one city can solve the crisis alone; coordinated action across Westside jurisdictions is essential. We must commit to building up, not out, and to unlocking the density required to stabilize housing costs and offer future generations a path to live here.

I’m sure you’re receiving many emotionally charged emails about housing. These are challenging conversations, but I appreciate your thoughtful engagement. Your decisions now will shape the region’s future. Future generations depend on us to build a better one.

My two year old daughter might want to live in Santa Monica one day. And your kid might want to move to Weho. I hope that we've collectively built room for all of them. The generation before us failed to plan for us. Let's not make the same mistake for our children.

Santa Monica has long been a leader in progressive planning. By endorsing SB 79, you can help lead a broader coalition of cities toward real solutions.

Thank you for your service and consideration.

Sincerely,
Andrew Solomon
West Hollywood Planning Commissioner
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: Margaret Bach <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 4J -- PLEASE OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear SM City Council,
I urge your opposition to a letter of support on SB 79. We, the residents of Santa Monica who value local control, vigorously oppose any measures that will remove what remains of our ability to shape the change and evolution of our built environment. SB 79 is a giveaway to developers and will negatively impact the quality of life in Santa Monica.

Please take the lead from our own State Senator, Ben Allen, and OPPOSE SB 79.

Sincerely,
Margaret Bach
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Abby Adams <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Abby and Patrick Adams
475 17th Street
SM. 90402
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
5 David Yakobson
From: Sandy King <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:06 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members,

SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multi-family story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Many thanks,
Sandra King
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
6 David Yakobson
From: Karrie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Karrie Dvorchak
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
7 David Yakobson
From: Linda V <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 4J -OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
As a SM citizen, I am strongly opposed to the SM Council directing SM City Manager to draft a letter expressing the City's support of SB 79. SB79 would allow 7-story market rate apartment towers in a designated zone in Santa Monica without offering any affordable housing. With the concern to provide more housing, we need to focus on affordable housing, versus market-rate only, together other SM goals. This SB 79 is not the right approach for many reasons.

Linda Velonis
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
8 David Yakobson
From: Carol Eisman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:51 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose SB79 destructive housing bill

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multi-family story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Many thanks,
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
9 Carol Eisman
Long-time Mid-Wilshire SM resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
10 David Yakobson
From: Anne Connor <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am writing to oppose the latest proposal to expand development in Santa Monica. As the owner of residential units under rent control, and after living for 37 years in a city that gives lip-service to affordable housing I am amazed that you are even considering proposals which allow market level housing in residential areas. And, of course, with no provision for affordable units in these up to 7 story buildings? WHAT ARE YOU THINKING???? This, if passed, would be the death of Santa Monica as a desirable living community for families. Seniors have already been priced out. Young people who make reasonable salaries have no prayer of buying a house in Santa Monica and are moving away. What you have now is short-term residents who come and go due to the high rents.

Market rates for a one bedroom apartment are $2,000-3,000 a month at this point. In our rent controlled apartment building a three bedroom rents for less than that. This is unfair to long-term owners and to anyone who wants to enjoy living in a residential area. 7 story buildings are a lot on busy streets as we are finding on Lincoln and Wilshire and Santa Monica Blvds. They are too much in residential areas.

This motion should be opposed and as a council you really need to consider the quality of life of residents, because it is being slowly destroyed by traffic, over-development and the loss of any middle-class families who are all moving away so the rich can buy and tear down our neighborhoods to build huge mansions. The developers are happy. Maybe that is what you want.

Anne Connor and Jeff Rankin
1126 23rd St. Apt 3.

Santa Monica, CA 90403
[email protected]
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
11 David Yakobson
From: Leslie Butchko <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE Leslie Butchko
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
12 David Yakobson
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 4J - Oppose

EXTERNAL
Insane-a-Monica Council,
NO
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
13 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Armine Chaparyan
Subject: Item #4.J - SB 79 - May 13, 2025

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please do NOT send a letter of support for SB 79.

This one size fits all housing bill has been identified as one of the worst! SB 79 has no affordability requirement! As Santa Monica allows for more and more market-rate housing, we are making it more and more expensive to live in Santa Monica.

You have been elected to the City Council to care for and protect our local city. Please prioritize responsible planning and land use to ensure our place on the coast is not turned into Manhattan! Please send a letter that OPPOSES SB 79.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
14 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 – OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I oppose Agenda Item 4J.

Thank you for considering my opinion for Santa Monica.

John Dahl
Santa Monica resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
15 David Yakobson
From: Christie Savage <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 4-J SB79

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members,

SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multi-family story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your consideration.

Christie Savage
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
16 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:35 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: SB79-OPP0SE

EXTERNAL
Do not saddle our already overloaded Santa Monica building regulations with this onerous attempt by Sacramento to take over control.

Harriet P Epstein
Santa Monica taxpayer
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
17 David Yakobson
From: Myles Simmons <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:30 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members,

My main concern is this: The demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden.

The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher buildings).

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica.

Many thanks,
--
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
18 Myles Simmons
[email protected]
C: 216.338.3037
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
19 David Yakobson
From: Darko Suvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 9:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood.

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Darko Suvak
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
20 David Yakobson
From: Anita <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:15 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

Many thanks,
Anita Szafran
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Penny Haberman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 7:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: TUESDAY TOWN HALL MEETING

EXTERNAL
OPPOSE: 1)ITEM 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone.

OPPOSE: 2)ITEM 4J - Letter of Support on SB 79
Penny Haberman
Santa Monica, CA
90405
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Josephine <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems

EXTERNAL
Hi to all the city council people,
I want to express my strong opposition to several of the agenda to be discussed at your meeting on may 13, 2025, namely:

The item 4J for SB 9, the item 12A for SB 9, and the item 4K concerning the public input.

My hope is that the decisions made by the city council will be made in the interest of the residents.

Thank you for your attention
Josephine Bakis
2808 Washington Avenue
Santa Monic
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Wendy Dembo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete
Subject: AGENDA ITEMS 4J/12A 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

Please oppose items 4J and 12A. Santa Monica and its residents deserve to have local control of development.

Getting rid of owner occupancy will mean that developers will buy buildings kick out the tenants and build more unaffordable housing.

Developers are funded by wealthy foreigners, who are happy to park their money in the US We don’t need Wilshire, Santa Monica, Lincoln, 17th Street, 20th Street walled in 8 story empty buildings.

Please think about people who can’t afford to live in luxury rentals.

With great sadness,
Wendy Dembo
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Lee Rosenbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 5:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Opposition to several agenda items for May 13 Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:

Please note that, as a longtime Santa Monica resident, I disapprove of three items on your agenda for your meeting tomorrow:

1. Item 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone. This looks like a Hail, Mary to save the Promenade.

It’s a terrible idea. It encourages open drinking for 18 hours a day in an area that most residents have come to shun due to the substantial presence of vagrants who mostly appear to have serious addiction or mental health issues. As I said, this is a terrible idea.

2. Item 4J - Letter of Support on SB 79. Why support a give-away to developers with no requirement that they provide affordable housing? Another terrible idea.

3. Item 4K - Change in Public Input Rules. At a time when we are witnessing attacks on public citizens who dare to speak out in opposition to government at all levels, limiting the ability of the public to speak at Council meetings is a retrograde attack on the democratic process. Another terrible idea.

I sincerely hope that you have the good sense to reject all three of these proposals.

Lee Rosenbaum
211 Marguerita Avenue
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 6:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: I OPPOSE three agenda items on Tues 5-13-25 Meeting: 1) ITEM 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone; 2) ITEM 4J - Letter of Support on SB 79; and 3) ITEM 4K - Change in Public Input Rules

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Council Members,
I strongly oppose three agenda items on Tuesday, 5-13-25 MeeƟng: 1) ITEM 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone; 2) ITEM 4J - LeƩer of Support on SB 79; and 3) ITEM 4K - Change in Public Input Rules.

Agenda ITEM 10A is a terrible idea and I believe it will cause many problems and safety issues on the Promenade and will not encourage more people to visit the Promenade. I want the Promenade to be a safe place and this will not help with that. I am strongly against ITEM 4J as I oppose taller structures in general and do not like that affordable housing would not be included. I oppose ITEM 4K as it’s a bad idea to limit public comment—it’s important to get adequate public feedback that’s not limited to such a short Ɵme.

Thank you,
Howard Eliash
LongƟme Resident of Santa Monica
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 5:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Hi

EXTERNAL
Hello Counsel Members, Item 4J, and 4k as a member of the city - I encourage you all to OPPOSE these two items - oppose high rise and population density, and the public needs adequate time to express their view before he counsel.

Mitchell Lachamn
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Nancy HR <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 2:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
To the city of Santa Monica council:

I, Nancy Hochman Ross, who live at 616 20th St., Santa Monica 90402, oppose items 4J, 12A and 4K.

Thank you,
Nancy
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Michele Garber <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 1:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: SM Council Meeting 5/13/25, OPPOSE AGENDA ITEMS 4J, 12A, 4K

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
It has come to my attention that on Tuesday, May 13, you will be voting on several issues that if passed will adversely affect the members of our community. I therefore want to respectively submit my firm opposition to these harmful policies. If approved, they will only benefit outside interests at the severe detriment of Santa Monica residents and further damage our already fragile quality of life.

As a nearly 40 year resident of Santa Monica, I have witnessed first-hand the slow degradation of our once affordable, safe and peaceful bedroom community. Our bucolic neighborhoods are now rife with over-development, congestion, crime, and unaffordability. It’s heart-breaking.

Allowing these measures to pass will exacerbate our already complex issues. When each of you were elected to your seat, the members of this community instilled our trust in you to fairly and properly represent us. Our community needs you to do right by us. I implore you to listen to your constituents and please vote no on the measures listed below.

Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 – OPPOSE Agenda Item 12A – End Owner Occupancy Requirement in SB9 – OPPOSE Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules – OPPOSE
As a further comment on SB79 and the possibility that 7-story apartment buildings could ostensibly be built throughout Santa Monica, including in many neighborhoods once zoned for single family homes, may I remind you that we are neither Chicago nor Manhattan. Not only do we not have the infrastructure to handle this density, but we are located in a perilous and severe seismic activity zone. We are not meant to have high-rise apartments throughout our residential neighborhoods. There is absolutely no amount of profit worth destroying all that makes Santa Monica special…and I voice this passionate opposition whilst also being a diehard free-market capitalist. If approved, the measures you are considering will surely cause irreparable harm to our beloved city. Please do not approve these measures.

Sincerely,
Michele Garber
1128 Princeton St.

SM 90403
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: Linda Karr O'Connor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: Items 12:A.2, 4-J, 4-K: Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

It’s gotten difficult to find a quiet, safe place in Santa Monica. I moved here from San Francisco in 1983 after a 4 story building went up next door to me, blocking all my light and air. That was the year the pier blew down. When it was rebuilt, the pier was a lovely place to walk and listen to the ocean. The only loud section was the arcade near the rides.

Now, there isn’t a single spot on the pier where you can have a conversation, free of over-amplified music and proselytizing. Same with the Promenade. After years of construction, it became a wonderful place where I felt safe walking at night alone or with my daughter. I’d go to a movie and then to the Midnight Special bookstore. There were buskers, but they didn’t have amplifiers. Now not only is it over-amplified but desolate. Is turning it into Pinnocchio’s Pleasure Island for drinkers really the best we can imagine for our city?

What we are left with is our homes. After decades of apartment living, where I had to listen to the conversations and music of other people and keep my own music down, we bought our one and only home in Sunset Park. It was very important to us that it was zoned R-1. I prize the ability, even though I live on a busy street, to go in my backyard and not have neighbors looking down into my yard. I value the light in my home that is not blocked by tall buildings next door. Yes, I had to endure my neighbor turning his house into an AirBnB hotel, but at least he was there when things got out of hand.

I oppose: the elimination of the “Owner Occupancy Requirement” for lot splits I oppose: SB79
I oppose: changing the length of public input. People need sufficient time to express complex ideas including time donation.

Thank you.

Linda Karr O’Connor
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Jason Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 6:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE ITEMS 10A, 4J, 4K

EXTERNAL
Please oppose -
Item 10A - This is a horrible proposal and will do nothing but create more chaos on the promenade thanks to an already out of control homeless crisis.

Item 4J - Please oppose this giveaway to developers.

Item 4k - Please oppose the change in public input rules. We deserve the right to show up to meetings and provide our comments, this should not be shortened, and the City Council works for the residents of Santa Monica, and please respect that.

Thank you
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Nancy HR <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 2:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Oppose!

EXTERNAL
To the city of Santa Monica council:

I, Nancy Hochman Ross, who live at 616 20th St., Santa Monica 90402, oppose items 4J, 12A and 4K.

Sincerely,
Michele Garber
1128 Princeton St.

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

Thank you.

EXTERNAL
Please oppose -
Item 10A - This is a horrible proposal and will do nothing but create more chaos on the promenade thanks to an already out of control homeless crisis.

Item 4J - Please oppose this giveaway to developers.

Thank you
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: girltunes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 1:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Items: 4J, 12A, 10A, and 4K

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I stand with Northeast Neighbors in OPPOSING Agenda Items 4J, 12A, 10A and 4K.

When are you going to actually represent the residents? We don't want a high rise, shadowy. overdeveloped urban jungle with no open space and scarce resources. And your gag rule in Item 4K exemplifies your hostility to Santa Monicans.

Sincerely,
Ferris Gluck
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Rose Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda items 4J, 12A, 10A,4K meeting 5/13/25 I OPPOSE these items

EXTERNAL
I oppose the agenda items as noted in subject line.

Rose Nelson
35 year Santa Monica resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 4j - 12a - 10a - 4k

EXTERNAL
Hello
I’m writing you today to express my opposition of the following items - 4j - 12a - 10a - 4k.

I am a lifelong Santa Monica resident, born and raised attending Santa Monica schools. Roosevelt, Lincoln, samo high and crossroads.

My grandparents moved to Santa Monica in the 50s - you’d be hard pressed to find a resident with deeper roots here than myself.

I love this city very much.

With that I ask you to please oppose these actions items.

Public drinking all day long on the promenade does not help us restore what was once the envy of the country for family entertainment.

Nor does building 7 story apartments buildings in our beautiful residential neighborhoods.

Thank you
Jared Freedman
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Carol Dickinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 0PP0SE Items 12A, 4J, 4K & 10A at City Council Meeting 5/13/25

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I oppose Item 12A and its 5 development proposals that would ruin our city forever. Items 4J and 4K are included in12A along with the up-zoning of 1331 Wilshire and 2644 30th Street, the elimination of public input on commercial developments and the end to owner occupancy requirements for single-family lot splits.

SB 79 is a terrible bill that will ruin single-family and small multi-family neighborhoods. There are no requirements in the bill for affordable housing, public input or environmental impact studies. The developers will have a feeding frenzy! Residents are not in favor of SB 79 Developers are.

Item 10A is an absolute joke! Only alcoholics drink at 8:00 in the morning. The result will be public drunkenness, more criminal acts and chaos. At present, we do not have enough police officers in our neighborhoods. With public alcohol consumption going on between 8:00 A.M. and 2:00 A.M., we will have even less officers available.

I doubt that the atmosphere will be very inviting for families. In reality, more tourists will be attracted to the Promenade if it’s clean and safe and not overrun with homeless people instead of shoppers.

Lastly, what is the point of Item 4K besides stifling public comments? You would think that these new time limits were proposed by the MAGA crew and Trump. Please represent your constituents and vote NO on items 12A, 4J, 10A and 4K.

Sincerely,
Carol Dickinson
1030 25th Street
Santa Monica
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: S Ruth <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 7:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council Agenda Items 4J - OPPOSE, Item 12A - OPPOSE, Item 10A - OPPOSE, Item4K - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
My family and I STRONGLY OPPOSE the following measures before the City Council on Tuesday, May 13, 2024:
 Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE  Agenda Item 12A – End Owner Occupancy Requirement in SB9 - OPPOSE  Agenda Item 10A – Promenade Entertainment Zone – OPPOSE While I am not opposed to the idea in concept, the Council needs to consider limited locations, security and hours. This could be a nightmare if not properly monitored and controlled. It also needs to be an asset for the existing small businesses, not an additional liability.
 Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules - OPPOSE
Best Regards,
Steve Ruth
1501 Georgina Ave, Santa Monica
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Richard Robin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 7:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Oppose

EXTERNAL
Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE Agenda Item 12A – End Owner Occupancy Requirement in SB9 - OPPOSE Agenda Item 10A – Promenade Entertainment Zone – OPPOSE Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules - OPPOSE
Richard Robin
818-621-3964
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Adeena Karsseboom Fitterman <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 7:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 4J - MAY 13, 2025 - OPPPOSE

EXTERNAL
I hereby oppose AGENDA ITEM 4J - SM FOR SB 79.

I OPPOSE
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Adeena K. Fitterman
Estates Director
310.991.8166
[email protected]
9440 Santa Monica Blvd, PH | Beverly Hills CA. 90210
carolwoodre.com
DRE 02012059
The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Sally Reinman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 7:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 4J

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmember,
Please OPPOSE Agenda Item 4J, expressing the city’s support for SB79. This is not the way to plan development in a city, allowing 7 story buildings over such a broad region. It does not take into account traffic patterns, existing neighborhoods, or the infrastructure present to support such development. It is shameful in its disregard for affordable housing as it purports to be necessary for housing needs.

We urge you to oppose this broad brush stroke to thoughtlessly over-developed our city with no regard to providing affordable housing.

Thank you,
Sally Reinman
Marcel Geloen
11 Vicente Terrace
Santa Monica
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 7:09 AM
To: Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Bruce Leddy; Nancy Coleman; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: ITEM 4J, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

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

TO: Mayor Negrete and Council Members
RE: ITEM 4J, May 13, 2025 – OPPOSE
The Board of NOMA opposes Item 4J, which directs the City Manager to draft and submit a letter expressing the City’s support for Senate Bill 79 (Wiener). When this item was requested as Item 16E in the April 8, 2025 Council meeting, residents sent numerous letters in opposition and multiple community members testified against the item in person. It is wholly inappropriate for this item to now be on the consent calendar. SB 79 is a highly divisive bill, and is inconsistent with Santa Monica’s 2025-26 State Legislative Platform.

Senate Housing Committee Chair Aisha Wahab (D, Fremont) and Senate Local Government Committee Chair Maria Elena Durazo (D, Los Angeles) both voted “no” on SB 79, reflecting a high degree of division over this bill in the Senate Democratic Caucus. Senator Wahab stated that this bill is a “sweetheart deal” for developers, and that “giveaways to developers have…not translated to housing that has dignity that people want to stay in and raise their families in.” Senator Durazo observed that “if we leave decisions about what to build up to market-rate developers who do not have the broader public interest in their minds, it’s the wrong way to go.” Senate Bill 79 is inconsistent with our city’s 2025-26 State Legislative Platform because, as stated in the staff report, “SB 79 does not recognize the achievements of Pro-Housing Designated cities by upholding local autonomy over land-use decisions and excluding those cities from onerous new regulations which we have advocated for in the past.”
SB 79 goes against Santa Monica's core values by encouraging unfettered high-rise development with no affordability requirements, and by eviscerating what little local Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
4 control remains over land-use decisions. Please remove Item 4J from the consent calendar and reject the recommendation for the City Manager to support SB 79.

The Board of NOMA
Cc:

The Honorable Ben Allen
The Honorable Rick Chavez Zbur
NOMA'S Next Meeting: THUR. JUNE 5th
at 7PM on ZOOM
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81526517066
smnoma.org
[email protected]
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
5 David Yakobson
From: Gary Freedman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 5:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4J -May 13, 2025 Meeting -OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern
This Agenda Item is a very bad idea for Santa Monica. It will transform the character of this City--the very character that has made it a very nice to live and raise a family.

We are residents of Santa Monica for 50+ years. Donna grew up in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Gary & Donna Freedman
533 9th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
6 David Yakobson
From: Ellen Mark <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: AGENDA #4J - 5/13/25 -OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
I am writing to oppose Agenda 4J , building 7-story multi-units in Santa Monica’s residential neighborhoods.

With or without parking availability, this is the wrong solution for low income housing in our City.

Sincerely,
Ellen Mark
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
7 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica.

This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
8 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 11:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 4J on 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
Please do NOT support Agenda Item 4J on 5/13/25. Let’s not damage or ruin this city with this ill-conceived proposal.

Thank you,
Kirk & Nan Borcherding
residents
924 25th Street
Santa Monica
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
9 David Yakobson
From: Roger Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 11:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 4J: Oppose - SB 79

EXTERNAL
Hello Santa Monica City Council Members,
Agenda Item 4J: Oppose SB 79
Roger Allen
Santa Monica Resident

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
10 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Larson and Roger Allen <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 11:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: 5/13/25 Agenda item 4-J Oppose SB-79

EXTERNAL
From: Cathy Larson and Roger Allen <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:38 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Subject: 5/13/25 Agenda item 4-J Oppose SB-79
Oppose SB 79
Densifying single family neighborhoods and destroying exisƟng mulƟfamily housing (especially displacing exisƟng residents) is NOT the best way to create addiƟonal affordable housing.

I urge you to oppose SB 79 and NOT send a leƩer of support to the state legislature.

Housing expansion can be creaƟng in more suitable locaƟons along transit corridors including underuƟlized commercial buildings and parking lots.

Thank you,
Cathy Larson
Santa Monica resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
11 David Yakobson
From: Adam Gross <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 11:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
SB79 is so bad even Ben Allen opposes it. Let's keep local control and worry about the problems in Santa Monica instead of state politics.

Sincerely,
Adam Gross
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
12 David Yakobson
From: George Ferrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members:

SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood. All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets. Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
George Ferrell
338 15th St
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
13 David Yakobson
From: George Ferrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members:

Thank you,
Peggy Ferrell
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
14 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Larson and Roger Allen <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: 5/13/25 Agenda item 4-J Oppose SB-79

EXTERNAL
Oppose SB 79
Densifying single family neighborhoods and destroying exisƟng mulƟfamily housing (especially displacing exisƟng residents) is NOT the best way to create addiƟonal affordable housing.

I urge you to oppose SB 79 and NOT send a leƩer of support to the state legislature.

Housing expansion can be creaƟng in more suitable locaƟons along transit corridors including underuƟlized commercial buildings and parking lots.

Thank you,
Cathy Larson
Santa Monica resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
15 David Yakobson
From: Sue Edwards <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Letter of Support for SB 79 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
OPPOSE
Sue Edwards
428 - 15th St.
90402
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
16 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Elaine Polachek; Douglas Sloan
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Council Agenda Item 4-J - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council and City Manager
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Re: OPPOSE Agenda Item 4-J, May 13, 2025
Why would the individuals elected to Santa Monica City Council choose to surrender control over local land use by sending a letter in support of Scott Weiner’s Senate Bill 79? Why is City Staff in agreement? City staff has submitted an “analysis” in support of this action by Council despite the fact that it undermines local housing plans, plans that already include incentives for affordability and support Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing goals.

The Staff report includes this unequivocal comment:

SB 79 is consistent with the City’s adopted Legislative Platform in that it has the potential to increase housing production, at a faster pace, and for less cost.

The fact that SB 79 seeks to disregard and short-circuit thoughtful, community-driven planning is not addressed by staff. If SB79 passes in the Senate, it would allow intense densification in more than 70% of Santa Monica without producing affordable housing.

Developers are licking their chops.

Northeast Neighbors opposes the action proposed in City Council May 13 2025 Agenda Item 4-J.

The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
17 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: FOSP: 5/13 Council agenda item 4-J -- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
May 12, 2025

To: Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers

From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park

RE: 5/13/25 agenda item 4-J -- Support for SB-79 -- OPPOSE!

The FOSP Board urges you NOT to send a letter of support for SB-79.

To begin with, there's no affordability requirement.

For the city as a whole, it appears that everywhere between Montana Avenue and Ocean Park Blvd. will be affected.

For the Sunset Park neighborhood, due to the east-west #7 bus line on Pico Blvd., and the north-south #3 bus line on Lincoln Blvd., most of our neighborhood would be affected.

While much of Sunset Park is zoned R-1, half of our housing units are actually in multifamily buildings, and approximately 3,500 apartments in Sunset Park are rent-controlled.

Under SB-79, developers can demolish low-rise rent-controlled apartments to build 7- and 8-story luxury units, while ignoring local zoning and local requirements regarding height, parking, and setbacks.

This will displace long-term, elderly, disabled, and low-income renters in our neighborhood.

What good will the city's POD program (Preserving Our Diversity) do these residents if their buildings are sold out from under them?

SB-79 encourages speculative real estate purchases, rewards demolition over preservation, undermines democratically approved Housing Elements, and ignores democratically approved affordability requirements such a Prop R, which was passed by Santa Monica voters in 1990 and requires that 30% of new apartments be affordable.

A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that housing prices are driven more by the income of new residents than by supply.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
18 So, just using SB-79 to incentivize the construction of more and more market rate housing will NOT bring down rents.

SB-79 will help developers, but it WON'T HELP people who are currently struggling with spending 50% of their income on rent.

We've been told that our State Senator Ben Allen opposes this law.

This was a 16 item earlier, never included a staff report or discussion because no analysis was available, and Council voted to table the item.

This proposed endorsement is still premature because there is no County analysis yet, and the city's staff report is thin and lacks meaningful analysis of the impact of SB79 on Santa Monica. Furthermore, by listing this as a Consent item, it means there will be no staff report, no clarifying questions, and no Council discussion of the actual substance of SB79 for the endorsement of a bill that will fundamentally alter the vast majority of Santa Monica.

Again, the FOSP Board urges you NOT to send a letter of support for SB-79.

Thank you for your consideration.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
19 David Yakobson
From: John Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Friendsofsunsetpark Info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nikki Kolhoff; [email protected] Subject: RE: SB79

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:

I write in opposition to the proposal to "support" SB79, which is a statute that would, if enacted, enable developers to acquire single family lots in Santa Monica, demolish the homes, and replace them with tall, dense, sun-grabbing, market-rate apartments or condos. There are several things you need to read in the Senate Committee on Local Government's report attached to your agenda. At least four things jumped out at me -- and would to anyone reading the report:

First, the report points out that there is no guarantee that any level of affordable units will be built. (See page 7, last sentence of 1st paragraph).

Second, this statute has so many flaws and anti-public provisions that the report says, no less than SEVEN (7) times, that the Senate "may wish to amend" the bill to correct or mitigate the deficiencies it articulates in detail.

Third, the report points out that the bill imposes a new state mandate on cities, but disclaims any responsibility to comply with the state Constitution's reimbursement requirement (see para 10, at page 10).

Are you comfortable with supporting mandated expenses with no reimbursement, given our current city financial crisis requiring cutbacks on libraries and other normal amenities for residents? Fourth, you will see a list of the bill's "supporters" and "opponents" at the end of the report, in which there are 90 cities listed. Of those 90 cities, guess how many support the bill? Exactly ONE (1), which is tiny West Hollywood (otherwise known as Apartment City). Meanwhile, the other 89 cities all OPPOSE the bill, as did the League of California Cities, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, Public Counsel, Public Interest Law Project, Public Law Center, Public Advocates, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Urban Habitat, Disability Rights California, Mental Health Advocacy Servicers, and numerous other public-spirited groups. These organizations have lawyers who have actually read the bill (and the report) and understand what it means.

This tells you all you need to know.

You may think you would be promoting more affordable "housing" by supporting this bill, but you are NOT, you are merely supporting the developers and tech firms who have commandeered, through their YMBY lobbying organizations, the state legislative process over the last few years to de-regulate municipal land use, enable immense speculative profits, and strip cities of local control. You can count no less that 16 different YIMBY organizations listed as "supporters" of the bill, including its Co-Sponsor, "California YIMBY" (see page 10). Numerous published articles have unveiled these YIMBYs as campaign funders to Senator Scott Weiner and others who have promoted the deregulation of housing as a form of "trickle-down" housing supply, a Reagan-era theory thoroughly debunked by economists.

You do not want to be on the wrong side of history on this volatile issue by sending a letter of "support" that will do nothing but place Santa Monica in the column of developer supporters.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
20 John Murdock
1209 Pine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
tel. (310) 450-1859
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
21 David Yakobson
From: Ralph Barton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4J - 5.12.2025 – "Support letter from SM for SB 79" - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
This is a poor idea, we need housing but not unrestricted development. What works for Fresno won’t work in Santa Monica

STRONGLY OPPOSE
Ralph Barton
908 26th St.

SM, CA
_______________________________
Ralph G. Barton, Jr. (Mobile) 310-633-4963 (Fax) 310-564-7577 Bring the Joy®
Nothing Bundt Cakes
Manhattan Beach,CA – Torrance,CA - Costa Mesa,CA – Mission Viejo,CA Roseville,CA – Folsom,CA - Newton,MA
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
22 David Yakobson
From: Marcy Hardart <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 4J - Letter of Support on SB 79 5/13/25 OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
This is insanity--to allow developers to build these large buildings without formal review or environmental impact studies.

We just did construction on an ADU on our property, and the city made us jump through SO MANY HOOPS. We cannot make it easier for big developers to build than 30 year residents who are just updating a guest house.

PLEASE do not let this go through.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
23 David Yakobson
From: Bea Nemlaha <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Agenda Item 4J - Support letter for SB79 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Council,
I’ve just returned from extended out of the country travels. When asked where I was from, the response inevitably was “Santa Monica, what a beautiful, interesting City”.

It was. Once.

But now, our 1950s Soviet-style apartment blocks, traƯic congestion, and replacement of art (loss of Bergamot), imagination (e.g. no Olympics, departure of Spirit Awards), and interesting neighborhoods with actual and proposed cheesy entertainment options (Promenade Entertainment Zone, Agenda Item 10A ) oƯer little to future visitors.

People do not travel to visit housing. Santa Monica is one of the five most densely populated cities in California. We don’t need more market rate housing. And while it may be heresy to say so, we should have a lively community discussion of whether we need more housing at all.

NO ON SB79.

Bea Nemlaha
Ocean Park

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
24 David Yakobson
From: Jerry Bass <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Fwd: 5-13-25 SM CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item 4J OPPOSE – Support letter from SM for SB 79 -

EXTERNAL
Subject: 5-13-25 SM CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item 4J OPPOSE – Support letter from SM for SB 79 -
Date: May 12, 2025 at 8:58:19 PM PDT
To: Bass Jerry <[email protected]>
Council Members:

On behalf of our community’s welfare and in keeping with good Santa Monica planning practices, please do not support, but rather oppose writing a letter in support of Wieners’s developer’s dream bill:

Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE This item would direct the City Manager to draft a letter expressing the City’s support for SB 79 (Wiener). SB79 would allow 7-story market rate apartment towers in the blue zone in the map above without offering any affordable housing.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Jerry Bass
40 Year Resident of Santa Monica
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
25 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE : 5/1/2025 ITEM 4J

EXTERNAL
DO NOT SUPPORT SB 79
THIS IS WEINER AT HIS WORST- and that is going some since everything he has done is terrible - STOP HIM--

YIMBY AT IT'S GREEDIEST
It does NOTHING FOR affordable housingWE DID NOT VOTE FOR MORE HOUSING

WE DID NOT VOTE FOR THIS

A VOTE FOR THIS SHOULD SEE ALL OF YOU RECALLED
Danielle Charney
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
26 David Yakobson
From: barbanell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 5-13-25 SM CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item 4J OPPOSE – Support letter from SM for SB 79 -

EXTERNAL
Council Members:

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Stephanie Barbanell
40 Year Resident of Santa Monica
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
27 David Yakobson
From: Olga Milosavljevic <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 4J, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
I'm concerned that Councilperson Zwick is pushing a bill that removes City control over what happens in Santa Monica. Of course we want more housing and of course we want to support the evolution away from cars to public transit. what gets built, where it gets built and for whom has to be reviewed and approved by the city - not cripplingly so but review has to occur.

As the city continues to pass increasing costs on to its residents - water etc, it's giving away freebies to developers. Santa Monica is a desirable location. Those who want to contribute and pay their fare share are welcome. But those who will only develop market rate dwellings while asking for all kinds of short cuts are not.

ZWICK - remember who elected you and who you represent. --
Olga Milosavljevic
[email protected]
What we have before us are some breathtaking opportunities disguised as insoluble problems -- John W.

Gardner 1965
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
28 David Yakobson
From: Mark Ford <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Reid Thompson
Subject: ITEM 4J, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE")

EXTERNAL
As a resident the Ocean Park neighborhood in Santa Monica, my family strongly opposes this misguided measure.

It is hard to believe anyone would consider supporting 7 or 8 story towers rising above our beautiful Main Street... displacing parking and our beloved Farmers’ Market. What shocking and disgusting proposal. More and more, it seems our city council favors developers’ money over our quality of life. Councilmember zwick, in particular, seems to be very much pushing developers’ greedy agendas. We will be watching these developments very closely and will fight the destruction of our quality of life fiercely. Our beautiful beach community is no Miami Beach.

Mark Ford
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
29 David Yakobson
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:25 PM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]
Subject: OPPOSITION: SMCC 2025-05-13 Item 4.J. - SB 79 Endorsement

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members
I am strongly opposed to City of Santa Monica endorsement of SB 79 for several fundamental reasons.

In stark contrast to the factually incorrect assertions made in the Staff Report, SB 79 will absolutely undermine the City’s adopted affordability and inclusionary requirements by removing the most affordable areas from inclusionary development.

The total absence of any inclusionary affordable requirement in SB 79 ensures that the targeted affordable areas will be off limits to any new inclusionary affordable development since that development is less profitable than 100% luxury market rate projects. With the loss of inclusionary affordable-friendly suitable sites to exclusively market rate luxury development, SB 79 will destroy the integrity of the City’s approved Housing Element, essentially rendering the entire RHNA process moot. In doing so, SB 79 will significantly increase the City’s risk of failing to meet its absurdly high affordable unit requirements, increasing the City’s already high exposure to Builders Remedy, fines, and further loss of planning control, among other State RHNA penalties.

Inexplicably, the Staff Report notes that this legislation “…promotes the production of infill residential housing and requires all localities to build their fair share.” SB 79 exclusively promotes market rate development, a category where the City is currently tracking at over 200%(!) of the State’s 6th Cycle allocation. Historically, the City has consistently exceeded, by huge margins, this RHNA allocation category requirement. Further production of this housing unit category is completely meaningless.

And, just to be crystal clear, the provision of luxury market rate units only increases overall housing costs through gentrification. There is no “supply” impact that magically lowers overall housing costs. That canard was thoroughly and complely debunked by Federal Reserve economists and the National Bureau of Economic Research in March of this year [a][b].

Moreover, contrary to every professed City value, displacement risk and hyper gentrification impacting the city’s non-displaced moderate-income residents will drastically escalate while providing zero new affordable units. The supercharged gentrification, which functions as a regressive tax on those same vulnerable residents, is particularly rich coming from a City that maintains, as a key policy tenet, the desire to moderate the cost of living for its residents.

Finally, the City’s current financial crisis is precisely the result of this type of uninformed and misinformed policy decisions that increase the City’s long run cost structure, in this case services and overall infrastructure capacity. The addition of ministerially-approved density on this scale will increase long run costs far beyond either Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
30 existing revenue inflation or the City’s ability to develop new revenue streams. Given all the City and resident priorities that are currently at risk, to call this irresponsible is being charitable.

Frankly, I am shocked that this item has been brought to Council and that the accompanying Staff Report is either completely silent on the fundamental issues or factually misrepresents the negative impacts of this extraordinarily ill-conceived bill.

There is absolutely no argument that even remotely justifies supporting SB 79. As SB 79 has absolutely no community or state-wide housing benefits, I strongly urge you to oppose this Agenda Item 4.J. I also strongly urge this Council to instruct the City’s legislative lobbyists to strenuously oppose the highly destructive SB 79.

Thank you,
Marc L. Verville
Sunset Park
Chair, Santa Monica Audit Subcommittee
[a] Supply Constraints Do Not Explain House Price and Quantity Growth Across U.S. Cities - San Francisco Fed 03-2025
https://www.frbsf.org/wp-content/uploads/wp2025-06.pdf
[b] Supply Constraints Do Not Explain House Price And Quantity Growth - NBER 33576 Mar 2025 http://www.nber.org/papers/w33576
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
31 David Yakobson
From: Karen Freedman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4J, 5/13/2025- OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Please accept this email as an official declaration of my opposition to Agenda Item 4J. I want my opposition included in the official record.

Thank you,
Karen Freedman
Santa Monica 90402
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
32 David Yakobson
From: Vivien Flitton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Sincerely,
Vivien Flitton
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
33 David Yakobson
From: William Schoene <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected] Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? Other than developers, whose interests would SB79 serve? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
William and Mary Lou Schoene
1519 Oak Street
Santa Monica 90405
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
34 David Yakobson
From: Rachel Harms <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda Item 4J 5/13/25 – Support letter from SM for SB 79 – OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members
I am a 30 year resident of Santa Monica, as both a renter and an owner. I strongly oppose SB 79 and I urge you to do the same. The City of Santa Monica should not advocate for ending our local land use zones. This catastrophe is destroying our city - it amounts to a giveaway to the big developers.

Sincerely,
Rachel Harms
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
35 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Elaine Polachek; Douglas Sloan
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Council Agenda Item 4J , May 13, 2025 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Staff is recommending that the City Council vote to remove the SB9 owner occupancy requirement that was added to SB9 in order to help it pass in the State legislature. Now our own City Council is being encouraged by City staff to remove the owner-occupancy requirement.

The owner occupancy requirement in SB9 was meant to encourage multi-generational housing.

Removing it will open up neighborhoods to land speculators. This is a violation of the public trust.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
36 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Elaine Polachek
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Council Agenda Item 4J May 13, 2025 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
To City Council
From: Northeast Neighbors
Council Agenda Item 4J, May 13 2025
This item would direct the City Manager to draft a letter expressing the City’s support for SB 79 and allow 7- story market rate apartment towers throughout most of Santa Monica with no affordability. We are stunned by the alignment of City staff and Council on such an outrageous abandonment of the people of Santa Monica.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
37 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Save our Neighborhoods and City -OPPOSE- AGENDA ITEM 4J-Support Letter from SM for SB 70 5/13/25 -OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
We need more Police and a SubStation in the Promenade, not an Entertainment Zone.

AGENDA ITEM 4J-Support Letter from SM for SB 70 5/13/25 - OPPOSE AGENDA ITEM 12A-End Owner Accompany Requirement in SB9- 5/13/25 - OPPOSE AGENDA ITEM 10A-Promenade Entertainment Zone - 5/13/25 - OPPOSE AGENDA ITEM 4K Public Input Rules 5/13/25 - OPPOSE
30 Year SM Resident and Homeowner
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
38 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Friends of Sunset Park
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - Oppose vehemently

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am extremely concerned about SB79 and must respectfully and STRONGLY oppose Councilman Zwick's efforts to have the City of Santa Monica endorse this bill.

In its current form, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout most of our R1 and R2 neighborhood.

The bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building), and will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It will not make housing more affordable in Santa Monica!
The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

Bus stops as determinants for building allowances are still in the bill as of today. This is a truly misguided way to zone. Bus stops change. Bus routes change. Rapid transit lanes change. Frequency of buses can change in an instant! A bus stop that on one day doesn't fall under SB79 could, with the tiniest decision to increase the frequency of a bus by a few minutes, completely change a neighborhood overnight. We cannot put zoning for housing at the discretion of transit authorities, especially when they could come under the influence of special interests, with no accountability to voters.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
39 We cannot keep giving more of our local control away to politicians in Sacramento who don't understand the layout of our city.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this ill-conceived zoning in our city.

Thank you so much,
Heather Thomason
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
40 David Yakobson
From: Freida Dubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 6:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Noma Boardmember
Subject: ITEM 4J, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
ITEM 4J, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE
If you want to revitalize the Promenade and bring more businesses and people here, do your homework -- take a look at nearby Century City shopping mall and the shopping area in the Palisades (before the fire).

Business was booming there. Why – they provided a clean and SAFE environment – not because they allowed public alcohol consumption. People don’t want to come to Santa Monica with the homeless and other people walking around screaming, attacking people, etc. – tourists, councilmembers and police have been attacked. Santa Monica has a reputation as a “not safe” place to go. If I didn’t live nearby, I would never come here. If you want to revitalize the Promenade, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE A CLEAN AND SAFE ENVIRONMENT. Also, you need convenient parking – and you plan to get rid of more parking garages! I have lived in Santa Monica over 40 years and oppose allowing public alcohol consumption. Do you not understand why people don’t want to come here and why businesses have moved away? Removing a sign will not remove the problem here. What’s next – free drug use?

Freida Dubin
[email protected]
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
41 David Yakobson
From: SUSAN AMINOFF <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 5:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE Item 4J -- May 13, 2025

EXTERNAL
Hello Councilmembers:

We strongly oppose buildings up to 7 stories to be built without formal review anywhere within 1/2 mile of mass transit. There is NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING requirement, which means developers can build 100% market rate apartment towers anywhere in Santa Monica near a bus line. Sen. Ben Allen has already stated publicly that HE OPPOSES THE BILL! Thank you.

Howard and Susan Aminoff
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
42 David Yakobson
From: Richard Thaler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 5:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Re: Item 4J, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Please vote no on Item 4J - Letter of Support on SB79
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 4:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-Tem Torosis, and Council Members - SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood.

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirements (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building).

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE this effort to encourage destructive zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Ann Bowman
Resident, 28+ years
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Ed Towle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 2:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council mtg. 5/13/25

EXTERNAL
Item 4J 5/13/25 OPPOSE
Item 4-K 5/13/25 OPPOSE
Edmund J. Towle III
349 15th street
SM
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Johanna Rogers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 3:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda items for City Council meeting on Tuesday May 13

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I’m a resident of Santa Monica, residing at 223 21st Street. Please note that I oppose the following items that are on the agenda for tomorrow night’s meeting.
1)ITEM 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone. - OPPOSE
2)ITEM 4J - Letter of Support on SB 79. OPPOSE
3)ITEM 4K - Change in Public Input Rules. - OPPOSE
Thanks,
Johanna Rogers
310-699-3782
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Julie Cantor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Opposition to items on agenda of tomorrow's City Council meeting

EXTERNAL
Hello —
I am respectfully lodging opposition to the following items, and, if possible, I will attend the meeting in person to voice the concern:
 1. Item 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone. OPPOSE. There is no upside to walking around with alcohol, especially at 8 a.m., and the normative value of showing the community and the kids that the adults need alcohol to entertain themselves is concerning. Just drink in the restaurants, if you must.
 2. Item 4J - SB 79. OPPOSE. We do not need 7 story buildings in Santa Monica. Do not give control of build by forgoing formal review and environmental impact studies. Following the money, who benefits??
 3. Item 4K - Change in Public Input Rules. OPPOSE. Let people speak.

Thank you and best regards.

Julie Cantor
Santa Monica resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 3:43 PM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

Many thanks,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: gary samson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 3:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis Subject: , 4J and 4K

EXTERNAL
We want to express our opposition to these Items on the counsel agenda.

ITEM 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone. This ordinance would allow open alcohol consumption on The Promenade in the 1200 block (Wilshire end) from 8am to 2am, 7 days a week. Revitalization of the Mall is essential but allowing open consumption will invite trouble and the need for increased law enforcement and will further discourage families and senior citizens from going to the mall. . 2)ITEM 4J - Letter of Support on SB 79. This is terrible for our city. Up to seven story buildings' everywhere in the city?. Who gains from this except developers who care nothing about the livability of Santa Monica. This bill will turn our city into streets of concrete walls and destroy the charm of Santa Monica. .
3)ITEM 4K- We should encourage more public expression on city issues, not less. Let's not stifle free speech.

Gary Samson Laurie Samson
1407 Car;y;e Ave 90402
[email protected]
Cell: 213-598-4043
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: ADRIANA SHEINBAUM <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 3:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 10A - ITEM 4K - ITEM 4J OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City of Santa Monica Councilmembers,
We are writing to express our strong opposition to three items currently under consideration during tomorrow’s meeting:

ITEM 10A – Promenade Entertainment Zone
We strongly oppose the proposed ordinance allowing open alcohol consumption on the 1200 block of The Promenade from 8 a.m. to 2 a.m., seven days a week. This policy raises serious concerns about public safety, noise, sanitation, and the overall character of the Promenade. Extending alcohol consumption to public spaces for such long hours is inappropriate and incompatible with maintaining a welcoming and family-friendly environment.

ITEM 4K – Change in Public Input Rules
We also oppose any changes that would reduce the public's right to comment and provide input on Council decisions.

Community participation is essential to a healthy democracy, and any attempt to limit our voices undermines the transparency and accountability we expect from our local government.

ITEM 4J – Letter of Support for SB 79
We oppose the endorsement of SB 79, which we view as a giveaway to developers. Allowing buildings of up to seven stories without formal review or environmental impact studies—and without requiring any affordable housing—erodes responsible urban planning and disregards the needs of Santa Monica residents. This legislation would lead to unchecked development without addressing the housing affordability crisis.

We urge the Council to reject these items to preserve our community's public safety and democratic participation.

Sincerely,
Adriana Sheinbaum
Rodrigo Garcia
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Scott Epstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 3:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Azeen Khanmalek; Jake Pierce; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Abundant Housing LA supports Item 4.J
Attachments: Santa Monica - 05-13-25 Agenda Item 4.J - Support.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members:

Please find attached a letter in support of Item 4.J on tomorrow's council agenda.

Thank you very much,
Scott Epstein
(He/Him)
Policy and Research Director, Abundant Housing LA
516-721-6056
453 Spring Street, Suite 1201
Los Angeles, CA, 90013
We request that candidates do not send us confidential campaign strategy information, including polling data or other information that is not publicly available.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
May 12, 2025
Subject: 5/13/25 Agenda Item 4.J: Support
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
It is no secret that our region is experiencing an acute housing crisis, driven by a shortage of homes that’s led to nearly 60% of LA County households spending more than they can afford on rent. With that in mind, Abundant Housing LA is pleased to see Santa Monica is poised to take a position on Senate Bill 79, to create more transit-oriented development. We strongly urge you to vote to support SB 79.

For too long, density caps and zoning limitations across California have made it illegal to build the housing we need. Not only have these restrictions contributed to our housing crisis, but they’ve also led to urban sprawl, which, in turn, leads to increased traffic congestion, air pollution, and carbon emissions which have degraded our climate. In order to bring down the cost of housing, reduce car traffic, and mitigate climate change, we must build more housing near transit.

SB 79 will allow critical zoning reforms to facilitate much-needed housing development near transit stops across California. By doing so, SB 79 will help address the state’s ongoing housing shortage while promoting sustainable development, reducing traffic congestion, and supporting public transit systems.

Following a steep dip in transit riders that worsened in 2020, LA Metro’s ridership has been slowly improving and approaching pre-Covid levels. Even so, Metro’s troubling decline actually predated the global pandemic. Just last year, LA Metro’s overall ridership was just 66% of what it was in 2013. The good news is that LA Metro is in the process of building out an exciting and sorely needed expansion of rail transit across LA County. As such, residents are already investing in this expansion through our taxes. Needless to say, it is imperative that we ensure the long-term success and viability of this mutli-billion dollar investment. Transit systems rely on sustainable and reliable ridership in order to succeed, and a significant source of the ridership comes from the residents of transit-oriented development near stations.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
SB 79 will facilitate more housing development, ensure the long-term success of our transit investments by allowing transit riders to live near stations, and help solve our climate crisis by getting people out of their cars and onto transit. We thank you for your leadership and request your support for this pivotal reform.

Sincerely,
Scott Epstein, Policy and Research Director
Abundant Housing LA
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Gail Gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 2:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Gail Gordon
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: Katherine Reuter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 2:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Katherine Reuter
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: danilobach <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 2:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 2)ITEM 4J - Letter re SB 79 on 5/12/25 Agenda

EXTERNAL
Oppose, unless a statutory requirement for a minimum of low-income or affordable housing is included.

Danilo Bach
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Joan Goldsmith Gurfield <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 12:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Misguided meeting items

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Several items scheduled to be discussed seem misguided and/or dangerous.

Item 10A allows open alcohol consumption from 8 a.m. to 2 a.m., daily. What is the necessity for this? I think it will lead to public drunkenness, accidents, fights, etc.

Item 4J, supporting the development of buildings with no affordable housing requirement contradicts what has been policy in Santa Monica for many years. Why do we need market rate apartments that ignore affordable housing? Our Senator, Ben Allen, opposes this bill.

Item 4K, changing the time for public input, while understandable (in terms of long meetings and people's patience) doesn't allow adequate time for some arguments to be made.

I strongly urge you to reconsider all of these items.

Thank you
Joan Gurfield
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Kara Fox <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: pam hausman
Subject: Please, vote NO NO NO

EXTERNAL
To our city council. How many of y ou have driven through our wonderful city lately. Please take a good look and see what is happening. Who is looking out for the community itself? Please vote no on the following issues:
10A…prominent entertainment zone??? Is this in the best interest of the community or people who like to party at the expense of others? Till 2 am…why??? Please vote no. 4J…in support of SB79…drafted by Scott Weiner who doesn’t even live in Santa Monica and who has allegedly received large campaign contributions from large R.E. companies. And allegedly bomb threats???Please vote NO
4K…change in public input rules…shouldn’t we encourage the community to have enough time to speak so we can know how the public feels and also, in hopes we can learn.

Let’s help our city, not destroy it. Thank you. Kara Fox, 235 14th street for more than 22 years.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Pamela S. Hausman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: HELP!! VOTE NO!!!

EXTERNAL
To our city council, HELP!!
Please take a good look and see what is happening in our city!! Who is looking out for the community itself? Please vote NO on the following issues IF you really care about our beautiful city and do not want to see it continue to go to thieves, drunks and homeless 10A…prominent entertainment zone??? Is this in the best interest of the community or people who like to party at the expense of others? Till 2 am…why??? Please VOTE NO 4J…in support of SB79…drafted by Scott Weiner who doesn’t even live in Santa Monica and who has allegedly received large campaign contributions from large R.E. companies. And allegedly bomb threats???Please VOTE NO!!
4K…change in public input rules…shouldn’t we encourage the community to have enough time to speak so we can know how the public feels and also, in hopes we can learn.

PLEASE MAKE A POSITIVE DIFFERENCE IN OUT COMMUNITY!
Nobody shops here any more. Stores closing down. And it just keeps getting worse! WHAT CAN YOU DO TO MAKE A POSITIVE CHANGE???? Perhaps less affordable housing, more police presence,
offer incentives for nice stores and restaurants to open again.

How about refreshing 3rd Street Promenade? It is like a morgue! Pamela
[email protected]
449 24th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
This message is Proprietary & Confidential. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Leslie Wizan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 12:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE - 5/13/25 AGENDA ITEMS - 10A, 4J, 4K
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
As a 38 year resident of Santa Monica, I vehemently oppose the following 5/13/25 agenda items:
10A - promenade entertainment zone
4J - letter of support on SB79
4K - change in public input rules
Leslie Wizan
[email protected]
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Susan Stangl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEMS 10A, 4J, 4K, 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Regarding Item 10A - What are you thinking?! This is a BAD IDEA. Nothing good comes from drinking early in the day. We have enough crime and noise downtown already. Our police force is already stretched to the limit and doesn't need more nonsense like public drunkenness. I have been to Bourbon Street. It's horrible.

Regarding Item 4J - This makes no sense. The city has different areas that have different needs and should not give away its remaining control to say what can be built where. Yes, It would be great to have more affordable housing, but that is not what this bill would do. It only encourages developers to build expensiver housing all over the city. I was a fan of Jesse Zuick, but not of his support for this bill.

Regarding 4K - Enough of cracking down on free speech. I always appreciated the fact that my city allows open interchange with its citizens. Now if not the time to restrict that. You should care what we think and give us the chance to express ourselves fully.

Thank you!
Susan Stangl
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Maria Loya <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Maria Loya
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: Aram Kadish <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood. All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets. Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city. Thank you, Aram Kadish
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Ralph Mechur <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 4J

EXTERNAL
Mayor and Council,
Santa Monica has taken great care to protect its neighborhoods and direct denser housing with increased heights to the boulevards. SB79 will allow large areas of Mid-City and Pico neighborhoods and a small area of Ocean Park to be drastically altered destroying the character of our residential community. SB 79 should not be supported unless there is assurance that our neighborhoods remain intact.

Sincerely,
Ralph Mechur
Ralph Mechur Architects
2800 Airport Avenue, #1A
Santa Monica, CA 90405
o: 310-398-2940
m: 310-721-1254
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
5 David Yakobson
From: Susan Judd <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 4J-OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
6 David Yakobson
From: Will von Bernuth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 12:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

A major concern for me is It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building).

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Will von Bernuth
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
7 David Yakobson
From: Cindy Fraser <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 11:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Cynthia Fraser
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
8 David Yakobson
From: nancykless <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Nancy Kless
310-890-4266
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
9 Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
10 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. Please oppose this bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood. All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets. Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash.

The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Thank you,
Kelly
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
11 David Yakobson
From: Susan Jain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected] Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Susan Jain
Sunset Park Resident
Vice Chair, SM Arts Commission
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
12 David Yakobson
From: Bronwyn Barkan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; [email protected]; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets. Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Bronwyn Barkan
Resident Sunset Park
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
13 David Yakobson
From: Danny Guggenheim <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I strongly object to the proposal that the Council take any action in support of SB79, which is an extremely misguided bill that could permanently alter and destroy the Sunset Park neighborhood as well as the appeal of our City in general as an attractive place to raise a family relative to nearby alternatives.

It would be a fundamental change to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially Sunset Park, if 5-7 story apartment buildings could be developed throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhoods. All local zoning would essentially be overridden by SB79, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets. Our quiet, airy neighborhood would inevitably become an urban jungle. And worse, the bill will result in higher land prices immediately and be a boon to developers, who are the only ones who will be able to pay more for land that is intended to be held by individuals as homeowners and not as corporate interests.

Lastly, unbelievably, the bill has zero affordability requirement. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away, and it is shocking that any member of the Council would even propose to support this bill.

I urge you to oppose any action by the Council in support of SB79.

Thank you,
Danny Guggenheim
Sunset Park homeowner since 2006
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
14 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 9:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood. All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets. Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city. Thank you,
Vincent Esparza
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
15 David Yakobson
From: JORDAN ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Jordan Ellis
Resident of Sunset Park
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
16 David Yakobson
From: Diana Bianchini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Diana Bianchini
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Diana Bianchini
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
17 David Yakobson
From: Lauren Marie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Friends of Sunset Park
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Lauren Wyka
821 Bay St.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
18 Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Kelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

Thank you,
Kelli Urode
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:47 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Cc: Elaine Polachek; Armine Chaparyan; Jing Yeo
Subject: City Council Mtg. - 5/13/2025 - Item 4J - Wilmont Board Opposes City Council Endorsing SB 79

EXTERNAL
May 12, 2025
Subject: City Council Mtg. 5/13 – Item 4J -- Wilmont Board Opposes City Council Endorsing SB 79 Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and Honorable City Council Members, Wilmont is a multi-family neighborhood (zoned R2 and R3), bounded by Ocean Avenue to the west, Montana Avenue to the north, 21st Street to the east, and Wilshire Boulevard to the south. More than 80% of our residents are renters, and approximately 70% of those renters live in rent-controlled units. These buildings are mostly 2–3 stories and owned by local individuals or families—not corporations. SB 79 would allow these buildings to be demolished and replaced with 4-7 story buildings; rent-control as we know it would vanish from this neighborhood.

We are writing to express our strong opposition to endorsing SB 79, which, especially when paired with the State Density Bonus (SDB), poses an existential threat to the affordability, character, and diversity of our community.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
3 Zoning Comparison: Current vs. SB 79 + State Density Bonus Zoning Type Max Height Max
Units/Acre FAR Avg. Unit Size
(est.) Required Affordability
R2 (Current) 25–30 ft ~17–20 1.0 850–1,000 sq
ft 30% (Prop R); 15% AHPP
R3 (Current) 30–35 ft ~25–30 1.5 800–1,000 sq
ft 30% (Prop R); 15% AHPP
SB 79 45–55 ft ~60–80 2.5–3.0 500–700 sq ft 0%
SB 79 + State Density Bonus 75+ ft 100+ 3.5+ 450–650 sq ft 10–15% (low-income only) This chart reveals a troubling trade-off: SB 79 alone contains no affordability requirement. When paired with the SDB, it delivers only 10–15% low-income units—well below Santa Monica’s longstanding 30% standard.

Furthermore, these bonuses often fail to replace demolished rent-controlled and other affordable units, resulting in a net loss of affordable housing.

Displacement and Gentrification Threat
SB 79 would apply to 100% of Wilmont, as our neighborhood lies within half a mile of major transit stops, including Metro Rapid and Big Blue Bus lines along Wilshire Boulevard. However, service reductions have weakened transit connectivity —such as the elimination of direct BBB Express service to Downtown LA— calling into question the bill’s assumption of robust transit access. In the map below, the blue overlay shows the half-mile lot coverage from major transit stops (every 20 minutes) from Wilshire Boulevard. The orange rectangle is the Wilmont neighborhood, an R2 and R3 neighborhood in Santa Monica.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
4 Is it worth demolishing hundreds of small-scale, rent-controlled buildings to find out if this density will increase transit ridership? History tells us this type of speculative redevelopment has devastating consequences—much like the destruction of the Belmar Triangle, Santa Monica’s historic Black neighborhood, in the 1950s.

Community Impact
Under SB 79, developers can demolish low-rise, rent-controlled apartments to construct 7- to 8- story luxury units, by passing local zoning, height, parking, and setback limits. This will:
 Displace long-term, elderly, disabled, and low-income residents  Reduce the net supply of affordable housing
 Erase community character built over generations
 Prioritize developer profits over community preservation Santa Monica’s Preserving Our Diversity (POD) program supports low-income seniors in rent-controlled housing. But SB 79 makes these units ripe for demolition, threatening to displace these senior residents.

What’s at Stake in Wilmont
 Over 1,300 rent-controlled units in Wilmont are at risk  These units represent more than 40% of rented households in the neighborhood  Many residents are seniors, disabled, or long-time tenants in modest, affordable apartments Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
5 Instead of incentivizing demolition, the State should be reinforcing local preservation programs like POD and Right to Return ordinances. The true path to affordability lies in protecting existing affordable housing—not incentivizing speculative redevelopment.

A Developer Windfall, Not Housing Justice
SB 79 + SDB delivers significant upzoning (a public subsidy) to developers with little in return. This is a onesided giveaway that:
 Encourages speculative real estate purchases
 Rewards demolition over preservation
 Undermines democratically approved Housing Elements
 Ignores community-driven affordability standards i.e., Santa Monica’s Proposition R passed in 1990 A recent Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco study
(https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5181312) found that housing prices are driven more by the income of new residents than by supply, casting doubt on the foundational premise of SB 79: that upzoning alone addresses affordability. Market-rate density in high-demand areas accelerates displacement.

Our Request
Please vote NO on endorsing SB 79. Instead, we urge you to:
 Continue supporting preservation-based solutions like the POD program  Propose amendments that require 1:1 replacement of rent-controlled units  Advocate for affordability percentages aligned with Proposition R (30%)  Reinforce certified local Housing Elements, not override them Wilmont is a thriving and inclusive community of renters, seniors, families, and small property owners. We ask the City Council to protect what works—diverse, affordable, community-rooted housing—and reject what threatens to displace it.

This bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to pass through.

Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why should the City Council endorse something that is so destructive to our whole city, especially with respect to rent control? If we have all new buildings we will lose rent control, displace renters and gentrify the city so we lose our diversity as well. We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please oppose this type of zoning in our city and SB 79.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
6 Many thanks,
Board of Directors
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
7 David Yakobson
From: Cindy Mollo <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 10:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Cynthia Mollo
2677 Centinela Avenue
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
8 David Yakobson
From: Charles Gibson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 8:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill that threatens the character of Santa Monica—especially Sunset Park—by allowing 5–7 story multi-unit apartment buildings in our R1 and R2 neighborhoods. It effectively overrides local zoning, placing tall structures beside single-family homes on quiet streets.

This bill would rapidly transform Sunset Park into an urban jungle, raising land prices and benefiting developers— without requiring affordability. Santa Monica’s modest affordability mandate is separate from the bill, and triggers a “state density bonus” that permits even taller buildings.

Both Democratic chairs of the committees it passed have opposed the bill. Senator Ben Allen recently criticized it as too “one-size-fits-all.”
Why would the City Council support legislation so damaging to our community? Santa Monica has already made significant progress on market-rate housing. SB79 would only add more of it—at the cost of our residents and our city’s identity.

We must stop ceding local control. Please oppose Councilmember Zwick’s efforts to promote this misguided zoning.

Thank you,
Charles Gibson
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
9 David Yakobson
From: Ivana Suvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 8:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Ivana and Darko Suvak
2666 32nd street
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
10 David Yakobson
From: Staci Weiss <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 8:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
STACI VERK 323.363.1456
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
11 David Yakobson
From: Staci Weiss <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 8:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
[YOUR NAME]
STACI VERK 323.363.1456
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
12 David Yakobson
From: Cydney Kirschbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 8:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Cydney and Kenneth Kirschbaum
Cydney Kirschbaum
[email protected]
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
13 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 8:02 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Subject: SM Forward Letter -- Support City Council Items 12.A, 4.J, 10.A, and 16.E

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

May 11, 2025
Subject: Support City Council Items 12.A, 4.J, 10.A, and 16.E Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Santa Monica Forward strongly supports Item 12.A updating zoning ordinance and city code, item 4.J, authorizing the city to write in support of SB79, 10.A, establishing an Entertainment Zone ordinance, and 16.E on Pier concerts on the 5.13.25 agenda. Further, we have specific recommendations for enhancing the proposal under 12.A below.

12.A
Enhancing the production of housing across Santa Monica is an urgent priority, and the city should move to facilitate administrative approvals for all sites, greater production of ADUs, and the creation of duplexes and quad-plexes via lot splits. Further, council should direct adjustments to staff proposals on ADUs, zoning density alignment, and ARB procedure as described in the following paragraphs.

Administrative Approval: Current timelines to approve new developments are taking too long, and blocking the creation of housing which the city desperately needs. Council should approve the change in ordinance to allow parcels over 1 acre in size to use administrative approval. Further, council should seek ways to streamline and reduce the time to permitting.

ADUs: Council should support changes to ADU minimum and maximum size limits, as well as the increase in number of permitted ADUs & JADUs on existing multifamily parcels. Further, council should eliminate the limitation that no more ADUs are created than existing units on a parcel, which inhibits the improvement of existing duplexes and triplexes in a way that encourages their preservation as rent controlled housing. Council should also eliminate owner-occupancy requirements for JADUs in order to enable their creation.

Lot Splits & Duplexes: The elimination of owner-occupancy requirements and limitations on redevelopment of vacant parcels will help to increase housing in high opportunity neighborhoods, and council must vote to pass Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
14 it. Council should also support increases to FAR and reductions in constraints to facilitate new projects, as recommended by Staff.

LUCE and Zoning Density Alignment: The implementation of density limits is an antiquated approach to zoning which reinforces segregation by encouraging fewer, larger units that are not affordable to middle and lower income residents. Santa Monica should use this opportunity to improve the way it zones by moving to formbased zoning centering on FAR, height, and setbacks. Form-based zoning focuses on making sure that new buildings are compatible with their surroundings, rather than restricting the number of residents who can make Santa Monica their home. As staff notes, the proposed density requirements will continue to lock our residential neighborhoods in amber, entirely blocking new housing production.

Adjustment to Section 9.55.120 on the Architectural Review Board: Council should reject this adjustment to ordinance, and clarify instead that the scheduling of a review by the ARB counts towards the meeting limit, and reduce the meeting limit to 2 from 3. As Staff demonstrates in the Administrative Approval Timelines analysis, ARB approval is a significant drag on the permitting of new housing. Council should aim to reduce timelines for ARB approval, not extend them by allowing the ARB to delay timelines by not discussing items.

Item 4.J:

SB79 is crucial to addressing California’s housing crisis and improving the lives of Santa Monica’s residents, workers, and community members. This bill would direct new housing to exactly where it should be located - within walking distance of high quality transit, like the E Line. As a smaller city within LA County which is aiming to do its part, Santa Monica cannot solve its housing crisis on its own. That’s why supporting statewide upzoning bills is crucial.

Please note that City Staff’s analysis of the locations affected by SB79 appears to incorrectly include bus stops along Wilshire, Santa Monica, Pico, and Main Street that do not meet SB79’s requirements for bus rapid transit according to Public Resources Code section 21064.3 and section 21060.2. Far less of Santa Monica would be subject to SB79 than staff’s analysis indicates as a result.

SB79 effectively walks a fine line to do right on several issues:
 Location of New Housing: SB79 is limited to within ½ mile of BRT and rail transit stops, which includes locations that are very well served. These are not merely streets with a bus, but locations where that bus line has full time dedicated lanes and 15 minute peak service.  Displacement: Tenants have rights as dictated by the Housing Accountability Act of 2019 (SB330) and thus the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, as noted by the Senate Local Government Bill Analysis. These protections are considered sufficiently robust for upzoning programs undertaken by cities themselves, and include Santa Monica’s required relocation payments to tenants for no-fault evictions.  Below Market Rate Housing: Developments are subject to Santa Monica’s inclusionary zoning ordinance, and are required to provide below market rate housing in order to qualify for benefits of the State Density Bonus program or streamlining under SB35/SB423.  Height & Density: SB79 is straightforward in defining the height and density which projects can achieve when city zoning is less permissive. Projects are not subject to increases in height under State Density Bonus.

Some Californians are opposed to SB79 and have lobbied their cities to also oppose. They believe the scale of their cities was perfect when it made room to accommodate them, but they don’t want changes that would allow the next generation similar opportunities. We should prioritize people over buildings. The housing crisis has grown out of control, and tens of thousands of Californians are living on our streets. It’s time for Santa Monica to take a stance in favor of ending our housing crisis.

Thank you,
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
15 Santa Monica Forward
Brad Ewing and Carl Hansen, Co-Chairs
--
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.

SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
16 David Yakobson
From: Mary Duprey <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 7:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]; Dan Hall; Council Mailbox; Natalya Zernitskaya; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Mary Duprey
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
17 David Yakobson
From: Patty McCollim <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 7:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Richard Sproul
& Patty McCollim
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
18 David Yakobson
From: Diane Sabatini <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 6:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, This one is especially objectionable!
SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood.

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Diane Sabatini
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
19 Diane Sabatini | 1801 Pier Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405 |
(c) 310.804.9811
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
20 David Yakobson
From: Darlene Vogel <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 6:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Darlene Vogel
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
21 David Yakobson
From: S V <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 5:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected] Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Sharon Cunningham
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
22 David Yakobson
From: MARILYN HARRIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 4:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Marilyn Harris
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
23 David Yakobson
From: Dominique Chausse <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I am compelled to write that SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood.

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? I do not understand!
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Dominique Chausse
30-yr resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
24 David Yakobson
From: Jesus Gonzalez <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood. All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets. Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Jesus Gonzalez
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
25 David Yakobson
From: Robert Posek <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Robert Posek
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
26 David Yakobson
From: Jon Gibson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multiunit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood. All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets. Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city. Thank you, Jonathan Gibson Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
27 David Yakobson
From: Michael Fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a deeply misguided housing bill. It will be harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood without achieving its purported aims.

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Michael Fisher
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
28 David Yakobson
From: Margery Kratz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Margery Kratz
1205 Grant Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
———————————
Margery Kratz
310.463.4129 Cell
310.450.5461 Home
[email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
29 David Yakobson
From: Emily Davidson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
E. Davidson, Sunset Park Resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
30 David Yakobson
From: Emily Davidson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Emily Davidson
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
31 David Yakobson
From: Tom Richards <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Tom Richards
2913 tenth st #1
Santa Monica 90405
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
32 David Yakobson
From: Dalila Fuentes <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Dalila Fuentes
35 yr resident Sunset Park
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
33 David Yakobson
From: janet rt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.”
Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Janet Tunick
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
34 David Yakobson
From: Margaret Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
[YOUR NAME]
Dr Margaret Rubin
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
35 David Yakobson
From: DARKO SUVAK <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Ivana and Darko Suvak
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
36 David Yakobson
From: Darko Suvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Darko Suvak
32nd st
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
37 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Ofer Grossman
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
38 David Yakobson
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multiunit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood. All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets. Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city. Thank you, Phyllis Chavez, Sunset Park Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
39 David Yakobson
From: Mathew Millen <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2025 6:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: May 13/ Opposition to Item 4J
Attachments: METRO5.pdf

EXTERNAL
The Council should OPPOSE SB 79. Why is the Council supporting SB79 ? so LA Metro can 1) eliminate the commuter parking lot at 17th and Colorado and 2) and build 375 UNITS OF LOW INCOME HOUSING INCLUDING 100 units of Homeless housing for LA County Homeless ADJACENT TO A CEMENT PLANT.

Stop dumping low income housing in the historically segregated Pico Neighborhood, that perpetuates segregation in violation of Fair Housing laws and will endanger the health of the tenants living next to a cement plant.

Mathew Millen
Pico Neighborhood Resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
40 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 10:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: [email protected]; Elaine Polachek
Subject: City Council 5/13 agenda item 4-J -- Support for SB-79 -- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
May 9, 2025
To: Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers
From: Zina Josephs
RE: 5/13/25 agenda item 4-J -- Support for SB-79
I urge the City Council NOT to send a letter of support for SB-79.

To begin with, there's no affordability requirement.

For the city as a whole, it appears that everywhere between Montana Avenue and Ocean Park Blvd. will be affected.

For the Sunset Park neighborhood, due to the east-west #7 bus line on Pico Blvd., and the northsouth #3 bus line on Lincoln Blvd., most of our neighborhood would also be affected.

While much of Sunset Park is zoned R-1, half of our housing units are actually in multifamily buildings, and I've read that approximately 3,500 apartments in Sunset Park are rent-controlled.

This will displace long-term, elderly, disabled, and low-income renters in our neighborhood.

What good will the city's POD program (Preserving Our Diversity) do these residents if their buildings are sold out from under them?
SB-79 encourages speculative real estate purchases, rewards demolition over preservation, undermines democratically approved Housing Elements, and ignores democratically approved affordability requirements such a Prop R, which was passed by Santa Monica voters in 1990 and requires that 30% of new apartments be affordable.

A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that housing prices are driven more by the income of new residents than by supply.

So, just using SB-79 to incentivize the construction of more and more market rate housing will NOT bring down rents.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
41 SB-79 will help developers, but it WON'T HELP people who are currently struggling with spending 50% of their income on rent.

Again, I urge the City Council NOT to send a letter of support for SB-79.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
42 David Yakobson
From: Andrew Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2025 12:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Elaine Polachek; Jennifer Taylor
Subject: Re: May 13, 2025 Council Agenda Item 4J: Residency Requirement for DTSM, Inc. Board Appointments
Attachments: Board Composition Ordinance Opposition Letter.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Lana Negrete, Honorable Council Members, and Esteemed City Staff, The DTSM, Inc. Board strongly opposes the adoption of an ordinance that mandates a fixed number of appointments from any single stakeholder group. This requirement is neither contained in the bylaws of the organization nor is it referenced in the other organizational documents for the district upon which approval of the district was voted upon. Each of the directors, including the directors appointed by the Santa Monica City Council, should be the most qualified individuals for the position, whether they are residents, property owners, employees, or holders of business licenses in the City of Santa Monica.

Maintaining flexibility will allow the Council to appoint Board members with the broadest range of experience, insight, and expertise necessary to effectively support and advance the goals of DTSM, Inc.

Respectfully,
Andrew Thomas, LPM
Chief Executive Officer
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
1351 Third Street Promenade, Ste. 201
Santa Monica, CA 90401
310.393.8355 (Office)
www.DowntownSM.com
Instagram | Twitter | Facebook | TikTok
Sign up for our newsletter
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
May 8, 2025
Ms. Lana Negrete, Mayor
and Santa Monica City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: May 13, 2025 Council Agenda Item 4J: Residency Requirement for DTSM, Inc. Board Appointments

Dear Mayor Lana Negrete, Honorable Council Members, and Esteemed City Staff, The DTSM, Inc. Board strongly opposes the adoption of an ordinance that mandates a fixed number of appointments from any single stakeholder group. This requirement is neither contained in the bylaws of the organization nor is it referenced in the other organizational documents for the district upon which approval of the district was voted upon. Each of the directors, including the directors appointed by the Santa Monica City Council, should be the most qualified individuals for the position, whether they are residents, property owners, employees, or holders of business licenses in the City of Santa Monica. Maintaining flexibility will allow the Council to appoint Board members with the broadest range of experience, insight, and expertise necessary to effectively support and advance the goals of DTSM, Inc.

Sincerely,

Andrew Thomas, CEO
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
cc: DTSM, Inc. Board of Directors
Elaine Polachek, City Manager
Jennifer Taylor, Economic Development Director
1351 Third Street Promenade, Suite 201, Santa Monica, CA I 310.393.8355 I [email protected] Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

Santa Monica City CouncilMay 13, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
May 13, 2025