EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment that eliminates an owner-occupancy requirement pertaining to ministerial approval of duplexes and lot splits on parcels zoned for single-unit residential. Adopting this ordinance will lead to the destruction of family neighborhoods in favor of profit-driven development of market-rate units. The Planning Commission who reviewed this recommended against adopting it. Current state law expressly requires owner-occupancy for 3 years from the date of the approval of a lot split. Removing the owneroccupancy provision – as well as all limitations to demolition – will open all single-family residential properties to speculative purchase by developers. In fact, according to a Public Records Act request to the City, this elimination of the Owner Occupancy Requirement was recommended by a single corporate representative who is associated with two different SB9 developments in Santa Monica, who stands to rake in millions off his projects. Who is City Council serving if it gives our city away to this request? I urge you to retain an owner-occupancy requirement that is consistent with current state law and is crucial to the integrity of our neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Jesus Gonzalez
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
40 David Yakobson
From: Jesus Gonzalez <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.6-7 -- Upzoning of 30th Street Parcel -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to Resolution 25-007 and Resolution 25-008, which change the LUCE and Districting Map for 2644 30th Street, respectively. If this change is made, the lot, which is entirely on the interior of a residential street and includes a parking lot, could, with the state height density bonuses, allow for an 85 foot building. This is way too tall for the interior of a residential street! 2644 30th Street is a 2-story office building and parking lot that fronts both 29th and 30th Streets. It is an interior parcel and is NOT located on a boulevard. Nevertheless, staff is trying to upzone this parcel to Neighborhood Commercial. In doing so, staff has failed to engage with the community and analyze the impact of the change on the character of the neighborhood as required by the LUCE. Also of concern are the numerous questionable statements made by staff in order to justify what appears to be illegal spot zoning. Please oppose this upzoning.
Thank you,
Jesus Gonzalez
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
41 David Yakobson
From: Robert Posek <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.2 -- Elimination of parcel size threshold -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to eliminate parcel size threshold for streamlined review of housing projects.
This change would allow all “housing projects” (as defined by California’s Housing Accountability Act) proposed in all nonresidential zones except the Bergamot Area Plan to be processed through an Administrative Approval process regardless of the size of the parcel upon which the housing project is located. This could mean parcels as big as the entire Business Park area, or even the Santa Monica Airport!
This is a far-reaching, adverse change to our zoning. We cannot leave so much of the development of our city purely to staff discretion. The public must be able to weigh in on huge projects before they are approved -- it's the democratic way to do things!
Thank you,
Robert Posek
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
42 David Yakobson
From: Robert Posek <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.6-7 -- Upzoning of 30th Street Parcel -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to Resolution 25-007 and Resolution 25-008, which change the LUCE and Districting Map for 2644 30th Street, respectively.
If this change is made, the lot, which is entirely on the interior of a residential street and includes a parking lot, could, with the state height density bonuses, allow for an 85 foot building.
This is way too tall for the interior of a residential street! 2644 30th Street is a 2-story office building and parking lot that fronts both 29th and 30th Streets. It is an interior parcel and is NOT located on a boulevard. Nevertheless, staff is trying to upzone this parcel to Neighborhood Commercial. In doing so, staff has failed to engage with the community and analyze the impact of the change on the character of the neighborhood as required by the LUCE. Also of concern are the numerous questionable statements made by staff in order to justify what appears to be illegal spot zoning.
Please oppose this upzoning.
Thank you,
Robert Posek
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
43 David Yakobson
From: Robert Posek <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.2 -- Elimination of owner-occupancy requirement -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment that eliminates an owner-occupancy requirement pertaining to ministerial approval of duplexes and lot splits on parcels zoned for single-unit residential.
Adopting this ordinance will lead to the destruction of family neighborhoods in favor of profit-driven development of market-rate units.
The Planning Commission who reviewed this recommended against adopting it.
Current state law expressly requires owner-occupancy for 3 years from the date of the approval of a lot split. Removing the owner-occupancy provision – as well as all limitations to demolition – will open all single-family residential properties to speculative purchase by developers.
In fact, according to a Public Records Act request to the City, this elimination of the Owner Occupancy Requirement was recommended by a single corporate representative who is associated with two different SB9 developments in Santa Monica, who stands to rake in millions off his projects. Who is City Council serving if it gives our city away to this request? I urge you to retain an owner-occupancy requirement that is consistent with current state law and is crucial to the integrity of our neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Robert Posek
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
44 David Yakobson
From: Jon Gibson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.6-7 -- Upzoning of 30th Street Parcel -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to Resolution 25-007 and Resolution 25- 008, which change the LUCE and Districting Map for 2644 30th Street, respectively. If this change is made, the lot, which is entirely on the interior of a residential street and includes a parking lot, could, with the state height density bonuses, allow for an 85 foot building. This is way too tall for the interior of a residential street! 2644 30th Street is a 2-story office building and parking lot that fronts both 29th and 30th Streets. It is an interior parcel and is NOT located on a boulevard.
Nevertheless, staff is trying to upzone this parcel to Neighborhood Commercial. In doing so, staff has failed to engage with the community and analyze the impact of the change on the character of the neighborhood as required by the LUCE.
Also of concern are the numerous questionable statements made by staff in order to justify what appears to be illegal spot zoning. Please oppose this upzoning. Thank you, Jonathan Gibson Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
45 David Yakobson
From: Jon Gibson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.2 -- Elimination of parcel size threshold -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to eliminate parcel size threshold for streamlined review of housing projects. This change would allow all “housing projects” (as defined by California’s Housing Accountability Act) proposed in all nonresidential zones except the Bergamot Area Plan to be processed through an Administrative Approval process regardless of the size of the parcel upon which the housing project is located. This could mean parcels as big as the entire Business Park area, or even the Santa Monica Airport! This is a far-reaching, adverse change to our zoning. We cannot leave so much of the development of our city purely to staff discretion. The public must be able to weigh in on huge projects before they are approved -- it's the democratic way to do things! Thank you, Jonathan Gibson Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
46 David Yakobson
From: Jon Gibson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.2 -- Elimination of owner-occupancy requirement -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment that eliminates an owner-occupancy requirement pertaining to ministerial approval of duplexes and lot splits on parcels zoned for single-unit residential. Adopting this ordinance will lead to the destruction of family neighborhoods in favor of profitdriven development of market-rate units. The Planning Commission who reviewed this recommended against adopting it.
Current state law expressly requires owner-occupancy for 3 years from the date of the approval of a lot split. Removing the owner-occupancy provision – as well as all limitations to demolition – will open all single-family residential properties to speculative purchase by developers. In fact, according to a Public Records Act request to the City, this elimination of the Owner Occupancy Requirement was recommended by a single corporate representative who is associated with two different SB9 developments in Santa Monica, who stands to rake in millions off his projects. Who is City Council serving if it gives our city away to this request? I urge you to retain an owner-occupancy requirement that is consistent with current state law and is crucial to the integrity of our neighborhoods. Thank you, Jonathan Gibson Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
47 David Yakobson
From: Margery Kratz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.6-7 -- Upzoning of 30th Street Parcel -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to Resolution 25-007 and Resolution 25-008, which change the LUCE and Districting Map for 2644 30th Street, respectively.
If this change is made, the lot, which is entirely on the interior of a residential street and includes a parking lot, could, with the state height density bonuses, allow for an 85 foot building.
This is way too tall for the interior of a residential street! 2644 30th Street is a 2-story office building and parking lot that fronts both 29th and 30th Streets. It is an interior parcel and is NOT located on a boulevard. Nevertheless, staff is trying to upzone this parcel to Neighborhood Commercial. In doing so, staff has failed to engage with the community and analyze the impact of the change on the character of the neighborhood as required by the LUCE. Also of concern are the numerous questionable statements made by staff in order to justify what appears to be illegal spot zoning.
Please oppose this upzoning.
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 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
48 David Yakobson
From: Margery Kratz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.2 -- Elimination of parcel size threshold -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to eliminate parcel size threshold for streamlined review of housing projects.
This change would allow all “housing projects” (as defined by California’s Housing Accountability Act) proposed in all nonresidential zones except the Bergamot Area Plan to be processed through an Administrative Approval process regardless of the size of the parcel upon which the housing project is located. This could mean parcels as big as the entire Business Park area, or even the Santa Monica Airport! This is a far-reaching, adverse change to our zoning. We cannot leave so much of the development of our city purely to staff discretion. The public must be able to weigh in on huge projects before they are approved -- it's the democratic way to do things!
Thank you.
Sincerely,
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 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
49 David Yakobson
From: Michael Fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:18 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 12.A.6-7 -- Upzoning of 30th Street Parcel -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to Resolution 25-007 and Resolution 25-008, which change the LUCE and Districting Map for 2644 30th Street, respectively.
If this change is made, the lot, which is entirely on the interior of a residential street and includes a parking lot, could, with the state height density bonuses, allow for an 85 foot building. 2644 30th Street is a 2-story office building and parking lot that fronts both 29th and 30th Streets. It is an interior parcel and is NOT located on a boulevard. Nevertheless, staff is trying to upzone this parcel to Neighborhood Commercial. In doing so, staff has failed to engage with the community and analyze the impact of the change on the character of the neighborhood as required by the LUCE. Also of concern are the numerous questionable statements made by staff in order to justify what appears to be illegal spot zoning.
Please oppose this upzoning.
Thank you,
Michael Fisher
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
50 David Yakobson
From: Michael Fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:16 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 12.A.2 -- Elimination of parcel size threshold -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to eliminate parcel size threshold for streamlined review of housing projects.
This change would allow all the overly broad “housing projects” (as defined by California’s Housing Accountability Act) proposed in all nonresidential zones except the Bergamot Area Plan to be processed through an Administrative Approval process regardless of the size of the parcel upon which the housing project is located. This could mean parcels as big as the entire Business Park area, or even the Santa Monica Airport!
This is a far-reaching, adverse change to our zoning. We cannot leave so much of the development of our city purely to staff discretion. The public must be able to weigh in on huge projects before they are approved -- it's the democratic way to do things!
Thank you,
Michael Fisher
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
51 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 12.A.2 -- Elimination of owner-occupancy requirement -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment that eliminates an owner-occupancy requirement pertaining to ministerial approval of duplexes and lot splits on parcels zoned for single-unit residential.
Adopting this ordinance will lead to the destruction of family neighborhoods in favor of profit-driven development of market-rate units.
The Planning Commission who reviewed this recommended against adopting it.
Current state law expressly requires owner-occupancy for 3 years from the date of the approval of a lot split. Removing the owner-occupancy provision – as well as all limitations to demolition – will open all single-family residential properties to speculative purchase by developers.
In fact, according to a Public Records Act request to the City, this elimination of the Owner Occupancy Requirement was recommended by a single corporate representative who is associated with two different SB9 developments in Santa Monica, who stands to rake in millions off his projects. Who is City Council serving if it gives our city away to this request? I urge you to retain an owner-occupancy requirement that is consistent with current state law and is crucial to the integrity of our neighborhoods.
Thank you,
E. Davidson
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
52 David Yakobson
From: Joanne Leslie <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:12 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Subject: Support Item 12.A
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of item 12.A updating zoning ordinance and city code. I endorse the views of Santa Monica Forward, shared below. I appreciate the City Council working to increase housing options and I especially encourage everything you can do to support below market housing.
Thank you,
Joanne Leslie
90405
--------------
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 quadplexes 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 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 form-based 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.
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
53 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 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
54 David Yakobson
From: Emily Davidson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.2 -- Elimination of parcel size threshold -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to eliminate parcel size threshold for streamlined review of housing projects.
This change would allow all “housing projects” (as defined by California’s Housing Accountability Act) proposed in all nonresidential zones except the Bergamot Area Plan to be processed through an Administrative Approval process regardless of the size of the parcel upon which the housing project is located. This could mean parcels as big as the entire Business Park area, or even the Santa Monica Airport!
This is a far-reaching, adverse change to our zoning. We cannot leave so much of the development of our city purely to staff discretion. The public must be able to weigh in on huge projects before they are approved -- it's the democratic way to do things!
Thank you,
Emily Davidson
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
55 David Yakobson
From: Tom Richards <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.6-7 -- Upzoning of 30th Street Parcel -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to Resolution 25-007 and Resolution 25-008, which change the LUCE and Districting Map for 2644 30th Street, respectively.
If this change is made, the lot, which is entirely on the interior of a residential street and includes a parking lot, could, with the state height density bonuses, allow for an 85 foot building.
This is way too tall for the interior of a residential street! 2644 30th Street is a 2-story office building and parking lot that fronts both 29th and 30th Streets. It is an interior parcel and is NOT located on a boulevard. Nevertheless, staff is trying to upzone this parcel to Neighborhood Commercial. In doing so, staff has failed to engage with the community and analyze the impact of the change on the character of the neighborhood as required by the LUCE. Also of concern are the numerous questionable statements made by staff in order to justify what appears to be illegal spot zoning.
Please oppose this upzoning.
Thank you,
Tom Richards
2913 tenth st #1
Santa Monica 90405
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
56 David Yakobson
From: Tom Richards <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.2 -- Elimination of parcel size threshold -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to eliminate parcel size threshold for streamlined review of housing projects.
This change would allow all “housing projects” (as defined by California’s Housing Accountability Act) proposed in all nonresidential zones except the Bergamot Area Plan to be processed through an Administrative Approval process regardless of the size of the parcel upon which the housing project is located. This could mean parcels as big as the entire Business Park area, or even the Santa Monica Airport! This is a far-reaching, adverse change to our zoning. We cannot leave so much of the development of our city purely to staff discretion. The public must be able to weigh in on huge projects before they are approved -- it's the democratic way to do things!
Thank you,
Tom Richards
2913 tenth st #1
Santa Monica 90405
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
57 David Yakobson
From: Tom Richards <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.2 -- Elimination of owner-occupancy requirement -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment that eliminates an owner-occupancy requirement pertaining to ministerial approval of duplexes and lot splits on parcels zoned for single-unit residential.
Adopting this ordinance will lead to the destruction of family neighborhoods in favor of profit-driven development of market-rate units.
The Planning Commission who reviewed this recommended against adopting it.
Current state law expressly requires owner-occupancy for 3 years from the date of the approval of a lot split.
Removing the owner-occupancy provision – as well as all limitations to demolition – will open all single-family residential properties to speculative purchase by developers.
In fact, according to a Public Records Act request to the City, this elimination of the Owner Occupancy Requirement was recommended by a single corporate representative who is associated with two different SB9 developments in Santa Monica, who stands to rake in millions off his projects. Who is City Council serving if it gives our city away to this request?
I urge you to retain an owner-occupancy requirement that is consistent with current state law and is crucial to the integrity of our neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Tom Richards
2913 tenth st #1
Santa Monica 90405
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
58 David Yakobson
From: Lisa Sandbank <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.2 Elimination of owner-occupancy requirement: -OPPOSEEXTERNAL Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, Owner-occupancy requirement for duplexes and lot splits on parcels zoned for single-unit residential prevents speculative purchase by developers.
The Planning Commission has recommended not to remove this requirement. It was recommended by a single corporate representative who will privately benefit.
I urge you to retain an owner-occupancy requirement that is consistent with current state law and is crucial to the integrity of our neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Lisa Sandbank
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
59 David Yakobson
From: Carolyn Peralta <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:08 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 12.A.2 -- Elimination of owner-occupancy requirement -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment that eliminates an owner-occupancy requirement pertaining to ministerial approval of duplexes and lot splits on parcels zoned for single-unit residential.
Adopting this ordinance will lead to the destruction of family neighborhoods in favor of profit-driven development of market-rate units.
The Planning Commission who reviewed this recommended against adopting it.
Current state law expressly requires owner-occupancy for 3 years from the date of the approval of a lot split.
Removing the owner-occupancy provision – as well as all limitations to demolition – will open all single-family residential properties to speculative purchase by developers.
In fact, according to a Public Records Act request to the City, this elimination of the Owner Occupancy Requirement was recommended by a single corporate representative who is associated with two different SB9 developments in Santa Monica, who stands to rake in millions off his projects. Who is City Council serving if it gives our city away to this request?
I urge you to retain an owner-occupancy requirement that is consistent with current state law and is crucial to the integrity of our neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Carolyn Peralta
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
60 David Yakobson
From: Clint Malin <[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 12.A.2 -- Elimination of owner-occupancy requirement -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment that eliminates an owner-occupancy requirement pertaining to ministerial approval of duplexes and lot splits on parcels zoned for single-unit residential.
Adopting this ordinance will lead to the destruction of family neighborhoods in favor of profit-driven development of market-rate units.
The Planning Commission who reviewed this recommended against adopting it.
Current state law expressly requires owner-occupancy for 3 years from the date of the approval of a lot split.
Removing the owner-occupancy provision – as well as all limitations to demolition – will open all single-family residential properties to speculative purchase by developers.
In fact, according to a Public Records Act request to the City, this elimination of the Owner Occupancy Requirement was recommended by a single corporate representative who is associated with two different SB9 developments in Santa Monica, who stands to rake in millions off his projects. Who is City Council serving if it gives our city away to this request?
I urge you to retain an owner-occupancy requirement that is consistent with current state law and is crucial to the integrity of our neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Clint Malin
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
61 David Yakobson
From: Dalila Fuentes <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:04 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 12.A.6-7 -- Upzoning of 30th Street Parcel -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to Resolution 25-007 and Resolution 25-008, which change the LUCE and Districting Map for 2644 30th Street, respectively.
If this change is made, the lot, which is entirely on the interior of a residential street and includes a parking lot, could, with the state height density bonuses, allow for an 85 foot building.
This is way too tall for the interior of a residential street! 2644 30th Street is a 2-story office building and parking lot that fronts both 29th and 30th Streets. It is an interior parcel and is NOT located on a boulevard. Nevertheless, staff is trying to upzone this parcel to Neighborhood Commercial. In doing so, staff has failed to engage with the community and analyze the impact of the change on the character of the neighborhood as required by the LUCE. Also of concern are the numerous questionable statements made by staff in order to justify what appears to be illegal spot zoning.
Please oppose this upzoning.
Thank you,
Dalila Fuentes
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
62 David Yakobson
From: Dalila Fuentes <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:03 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 12.A.2 -- Elimination of parcel size threshold -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to eliminate parcel size threshold for streamlined review of housing projects.
This change would allow all “housing projects” (as defined by California’s Housing Accountability Act) proposed in all nonresidential zones except the Bergamot Area Plan to be processed through an Administrative Approval process regardless of the size of the parcel upon which the housing project is located. This could mean parcels as big as the entire Business Park area, or even the Santa Monica Airport!
This is a far-reaching, adverse change to our zoning. We cannot leave so much of the development of our city purely to staff discretion. The public must be able to weigh in on huge projects before they are approved -- it's the democratic way to do things!
Thank you,
Dalila Fuentes
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
63 David Yakobson
From: Dalila Fuentes <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 2:02 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 12.A.2 -- Elimination of owner-occupancy requirement -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment that eliminates an owner-occupancy requirement pertaining to ministerial approval of duplexes and lot splits on parcels zoned for single-unit residential.
Adopting this ordinance will lead to the destruction of family neighborhoods in favor of profit-driven development of market-rate units.
The Planning Commission who reviewed this recommended against adopting it.
Current state law expressly requires owner-occupancy for 3 years from the date of the approval of a lot split. Removing the owner-occupancy provision – as well as all limitations to demolition – will open all single-family residential properties to speculative purchase by developers.
In fact, according to a Public Records Act request to the City, this elimination of the Owner Occupancy Requirement was recommended by a single corporate representative who is associated with two different SB9 developments in Santa Monica, who stands to rake in millions off his projects. Who is City Council serving if it gives our city away to this request? I urge you to retain an owner-occupancy requirement that is consistent with current state law and is crucial to the integrity of our neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Dalila Fuentes
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
64 David Yakobson
From: janet rt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:59 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 12.A.6-7 -- Upzoning of 30th Street Parcel -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to Resolution 25-007 and Resolution 25-008, which change the LUCE and Districting Map for 2644 30th Street, respectively.
If this change is made, the lot, which is entirely on the interior of a residential street and includes a parking lot, could, with the state height density bonuses, allow for an 85 foot building.
This is way too tall for the interior of a residential street! 2644 30th Street is a 2-story office building and parking lot that fronts both 29th and 30th Streets. It is an interior parcel and is NOT located on a boulevard. Nevertheless, staff is trying to upzone this parcel to Neighborhood Commercial. In doing so, staff has failed to engage with the community and analyze the impact of the change on the character of the neighborhood as required by the LUCE. Also of concern are the numerous questionable statements made by staff in order to justify what appears to be illegal spot zoning.
Please oppose this upzoning.
Thank you,
Janet Tunick
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
65 David Yakobson
From: janet rt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:58 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 12.A.2 -- Elimination of parcel size threshold -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to eliminate parcel size threshold for streamlined review of housing projects.
This change would allow all “housing projects” (as defined by California’s Housing Accountability Act) proposed in all nonresidential zones except the Bergamot Area Plan to be processed through an Administrative Approval process regardless of the size of the parcel upon which the housing project is located. This could mean parcels as big as the entire Business Park area, or even the Santa Monica Airport!
This is a far-reaching, adverse change to our zoning. We cannot leave so much of the development of our city purely to staff discretion. The public must be able to weigh in on huge projects before they are approved -- it's the democratic way to do things!
Thank you,
Janet Tunick
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
66 David Yakobson
From: janet rt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:59 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 12.A.2 -- Elimination of owner-occupancy requirement -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment that eliminates an owner-occupancy requirement pertaining to ministerial approval of duplexes and lot splits on parcels zoned for single-unit residential.
Adopting this ordinance will lead to the destruction of family neighborhoods in favor of profit-driven development of market-rate units.
The Planning Commission who reviewed this recommended against adopting it.
Current state law expressly requires owner-occupancy for 3 years from the date of the approval of a lot split. Removing the owner-occupancy provision – as well as all limitations to demolition – will open all single-family residential properties to speculative purchase by developers.
In fact, according to a Public Records Act request to the City, this elimination of the Owner Occupancy Requirement was recommended by a single corporate representative who is associated with two different SB9 developments in Santa Monica, who stands to rake in millions off his projects. Who is City Council serving if it gives our city away to this request? I urge you to retain an owner-occupancy requirement that is consistent with current state law and is crucial to the integrity of our neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Janet Tunick
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
67 David Yakobson
From: Elliot Gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.6-7 -- Upzoning of 30th Street Parcel -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to Resolution 25-007 and Resolution 25-008, which change the LUCE and Districting Map for 2644 30th Street, respectively.
If this change is made, the lot, which is entirely on the interior of a residential street and includes a parking lot, could, with the state height density bonuses, allow for an 85 foot building.
This is way too tall for the interior of a residential street! 2644 30th Street is a 2-story office building and parking lot that fronts both 29th and 30th Streets. It is an interior parcel and is NOT located on a boulevard. Nevertheless, staff is trying to upzone this parcel to Neighborhood Commercial. In doing so, staff has failed to engage with the community and analyze the impact of the change on the character of the neighborhood as required by the LUCE. Also of concern are the numerous questionable statements made by staff in order to justify what appears to be illegal spot zoning.
Please oppose this upzoning.
Thank you,
Elliot Gordon
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
68 David Yakobson
From: Elliot Gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.2 -- Elimination of owner-occupancy requirement -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment that eliminates an owner-occupancy requirement pertaining to ministerial approval of duplexes and lot splits on parcels zoned for single-unit residential.
Adopting this ordinance will lead to the destruction of family neighborhoods in favor of profit-driven development of market-rate units.
The Planning Commission who reviewed this recommended against adopting it.
Current state law expressly requires owner-occupancy for 3 years from the date of the approval of a lot split.
Removing the owner-occupancy provision – as well as all limitations to demolition – will open all single-family residential properties to speculative purchase by developers.
In fact, according to a Public Records Act request to the City, this elimination of the Owner Occupancy Requirement was recommended by a single corporate representative who is associated with two different SB9 developments in Santa Monica, who stands to rake in millions off his projects. Who is City Council serving if it gives our city away to this request?
I urge you to retain an owner-occupancy requirement that is consistent with current state law and is crucial to the integrity of our neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Elliot Gordon
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
69 David Yakobson
From: Peter Schechter <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.6-7 -- Upzoning of 30th Street Parcel -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to Resolution 25-007 and Resolution 25-008, which change the LUCE and Districting Map for 2644 30th Street, respectively.
If this change is made, the lot, which is entirely on the interior of a residential street and includes a parking lot, could, with the state height density bonuses, allow for an 85 foot building.
This is way too tall for the interior of a residential street! 2644 30th Street is a 2-story office building and parking lot that fronts both 29th and 30th Streets. It is an interior parcel and is NOT located on a boulevard. Nevertheless, staff is trying to upzone this parcel to Neighborhood Commercial. In doing so, staff has failed to engage with the community and analyze the impact of the change on the character of the neighborhood as required by the LUCE. Also of concern are the numerous questionable statements made by staff in order to justify what appears to be illegal spot zoning.
Please oppose this upzoning.
Thank you,
[YOUR NAME HERE]
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
70 David Yakobson
From: DARKO SUVAK <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.6-7 -- Upzoning of 30th Street Parcel -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to Resolution 25-007 and Resolution 25-008, which change the LUCE and Districting Map for 2644 30th Street, respectively.
If this change is made, the lot, which is entirely on the interior of a residential street and includes a parking lot, could, with the state height density bonuses, allow for an 85 foot building.
This is way too tall for the interior of a residential street! 2644 30th Street is a 2-story office building and parking lot that fronts both 29th and 30th Streets. It is an interior parcel and is NOT located on a boulevard. Nevertheless, staff is trying to upzone this parcel to Neighborhood Commercial. In doing so, staff has failed to engage with the community and analyze the impact of the change on the character of the neighborhood as required by the LUCE. Also of concern are the numerous questionable statements made by staff in order to justify what appears to be illegal spot zoning.
Please oppose this upzoning.
Thank you,
Darko and Ivana Suvak
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
71 David Yakobson
From: DARKO SUVAK <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.6-7 -- Upzoning of 30th Street Parcel -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to Resolution 25-007 and Resolution 25-008, which change the LUCE and Districting Map for 2644 30th Street, respectively.
If this change is made, the lot, which is entirely on the interior of a residential street and includes a parking lot, could, with the state height density bonuses, allow for an 85 foot building.
This is way too tall for the interior of a residential street! 2644 30th Street is a 2-story office building and parking lot that fronts both 29th and 30th Streets. It is an interior parcel and is NOT located on a boulevard. Nevertheless, staff is trying to upzone this parcel to Neighborhood Commercial. In doing so, staff has failed to engage with the community and analyze the impact of the change on the character of the neighborhood as required by the LUCE. Also of concern are the numerous questionable statements made by staff in order to justify what appears to be illegal spot zoning.
Please oppose this upzoning.
Thank you,
Ivana and Darko Šuvak
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
72 David Yakobson
From: Peter Schechter <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.2 -- Elimination of parcel size threshold -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to eliminate parcel size threshold for streamlined review of housing projects.
This change would allow all “housing projects” (as defined by California’s Housing Accountability Act) proposed in all nonresidential zones except the Bergamot Area Plan to be processed through an Administrative Approval process regardless of the size of the parcel upon which the housing project is located. This could mean parcels as big as the entire Business Park area, or even the Santa Monica Airport! This is a far-reaching, adverse change to our zoning. We cannot leave so much of the development of our city purely to staff discretion. The public must be able to weigh in on huge projects before they are approved -- it's the democratic way to do things!
Thank you,
Peter Schechter
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
73 David Yakobson
From: DARKO SUVAK <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.2 -- Elimination of owner-occupancy requirement -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment that eliminates an owner-occupancy requirement pertaining to ministerial approval of duplexes and lot splits on parcels zoned for single-unit residential.
Adopting this ordinance will lead to the destruction of family neighborhoods in favor of profit-driven development of market-rate units.
The Planning Commission who reviewed this recommended against adopting it.
Current state law expressly requires owner-occupancy for 3 years from the date of the approval of a lot split.
Removing the owner-occupancy provision – as well as all limitations to demolition – will open all single-family residential properties to speculative purchase by developers.
In fact, according to a Public Records Act request to the City, this elimination of the Owner Occupancy Requirement was recommended by a single corporate representative who is associated with two different SB9 developments in Santa Monica, who stands to rake in millions off his projects. Who is City Council serving if it gives our city away to this request?
I urge you to retain an owner-occupancy requirement that is consistent with current state law and is crucial to the integrity of our neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Darko Suvak
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
74 David Yakobson
From: Darko Suvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.2 -- Elimination of parcel size threshold -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to eliminate parcel size threshold for streamlined review of housing projects.
This change would allow all “housing projects” (as defined by California’s Housing Accountability Act) proposed in all nonresidential zones except the Bergamot Area Plan to be processed through an Administrative Approval process regardless of the size of the parcel upon which the housing project is located. This could mean parcels as big as the entire Business Park area, or even the Santa Monica Airport! This is a far-reaching, adverse change to our zoning. We cannot leave so much of the development of our city purely to staff discretion. The public must be able to weigh in on huge projects before they are approved -- it's the democratic way to do things!
Thank you,
Darko Suvak
32nd st
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
75 David Yakobson
From: Darko Suvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.6-7 -- Upzoning of 30th Street Parcel -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to Resolution 25-007 and Resolution 25-008, which change the LUCE and Districting Map for 2644 30th Street, respectively.
If this change is made, the lot, which is entirely on the interior of a residential street and includes a parking lot, could, with the state height density bonuses, allow for an 85 foot building.
This is way too tall for the interior of a residential street! 2644 30th Street is a 2-story office building and parking lot that fronts both 29th and 30th Streets. It is an interior parcel and is NOT located on a boulevard. Nevertheless, staff is trying to upzone this parcel to Neighborhood Commercial. In doing so, staff has failed to engage with the community and analyze the impact of the change on the character of the neighborhood as required by the LUCE. Also of concern are the numerous questionable statements made by staff in order to justify what appears to be illegal spot zoning.
Please oppose this upzoning.
Thank you,
Darko Suvak
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
76 David Yakobson
From: Peter Schechter <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.2 -- Elimination of owner-occupancy requirement -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment that eliminates an owner-occupancy requirement pertaining to ministerial approval of duplexes and lot splits on parcels zoned for single-unit residential.
Adopting this ordinance will lead to the destruction of family neighborhoods in favor of profit-driven development of market-rate units.
The Planning Commission who reviewed this recommended against adopting it.
Current state law expressly requires owner-occupancy for 3 years from the date of the approval of a lot split.
Removing the owner-occupancy provision – as well as all limitations to demolition – will open all single-family residential properties to speculative purchase by developers.
In fact, according to a Public Records Act request to the City, this elimination of the Owner Occupancy Requirement was recommended by a single corporate representative who is associated with two different SB9 developments in Santa Monica, who stands to rake in millions off his projects. Who is City Council serving if it gives our city away to this request?
I urge you to retain an owner-occupancy requirement that is consistent with current state law and is crucial to the integrity of our neighborhoods.
Thank you
Peter Schechter
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
77 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.2 -- Elimination of parcel size threshold -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to eliminate parcel size threshold for streamlined review of housing projects.
This change would allow all “housing projects” (as defined by California’s Housing Accountability Act) proposed in all nonresidential zones except the Bergamot Area Plan to be processed through an Administrative Approval process regardless of the size of the parcel upon which the housing project is located. This could mean parcels as big as the entire Business Park area, or even the Santa Monica Airport! This is a far-reaching, adverse change to our zoning. We cannot leave so much of the development of our city purely to staff discretion. The public must be able to weigh in on huge projects before they are approved -- it's the democratic way to do things!
Thank you,
Ofer Grossman
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
78 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.2 -- Elimination of owner-occupancy requirement -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment that eliminates an owner-occupancy requirement pertaining to ministerial approval of duplexes and lot splits on parcels zoned for single-unit residential.
Adopting this ordinance will lead to the destruction of family neighborhoods in favor of profit-driven development of market-rate units.
The Planning Commission who reviewed this recommended against adopting it.
Current state law expressly requires owner-occupancy for 3 years from the date of the approval of a lot split.
Removing the owner-occupancy provision – as well as all limitations to demolition – will open all single-family residential properties to speculative purchase by developers.
In fact, according to a Public Records Act request to the City, this elimination of the Owner Occupancy Requirement was recommended by a single corporate representative who is associated with two different SB9 developments in Santa Monica, who stands to rake in millions off his projects. Who is City Council serving if it gives our city away to this request?
I urge you to retain an owner-occupancy requirement that is consistent with current state law and is crucial to the integrity of our neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Ofer Grossman
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
79 David Yakobson
From: Samantha Eknoian <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 12.A.2 -- Elimination of owner-occupancy requirement -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment that eliminates an owner-occupancy requirement pertaining to ministerial approval of duplexes and lot splits on parcels zoned for single-unit residential.
Adopting this ordinance will lead to the destruction of family neighborhoods in favor of profit-driven development of market-rate units.
The Planning Commission who reviewed this recommended against adopting it.
Current state law expressly requires owner-occupancy for 3 years from the date of the approval of a lot split.
Removing the owner-occupancy provision – as well as all limitations to demolition – will open all single-family residential properties to speculative purchase by developers.
In fact, according to a Public Records Act request to the City, this elimination of the Owner Occupancy Requirement was recommended by a single corporate representative who is associated with two different SB9 developments in Santa Monica, who stands to rake in millions off his projects. Who is City Council serving if it gives our city away to this request?
I urge you to retain an owner-occupancy requirement that is consistent with current state law and is crucial to the integrity of our neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Samantha Eknoian
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
80 David Yakobson
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:31 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 12.A.6-7 -- Upzoning of 30th Street Parcel -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to Resolution 25-007 and Resolution 25- 008, which change the LUCE and Districting Map for 2644 30th Street, respectively. If this change is made, the lot, which is entirely on the interior of a residential street and includes a parking lot, could, with the state height density bonuses, allow for an 85 foot building. This is way too tall for the interior of a residential street! 2644 30th Street is a 2-story office building and parking lot that fronts both 29th and 30th Streets. It is an interior parcel and is NOT located on a boulevard.
Nevertheless, staff is trying to upzone this parcel to Neighborhood Commercial. In doing so, staff has failed to engage with the community and analyze the impact of the change on the character of the neighborhood as required by the LUCE.
Also of concern are the numerous questionable statements made by staff in order to justify what appears to be illegal spot zoning. Please oppose this upzoning. Thank you, Phyllis Chavez, Sunset Park Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
81 David Yakobson
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:30 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 12.A.2 -- Elimination of parcel size threshold -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to eliminate parcel size threshold for streamlined review of housing projects. This change would allow all “housing projects” (as defined by California’s Housing Accountability Act) proposed in all nonresidential zones except the Bergamot Area Plan to be processed through an Administrative Approval process regardless of the size of the parcel upon which the housing project is located. This could mean parcels as big as the entire Business Park area, or even the Santa Monica Airport! This is a far-reaching, adverse change to our zoning. We cannot leave so much of the development of our city purely to staff discretion. The public must be able to weigh in on huge projects before they are approved -- it's the democratic way to do things! Thank you, Phyllis Chavez, Sunset Park Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
82 David Yakobson
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 1:28 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 12.A.2 -- Elimination of owner-occupancy requirement -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I object to the proposed amendment that eliminates an owner-occupancy requirement pertaining to ministerial approval of duplexes and lot splits on parcels zoned for single-unit residential. Adopting this ordinance will lead to the destruction of family neighborhoods in favor of profitdriven development of market-rate units. The Planning Commission who reviewed this recommended against adopting it.
Current state law expressly requires owner-occupancy for 3 years from the date of the approval of a lot split. Removing the owner-occupancy provision – as well as all limitations to demolition – will open all single-family residential properties to speculative purchase by developers. In fact, according to a Public Records Act request to the City, this elimination of the Owner Occupancy Requirement was recommended by a single corporate representative who is associated with two different SB9 developments in Santa Monica, who stands to rake in millions off his projects. Who is City Council serving if it gives our city away to this request? I urge you to retain an owner-occupancy requirement that is consistent with current state law and is the integrity of our neighborhoods. Thank you, Phyllis Chavez, Sunset Park Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
83 David Yakobson
From: Harry Clennon <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 12:42 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Subject: Support Item 12.A
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of item 12.A updating zoning ordinance and city code. I echo the views of Santa Monica Forward, shared below.
Thank you,
Harry Clennon
90404
--------------
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 quadplexes 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 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 form-based 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.
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
84 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.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
85 David Yakobson
From: Babak M <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 10:06 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Subject: Support Item 12.A
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of item 12.A updating zoning ordinance and city code. I echo the views of Santa Monica Forward, shared below.
Thank you,
Babak Mozaffari
90401
--------------
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 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 Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
86 moving to form-based 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 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
87 David Yakobson
From: Zachary Dietrich <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 9:56 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Subject: Support Item 12.A
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of item 12.A updating zoning ordinance and city code. I echo the views of Santa Monica Forward, shared below.
Thank you,
Zach Dietrich
90404
--------------
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 quadplexes 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 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 form-based 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.
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
88 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.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
89 David Yakobson
From: Liliya Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 9:39 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Item 12.A
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
As a constituent, and a young person trying to build a life in Santa Monica, I urge you to support increased housing production in our city.
I am writing in support of item 12.A updating zoning ordinance and city code. I echo the views of Santa Monica Forward, shared below.
Thank you,
Liliya Jones
90403
--------------
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 quadplexes 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 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 form-based 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 Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
90 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 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
91 David Yakobson
From: Jeremy Bamberger <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 9:35 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Subject: Support Item 12.A
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of item 12.A updating zoning ordinance and city code. I echo the views of Santa Monica Forward, shared below.
Thank you,
Jeremy Bamberger
90405
--------------
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 quadplexes 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 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 form-based 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.
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
92 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 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
93 David Yakobson
From: Sam Shapiro-Kline <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 9:22 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Subject: Support Item 12.A
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of item 12.A updating zoning ordinance and city code. I echo the views of Santa Monica Forward, shared below.
Thank you,
Sam Shapiro-Kline
90403
--------------
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 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 Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
94 moving to form-based 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 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
95 David Yakobson
From: Cassie Stuurman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 9:07 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Subject: Support Item 12.A
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of item 12.A updating zoning ordinance and city code. I echo the views of Santa Monica Forward, shared below.
Thank you,
Cassie Stuurman
90404
--------------
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 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 Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
96 moving to form-based 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 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
97 David Yakobson
From: Alex Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2025 1:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Barry Snell
Cc: Judy Kruger (Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce)
Subject: Letter of Support Council Meeting Agenda Item 12.A, May 13, 2025 Attachments: LOS SM City Zoning 12.A May 2025.pdf
EXTERNAL
Hello Councilmembers,
I am submitting the attached Letter of Support for Agenda Item 12.A for the upcoming City Council meeting on May 13, 2025.
Thank you,
Alex Brown
Director Government Affairs
510-402-4767 | [email protected]
smchamber.com
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
2525 Main St., Unit 103 | Santa Monica, CA 90405
RE: May 13, Agenda Item 12.A, Housing Streamlining – Support Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
On behalf of the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce, we are writing to thank the City Council for directing important Zoning Ordinance changes to facilitate housing production and to support both (a) alignment of the City’s definition of “housing project” with the definition in State Law (the Housing Accountability Act) and (b) streamlining for all housing projects regardless of the project site’s land area (removing the current one-acre limit for projects to qualify for an Administrative Approval process).
We frequently hear from our members that the cost and lack of available housing options in Santa Monica directly impacts their ability to attract and retain local employees.
Removing the discretionary hearing process for housing projects reduces cost, time and risk for much needed housing in our City. Thus, we applaud the Council for acknowledging the important role the City’s entitlement and permitting requirements play in housing production.
In addition, Santa Monica businesses have continued to experience economic uncertainty and the removal of additional restrictions on housing will provide more opportunities for a “built in” local customer base to patronize our businesses.
The Chamber respectfully requests the City Council approve the housing streamlining and State-law consistency and implementation items included in the draft ordinance for Agenda Item 12.A
provided by City Staff.
Sincerely,
Board Executives
Chair
Charlie LopezQuintana
ETC Hotels
Past Chair
Younes Atallah
Regent Santa Monica
Beach
Treasurer
Celia Fisher
Beach Moms
Vice-Chair
Dustin Peterson
Fairmont Miramar
Hotel & Bungalows
Vice-Chair
Dr. Kathryn Jeffery
Santa Monica College
Vice-Chair
Vee Gomez
Beach Yoga SoCal
Vice-Chair
Greg Morena
The Albright
Board Members
Dom Bei
SM Firefighters
Rudy Flores
SM Police Officers
Paula Larmore
Harding, Larmore,
Kutcher & Kozal LLP
Michael Altchule
UCLA Health
Board Continued
Eddie Guerboian
Jeweler
Neil Carrey
Attorney
Jeremy Rawitch
RAND
Elnie Vannatim
Cedars Sinai
Addie VanGessel
Tavern on Main
Gina Gribow
EKA Public Affairs
Jessica Rincon
Le Merigot Hotel
Florence Granteral
Fall
Neuehouse
Stephanie Eglin
Macerich
Lilit Avagyan
US Bank
Melissa Cohen
Boston Properties
Jenn Verma
Lionsgate
Ben Marcus
UP Partners
Elias Garcia
Kaiser Permanente
Yvette Sims
Hair by Yvette
Cheree
Judy Kruger
President & CEO
Charlie Lopez-Quintana
Chair of the Board of Directors
May 10, 2025
Santa Monica City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
98 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 11:19 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 12-A -- 3 concerns
EXTERNAL
May 9, 2025
To: Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers
From: Zina Josephs
RE: 5/13/25 agenda item 12-A
I oppose the following 3 staff recommendations and urge the Council to remove them from the action item:
1) "Elimination of 1-acre Administrative Approval threshold for housing projects."
After the Gelson's project (551 apartments in 12 5- and 6-story buildings) was approved ministerially (Administrative Approval), the City Council passed an ordinance requiring Council approval for projects on parcels larger than 1 acre. (The Gelson's parcel is 4 acres.)
This ordinance, as written, undoes that ordinance and would allow Administrative Approval of projects of any size, for example, in the 40-acre Santa Monica Business Park. There are no public hearings with the Administrative Approval process, only at the Architectural Review Board.
Around 500 residents participated in the second Gelson's Zoom call. (I was unable to get into the first Zoom call, which was limited to 100 participants.) Among the resident comments, Ms. Zernitskaya was one of the very few people who supported the project.
Imagine the uproar among residents if an even larger housing project went forward in the Business Park.
I urge you to maintain the 1-acre Administrative Approval threshold for housing projects.
2) "Removing the owner-occupancy requirement for lots splits and duplexes." -- This would be an invitation to out-of-town and out-of-state developers to buy up single family homes and make huge profits by building multiple housing units on R-1 parcels. As was noted in a recent opinion piece in the Santa Monica Mirror:
"SB9, a statewide law, was designed to expand opportunities for families to create moderate-income housing for relatives and friends, and to build wealth from their R-1 parcels. The author of the state law said at the time the law was passed that SB9 was focused on homeowners, affordable housing units, and multigeneration Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
99 wealth creation by building equity from splitting R-1 lots into two parcels. Real estate developers and speculators were never part of the SB9 law.
The primary legislative tool to insure SB9 encouraged family development, not real estate speculation, is the owner occupancy requirement built into the SB9 law. That provision requires a homeowner to live in one of the newly built SB9 housing units as the homeowner’s principal residence for three years after approval of an SB9 lot split. According to the state Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) agency, owner occupancy also means that only a person who owns the lot, not a corporation, can use SB9’s streamlined city approval process. A corporate SB9 owner “cannot legitimately claim intentions of residing in one of the units as its principal residence since [corporations] do not physically reside anywhere.” Now, three City Councilmembers (Zwick, Zernitskaya, and Hall) propose to fundamentally change Santa Monica’s SB9 Ordinance, by “removing the owner-occupancy requirement for lot splits … and clarifying that vacant or demolished parcels… are eligible for lot splits…” Their resolution is currently on the City Council Agenda for the May 13, 2025, Council meeting. According to a Public Records Act request to the City, these two changes were recommended by Stephen Anderson, who is the corporate representative of the two SB9 developments in Santa Monica, proposed by Delaware corporations.
The Council should reject the suggested SB9 amendments. They are not good housing policy for the City and its residents. The amendments will instead allow out-of-state developers to build expensive multi-family units in R-1 zones. They will also boost the prospects of Mr. Anderson’s corporate SB9 projects in Santa Monica...." I urge you to maintain the owner-occupancy requirement for lots splits and duplexes.
3) Amending the Zoning Ordinance to upzone 2644 30th Street to "Neighborhood Commercial."
2644 30th Street is not located right on Ocean Park Blvd. -- it's a 2-story office building right behind the retail center with The Counter, Il Forno, Hurry Curry, and Crimson.
It's also right across 29th and 30th Streets from single family homes.
Thanks to the 6th Cycle Housing Element, "Neighborhood Commercial" on Ocean Park Blvd. is allowed 55 feet in height. With the state density bonus, this could possibly increase a building on 2644 30th Street to 85 feet in height, right across the street from single family homes.
The property owner's attorney told the Planning Commission that this zoning change was necessary so her client could re-rent office space in the building after it was vacated for remodeling.
If the property owner is indeed just trying to remodel the building, why not grant a "variance" for his current nonconforming usage of the property, instead of upzoning?
I urge you NOT to amend the Zoning Ordinance to upzone 2644 30th Street to "Neighborhood Commercial."
Thank you for your consideration.
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025
Item 12-A
May 13, 2025