Santa Monica City Council
July 29, 2025

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the dates set forth next to their signatures below.
“ASSIGNOR”
_________________________________
“ASSIGNEE”
_____________________________

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: Attachment C RAND Ordinance + Second Amendment DA 7-29-25 [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Exhibit “B”, page 3

RECEIPT BY CITY
The attached ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT is received by the City of Santa Monica on this ___ day of ________________, ________.

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
___________________________________
By: _______________________________
Community Development Director

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: Attachment C RAND Ordinance + Second Amendment DA 7-29-25 [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development 1 Planning Commission Meeting: June 18, 2025 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER 25 - 012 (PCS)
(Planning Commission Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

SANTA MONICA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT

THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
(CCSP) FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT FOR RAND CORPORATION AT 1776 MAIN STREET
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65450 et seq. permits each city to adopt a specific plan for the systematic implementation of the general plan for individual areas covered by the general plan; and
WHEREAS, RAND Corporation (“RAND”) and the City of Santa Monica “City”) entered into that certain Development Agreement dated November 23, 2000 and recorded in the Official Records of the County of Los Angeles on February 1, 2001 as Instrument No. 01-0176770 and that certain Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement dated August 14, 2012 and recorded in the Official Records of the County of Los Angeles on February 6, 2013 as Instrument No. 20130191602; and WHEREAS, RAND’s original Development Agreement provided vested rights and permitted uses for the construction of RAND’s headquarters building at 1776 Main Street in Santa Monica, CA ; and
WHEREAS, the RAND headquarters building is a component of the Village Special Use District in the Civic Center Specific Plan ("CCSP"), adopted on June 28, 2005; and
Docusign Envelope ID: 1F3EB626-B68B-4911-800B-5CF903CF2E20

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: Attachment D Resolution of the Planning Commission 25-012 (PCS) (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic 2 WHEREAS, the CCSP has subsequently been amended to be consistent with the Land Use and Circulation Elements (the “LUCE”) of the City’s 2010 General Plan and 2015 Zoning Map and 2017 Downtown Community Plan; and WHEREAS, The Civic Center Specific Plan (p. 61) calls for The Village Special Use District to aid in "transforming the Civic Center from a single-purpose district into a vibrant mixed-use neighborhood”; and
WHEREAS, The Civic Center Specific Plan includes individualized policies for each property/development site within The Village Special Use District; and WHEREAS, The relevant policy (VD-29) for RAND cross-references the Development Agreement rather than providing separate use policies; and WHEREAS, On August 1, 2023, an application to amend the First Amended Development Agreement (23ENT-0137, the “Second Amendment” Application) pursuant to the Development Agreement Statutes and an amendment to the CCSP (23ENT-0142, the “CCSP Amendment” Application), were submitted by RAND Corporation; and
WHEREAS, the primary purposes of the Second Amendment are to (a) broaden the permitted uses allowed within the Project and remove barriers to leasing and/or transfer of the Project Site consistent with City goals and policies to create a vibrant mixed-use environment in the Civic Center district, (b) provide the City with additional project and community benefits, (c) establish that future improvements, changes, and/or modifications to the Project shall be, with limited exceptions, governed by the SMMC in effect at the time the improvements, changes and/or modifications are proposed, and (d) extend the term of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, given the specific references to RAND within the Civic Center Docusign Envelope ID: 1F3EB626-B68B-4911-800B-5CF903CF2E20

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: Attachment D Resolution of the Planning Commission 25-012 (PCS) (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic 3 Specific Plan and to ensure consistency between the Civic Center Specific Plan and the Second Amendment to Development Agreement, the CCSP Amendment is proposed for the purposes of inserting certain language on page 84 of the Civic Center Specific Plan (Attachment “A”).

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct, and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Proposed CCSP Amendment, and respectfully submits its recommendation to the City Council to consider the Proposed CCSP Amendment.

SECTION 4. The Director of the Community Development Department shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney
Adopted this 18th day of June, 2025.

Chair, Planning Commission
Docusign Envelope ID: 1F3EB626-B68B-4911-800B-5CF903CF2E20

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: Attachment D Resolution of the Planning Commission 25-012 (PCS) (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic 4 I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution of Intention was duly and regularly introduced and approved at a meeting of the Planning Commission on the 18th day of June, 2025 by the following vote:

Ayes: Commissioners Chacko, Fresco, Lambert, Landres, Vice Chair Hamilton, Chair Tolkin Noes:

Abstain:

Absent: Commissioner Ries
Attest:

Jing Yeo
Acting Community Development Department
Director
Docusign Envelope ID: 1F3EB626-B68B-4911-800B-5CF903CF2E20

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: Attachment D Resolution of the Planning Commission 25-012 (PCS) (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic 1 EXHIBIT A

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CCSP
Insert on page 84 of the Civic Center Specific Plan:
“In 2025, after years of significantly reduced occupancy in the RAND Headquarters and consistent with LUCE Policy D15.1 to create a diverse mix of uses in the Civic Center area and this Specific Plan's vision for the Village Special Use District to be a vibrant mixed-use neighborhood, the RAND Development Agreement was amended to allow use of the property by a broader range of commercial office, research and development, pedestrianoriented retail/restaurant and other uses. For the purposes of clarity, references to the ‘RAND Headquarters’ site/building throughout the Specific Plan refer to the 1776 Main Street site/building.”
Docusign Envelope ID: 1F3EB626-B68B-4911-800B-5CF903CF2E20

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: Attachment D Resolution of the Planning Commission 25-012 (PCS) (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 23ENT-0137 and 23ENT-0142
Development Agreement Amendment and Civic Center Specific Plan Amendment 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401
APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: The RAND Corporation, a California non-profit corporation A public hearing will be held by the Santa Monica City Council regarding the following request:

A proposed Second Amendment to the Development Agreement for RAND’s existing institutional office building located at 1776 Main Street to update and expand allowable uses within the existing building, remove barriers to leasing and/or transferring the Project Site, and provide additional community benefits.

RAND’s request for a broader range of permitted uses would be applicable only to the Project Site, and includes business and professional office, creative office, banks and financial institutions, business services, limited life sciences research and development, media production support facilities, and retail/personal services/restaurant uses. RAND’s existing building was approved for construction by the City Council in 2000 via a development agreement that only authorized “institutional office” based on the overriding purpose of the original development which was to provide RAND with new replacement office space when it sold land to the City’s Redevelopment Agency where its then-existing building was located (now Tongva Park and the mixed-use Village Project). No new construction or Floor Area is proposed.

A Civic Center Specific Plan Amendment accompanies RAND’s proposed Second Amendment to ensure consistency with the site-specific expanded uses requested for RAND’s Property at 1776 Main Street. The City Council will also consider adopting a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Class 1 Exemption (Existing Facilities)).

DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, JULY 29, 2025 AT 5:30 PM
LOCATION: City Council Chamber, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California

HOW TO COMMENT
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. Members of the public unable to attend a meeting but wishing to comment on an item(s) listed on the agenda may submit written comments prior to the public hearing via email or via mail. Written public comment submitted before 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be available for online viewing. All written comments shall be made part of the public record. Please note the agenda item number in the subject line of your written comments. You may also comment in person at the City Council hearing. Please check the agenda for more detailed instructions on how to comment in person.

Address your comments to: City Clerk
Re: RAND Development Agreement Amendment
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
VIA MAIL: 1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION: If you want more information about this project, please contact Roxanne Tanemori at (310) 458-2201 ext. 8202, or by e-mail at [email protected]. For disability-related accommodations, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Every attempt will be made to provide the requested accommodation. All written materials are available in alternate languages provided the request is received 72 hours prior to the meeting. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines serve City Hall and the Civic Center area. The Expo Line terminus is located at Colorado Avenue and Fourth Street, and is a short walk to City Hall. Public parking is available in front of

12.A.e
Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: Attachment E Public Notice RAND DA & CCSP Amendment (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center 2 City Hall, on Olympic Drive, and in the Civic Center Parking Structure (validation free).

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing.

ESPAÑOL : Esto es una noticia pública para revisar aplicaciones proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si desea más información, favor de llamar a Ana Fernandez en la División de Planificación al número (310) 458-2201 ext. 2431 o envíe un correo electrónico a [email protected].

12.A.e
Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: Attachment E Public Notice RAND DA & CCSP Amendment (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: Attachment F RAND Agreement & First Amended Development Agreement (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development 1 David Yakobson
From: Josh Kurpies
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 4:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Letter from Rep. Lieu to Santa Monica City Council - RE Item 12 A (RAND) Attachments: CTL RAND Santa Monica Letter 7-29-25.pdf
I have provided a hard copy of the letter to each of the Councilmembers. -josh
Josh Kurpies
Council Office & Legislative Affairs Liaison
(310) 458-2201 ext. 5501
Resources for Californians Impacted by Los Angeles Fires From: Rodriquez, Nicolas <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:27 PM
To: Josh Kurpies <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter from Rep. Lieu to Santa Monica City Council

EXTERNAL
Josh,
Just wanted to share this letter of support from Rep. Lieu to the Councilmembers.

NICOLAS RODRIQUEZ
Deputy Chief of Staff
District Director
Congressman Ted W. Lieu (CA-36)
Vice Chair of the Democratic Caucus
Pronouns: He/Him/El
Ofϐice Locations:

Los Angeles
1645 Corinth Ave., Suite 101
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: 323.651.1040
Subscribe to periodic e-mail updates from Rep. Ted Lieu here.

Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 2 Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 990
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 991
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 3 David Yakobson
From: Wendelin Slusser <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:55 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete
Cc: councilmtgitems; Armine Chaparyan; Roxanne Tanemori Subject: Yes on RAND’s Proposal

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon, Commissioners,
My name is Dr. Wendelin Slusser. I'm a Professor and Pediatrician and have lived and worked in Santa Monica for 20 years.

I practiced and taught pediatric residents at the Venice Family Clinic Simms-Mann Pico site. One story that continues to inspire me is our collaboration revitalizing Virginia Avenue Park. At the time, it was considered unsafe—even in broad daylight. But through dedicated community collaboration, that space was transformed.

Today, it’s a vibrant hub of health and connection—where families shop the farmers’ market, youth attend after school classes, and neighbors gather outdoors and there is even a library there now! That change wasn’t just physical—it was social and emotional. It became a public health intervention that continues to foster well-being across generations.

And this is where Santa Monica shines. The city has long been a leader in building a flourishing community. Years ago, it helped shape a well-being index, setting the tone nationally for how cities can prioritize health, equity, and quality of life.

Supporting RAND’s proposal builds on that legacy.

RAND is seeking flexibility to adapt its underused building at 1776 Main Street. This isn’t just about space—it’s about revitalization. Increased foot traffic means safer streets, stronger local businesses, and renewed civic vibrancy.

As a public health professional, I see the alignment clearly. A fully activated building supports mental and physical health, promotes economic equity, and strengthens community ties.

RAND has shown consistent dedication to the city—from direct investments in education and nonprofits to opening its doors to community groups.

Virginia Park taught me that the right partnerships can transform dead space into community lifelines. RAND is offering that same partnership today. This amendment isn’t just about updating zoning—it’s about choosing vitality over vacancy, connection over isolation. Let’s give 1776 Main Street the chance to become Santa Monica’s next success story.

Thank you.

Wendelin Slusser, MD, MS, FAAP
Listen to our
UCLA LiveWell podcasts
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 4 Watch 2025: Food as Medicine panel: Aspen Ideas Institute Health Wendelin Slusser’s UCLA TedX talk
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 5 David Yakobson
From: Jeff Jarow <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 1:39 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; Armine Chaparyan; Roxanne Tanemori Subject: RAND DA AGREEMENT - 12A

EXTERNAL
July 28, 2025
Item 12.A
City Council Members:

I’m writing in support of the adoption of a second amendment to the 2000 RAND Corporation Development Agreement.

When the first DA was approved, RAND believed that its Santa Monica oƯice building would be its permanent home. At that time, they had no way of predicting how a pandemic would innovate remote work platforms, boost users dramatically, and how some staƯ would be shifted to east coast oƯices.

Although the DA was well-intentioned in 25 years ago, the restrictions in the DA limited RAND’s ability to lease or sell the building. RAND is being forced to operate a large building at only about 17% of full occupancy. Right now, RAND averages less than 250 employees in a building designed for over 1,000 employees. The entire 5th floor is closed down. RAND needs the freedom to right-size its facility.

Financial proceeds from the sale or partial leasing of the Santa Monica oƯice building would directly fund RAND’s independent research, enabling deeper research that helps shape policy issues that benefit local governments, educational institutions, community organizations, and nonprofits.

Also, the amendment would produce an immediate windfall to City’s budget. In exchange for receiving relief from the 2000 DA restrictions, RAND has will contribute $5.5 million to the City, including $3.5 million up front upon City Council approval of the DA Amendment.

The ongoing fiscal benefits will be significant. The estimated fiscal and economic benefits from the for-occupancy of the property include $3.3 million annually in City tax revenue and $3.6 million annually in county and state tax revenue. It’s estimated that amending the DA to allow RAND to sell their building could result in $20 – $25 million in Measure GS transfer taxes upon the building’s sale. These taxes could total ~$125M for Santa Monica by the end of the DA term.

RAND has played a critical role in our city since 1948. It has helped brand the City of Santa Monica, and it’s been a good partner to the City, and a great corporate citizen. It’s time to unshackle RAND and allow flexibility. I urge you to adopt the amendment.

JeƯ Jarow
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Julie Baczewski <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:22 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; Armine Chaparyan; Roxanne Tanemori Subject: RAND
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
July 28, 2025
Dear City Council Members,
We are writing to express our strong support for the RAND Corporation’s request to amend the 2000 Development Agreement for its existing facility.

As Growing Place leadership, we are proud to serve children from three months to six years old. One of our core goals is to ensure that at least 15% of our student population consists of low-income Santa Monica residents, providing them with access to highquality early childhood education.

This amendment is especially important to us because RAND has been a steadfast supporter of the Lab School. Each year, RAND contributes approximately $40,000 to our tuition assistance fund, a commitment they have offered to extend if the development agreement is amended. This funding is vital for supporting the families who participate in our program.

Additionally, RAND has generously allowed our staff to park in their parking lot, saving us over $60,000 annually. These savings are redirected entirely toward tuition assistance, enabling us to support 15% of our families.

RAND has consistently demonstrated its commitment to being a positive community partner for both the Growing Place and the Santa Monica Early Childhood Lab School.

We are grateful for RAND’s hands-on involvement in shaping the futures of Santa Monica’s children and we respectfully urge you to vote yes on this important amendment.

Sincerely,
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 2 Julie Baczewski
Interim Executive Director | Growing Place
Cris Lozon, EdD
Executive Director | Growing Place
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. http://www.growingplace.org Julie Baczewski
Interim Executive Director | Growing Place
1802 4th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
310-434-3811
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

For the privacy and protection of our families, this email is intended for the sole use of the original recipient(s). Images or documents contained within belong to Growing Place. If you are not the intended recipient, we request that you please notify us, by reply email, and destroy all copies of the message and any attachments. Thank you for your cooperation.

Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 4 Mitchell Kois
From: Michael Rich <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2025 9:08 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; [email protected]; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; Armine Chaparyan; Roxanne Tanemori Subject: RAND Development Agreement Amendment- Support
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
I am writing to urge approval of the proposed Amendment to Santa Monica’s Development Agreement with the RAND Corporation. As you know, the Planning Commission gave this amendment their unanimous support and I urge the Santa Monica City Council to do the same.

As a former leader of RAND, I led the negotiations on the original Agreement on behalf of RAND, working closely with Deputy City Manager Gordon Anderson. It was important then for RAND to have some flexibility when it came to owning and operating its new headquarters building and the City recognized that need. A quarter of a century has now passed and there is a pressing need for even more flexibility given the dramatic changes in societal patterns and technology that have facilitated remote work. The proposed Amendment will benefit RAND by enabling it to more effectively adapt to these changes and realize the full value of its award-winning headquarters for its research and graduate-school operations.

I also support the proposed Amendment as a 43-year resident of Santa Monica. Additional flexibility will enable RAND to pursue arrangements that would repopulate the Civic Center area, in line with the original vision of the Civic Center Specific Plan for a vibrant and diverse community that supports local businesses and enriches the City’s civic infrastructure. Santa Monica has often been a national leader when it comes to addressing new challenges; taking this step to help revitalize the Civic Center will be another example.

Thank you for taking up the proposed Amendment and being open to hearing the views of the residents you represent.

Sincerely,
Michael Rich
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 997 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 5 Mitchell Kois
From: Judy Abdo <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 2:06 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; Armine Chaparyan; Roxanne Tanemori Subject: Re RAND item 12.A.... I support
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
City Councilmembers,
I am writing to support RAND Corporation's request for an amendment to the 2000 Development Agreement for RAND’s existing facility.

As a former Santa Monica City Council member and Mayor, I've appreciated RAND's history in Santa Monica, and its reputation as a top-tier research facility and dependable community member. Over several decades, I've participated in many meetings at the building and have been impressed by RAND’s wonderful research and education environment, but 21 years after its opening, there is simply too much office and meeting space to foster the kind of collaborative work that "think tanks" thrive on. The proposed amendment would release RAND from its very restrictive DA and allow them to lease out part of the space or sell the building and put down roots elsewhere. Either of those options would be more sustainable than the way it is now configured, and would help reactivate the area.

I would also like to express my appreciation for RAND's involvement in early childhood education in our community. As a former teacher and current member of the Early Childhood Task Force, I value RAND’s hands-on effort to affect the futures of Santa Monica’s children.

Please vote yes on this important amendment.

Thank you.

Judy Abdo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 6 Mitchell Kois
From: Bryan Gabbard <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 10:34 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems; Armine Chaparyan; Roxanne Tanemori Cc: Bryan Gabbard; Betty Ashford
Subject: Yes on RAND’s Proposal, Agenda Item 12.A " or "RAND DA Amendment- Support, Agenda Item 12.A
Attachments: RAND DA Amendment- Support - Gabbard (7.22.2025).pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members.

Please find attached my letter of strong support for proposed Rand DA Amendment initiative, Item 12A on the docket for your meeting on Tuesday, July 29th.

I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Regards,
Bryan
C. Bryan Gabbard, Ph.D.

Former President and CEO
NeuroGen Technologies, Inc.

Malibu/ Santa Monica California
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 23805 Stuart Ranch Road ● Suite 135 ● Malibu, CA 90265 ● 818-519-3438 (mobile) neurogentech.com
Neuroscience, bio-behavioral and social sciences solutions NeuroGen Technologies, Inc. NeuroGen Technologies, Inc.

July 22, 2025
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to recommend that the Santa Monica City Council approve RAND’s recent request to modify the 2000 Development Agreement (DA) between the RAND Corporation and the City of Santa Monica, as proposed. The proposed DA modification shows no adverse impacts for either party and will significantly strengthen the City's general welfare. As you know, the Planning Commission gave this amendment their unanimous support.

My affiliation with both parties has been long and valued…over 50 years. I have supported RAND as an employee (multiple times), a Principal Investigator in RAND research projects, a Center Director, and a division leader. I continue to support them philanthropically and as an Adjunct Senior Scholar.

Santa Monica has been a home to many of the important activities of my adult life, culturally and educationally. All my children attended Santa Monica schools, including Santa Monica High School and Santa Monica College. It has provided a business environment that facilitated my helping to start five companies in the national security, technology development and behavioral neurosciences sectors.

Throughout this period, I have seen first-hand the value that each party adds to the other. I contributed to the 2000 DA, which has greatly benefited Santa Monica and RAND, as expected.

RAND fully met all the terms of this agreement. This proposed amendment will continue that tradition and sustain a valuable partnership between RAND and the City. The amended DA will bring significant new revenues into Santa Monica over the term of the agreement ($100M- $150M), including an immediate cash payment of $3.5M. It will sustain an Early Childhood Laboratory through a $40K per year endowment to support the underserved populations of Santa Monica. Importantly, it will also facilitate continued resilience, growth, and depth of RAND’s core research mission by providing resources enabling a deeper exploration of policy issues, including those of consequence to Santa Monica such as homelessness, health care, law enforcement and entertainment and media futures.

Approval will add value to RAND by relieving it of the burden of wasted space and infrastructure that could be of immediate benefit to Santa Monica. The improved land use in Santa Monica will nurture business growth in multiple professional sectors by drawing new and existing companies and personnel into Santa Monica to support schools, malls, and cultural and civic center activities.

Thank you for considering this important initiative.

Sincerely,
C. Bryan Gabbard, Ph.D.

Former President and CEO
NeuroGen Technologies, Inc.

Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 7 Mitchell Kois
From: Eric Peltz <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 5:55 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; Armine Chaparyan; Roxanne Tanemori Subject: RAND DA and CCSP Amendment Requests, 7/29 Meeting Agenda Item 12.A Attachments: RAND Letter to SM City Council 07242025.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
Attached please find our letter explaining our requested amendments and why we believe these would be beneficial for both the City of Santa Monica and RAND. We look forward to the hearing to present our case in more depth and to answer your questions.

Thank you for your consideration of our applications,
Eric
Eric Peltz
SVP, Finance & Operations
RAND | www.rand.org
(310) 393-0411 x7609
[email protected]
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is sensitive, proprietary, and/or privileged. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning ERIC PELTZ 1776 MAIN STREET TEL 310.393.0411 X 7609
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT P.O. BOX 2138 FAX 310.393.4818
FINANCE AND OPERATIONS SANTA MONICA, CA [email protected]
90407-2138
OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.

RESEARCH AREAS
Children, Families,
and Communities
Cyber and Data Sciences
Education and Literacy
Energy and Environment
Health, Health Care,
and Aging
Homeland Security
and Public Safety
Infrastructure and
Transportation
International Affairs
Law and Business
National Security
and Terrorism
Science and Technology
Social Equity
Workers and the Workplace

OFFICES
Santa Monica, CA
Washington, DC
Pittsburgh, PA
Boston, MA
Cambridge, UK
Brussels, BE
Rotterdam, NL
Canberra, AU
www.rand.org
July 24, 2025

VIA EMAIL
Santa Monica City Council

Re: Applications to Facilitate Full Occupancy and Beneficial Activation of RAND’s Underutilized Building
Address: 1776 Main Street
Agenda Item 12A
Dear Councilmembers:

On behalf of The RAND Corporation ("RAND"), I ask the City Council to approve our proposed amendments to RAND’s Development Agreement and the Civic Center Specific Plan as recommended by City Staff and the Planning Commission.

RAND looks forward to presenting this proposal to broaden the categories of uses permitted within RAND’s existing office building at 1776 Main Street (the “Existing Building”) consistent with City goals and policies to cultivate a vibrant blend of uses in the Civic Center district. Our proposal also includes additional community benefits and will produce positive fiscal and economic impacts. We are confident that this outcome will be a “win-win” for RAND and the City. We are not aware of any opposition.

About RAND
RAND is a non-profit organization dedicated to improving communities worldwide by making them safer, healthier, and more prosperous. We tackle complex public policy challenges through rigorous research and analysis, driven by facts, evidence, and a steadfast commitment to nonpartisanship. As a mission-driven organization, we focus on directing as much of our resources as possible toward independent research on critical policy issues that governments are unable or unwilling to fund. Responsible financial stewardship is central to our mission, ensuring our work delivers meaningful impact where it is needed most.

Why and When
As explained in the Staff Report, RAND’s Development Agreement was approved in 2000 and essentially restricts occupancy of the Existing Building to RAND (or a very narrow field of similar non-profit research organizations) and prevents the sale or leasing of the Existing Building without a Development Agreement amendment. These limiting terms reflect that, in 2000, RAND’s main focus was securing vested rights to construct and occupy the building. RAND assumed it would remain in this building for its entire useful life. In line with these expectations, the Development Agreement does not expire until 2055.

Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning RAND Letter to Santa Monica City Council
July 24, 2025

OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.

Now, almost 25 years later, and following major changes in technology and sponsor needs, both how and where RAND employees work have changed significantly. RAND’s daily utilization of our Existing Building averages less than 20% of its capacity. This severe underutilization has remained relatively stable in post-pandemic years. Indeed, even in the years leading up to the pandemic, RAND had already seen the building’s daily utilization drop to less than 50% due to work-from-home flexibility and declining staffing in Santa Monica due to business conditions that led us to shift staffing to other locations.

A nearly vacant office building does no one any good. It harms the vitality of the surrounding area and makes for a poor work environment. Given the severe and ongoing underutilization of our Existing Building, we filed applications in August 2023 to reasonably broaden the categories of uses to be permitted within the building. We quickly came to a mutual agreement with City Staff on the range of commercial uses that should be permitted within the Existing Building; however, the community benefit negotiations associated with amending the DA were lengthy. All stakeholders would now benefit from rapid final approval of these changes given the proposed amendment’s significant benefits to the City from higher occupancy of the Existing Building, the associated activation of the area, and the large financial benefits that would come with a change of user. As stated in the Staff Report, no new floor area or construction is proposed.

What and How
RAND is seeking to amend the Development Agreement to allow our Existing Building to be sold or leased to another user or users (“Second Amendment”). To enable this, there needs to be a reasonable range of uses permitted within the Existing Building. In the Second Amendment, we propose to allow uses that would use the Existing Building much like RAND does—just by different types of organizations—such as Business and Professional offices, Creative offices; Media Production, Support Facility only; life-science Research and Development (but not production, assembly or manufacturing); and the possibility of ground floor uses such as restaurants or retail.

Once that range of uses is allowed, RAND would be able to freely market the property for sale or lease so that RAND can right-size its office space, leading to a better work environment, additional resources for independent research, and reduced operating costs. These changes would also maximize the value of the building for the community. A true win-win outcome.

Community, Fiscal & Economic Benefits
As part of the negotiated community and public benefits package, RAND has agreed to contribute $5,500,000 to the City, with $3,500,000 being paid “up front” (at ordinance effective date) rather than upon exercise of the rights approved by the amendment (e.g. occupancy by a new user or sale of the building). In addition, RAND has agreed to continue and extend our annual $40,000 contribution to the Santa Monica Early Childhood Lab School to offset tuition costs for low-income Santa Monica resident families. RAND has further agreed to provide the City with a right of first offer to lease unused parking in the building’s underground garage.

Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning RAND Letter to Santa Monica City Council
July 24, 2025

OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.

Importantly, increased occupancy of the Existing Building will generate significant increases in local business commerce and positive community activation in the surrounding area. In addition to those benefits, third party financial consultant RCLCO estimates that for-profit occupancy of the Existing Building would generate approximately $3,300,000 per year in additional City tax revenue and $3,600,000 per year in additional County and State tax revenue.

Moreover, sale of the property is estimated to result in a one-time transfer tax of $20,000,000- $25,000,000 for public schools and affordable housing per Measure GS.

Conclusion
In sum, RAND is proposing to amend its Development Agreement and the Civic Center Specific Plan to broaden the allowable uses within our Existing Building and provide additional community benefits. These amendments are consistent with the City's General Plan, including its Land Use and Circulation Element, and will facilitate future higher occupancy of the Existing Building and activation of the surrounding area. Consistent with City Staff’s recommendation, we respectfully request your approval of the proposed amendments to the Development Agreement and Civic Center Specific Plan.

Sincerely,
Eric Peltz
Senior Vice President
Finance and Operations
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 8 Mitchell Kois
From: Leonard Schaeffer <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2025 5:24 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; Armine Chaparyan; Roxanne Tanemori Subject: Yes on RAND’s Proposal, Agenda Item 12.A
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,

I am writing to express my strong support for RAND's proposal to amend its Development Agreement. As a member of RAND’s board of trustees, a philanthropic supporter of the organization, and a former city resident still living in the area and with a business located in Santa Monica, I believe that this amendment is vital for both RAND and our community.

Since its founding in 1948, RAND has been a pillar of policy research that generates impactful insights for multiple stakeholders, including local governments, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations. However, the current development agreement limits RAND's ability to adapt its Santa Monica office space to the evolving needs of the organization. This restriction results in a building operating at only around 17% of its capacity, which is detrimental not only to RAND but also to the City of Santa Monica, which misses out on significant fiscal and economic benefits from a more activated building.

The proposed changes to the agreement would unlock valuable resources that can be redirected to RAND's independent research efforts. The financial proceeds from the potential sale or leasing of portions of the Santa Monica office building would enhance RAND's capabilities to explore pressing policy issues that significantly affect public welfare. This adaptive shift would allow RAND to operate more effectively and provide crucial funding for high-quality research that local entities often lack the budget to commission.

When the Development Agreement was approved in 2000, RAND anticipated that its Santa Monica office would remain its “forever home.” Back then, there was no foresight into the dramatic changes in work environments that we now experience, particularly the increasing prevalence of remote work and a shift in staffing to our East Coast offices. As a result, the restrictions from 2000, while well intentioned, are preventing RAND from maximizing its contributions to our community.

As you know, the Planning Commission gave this amendment their unanimous support. I urge the Santa Monica City Council to view this amendment not just as a change in regulations, but as an opportunity to foster more robust public policy research and activate a valuable community resource, ultimately benefiting all of Santa Monica.

Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 9 Thank you for considering my support for this important proposal.

Sincerely,

Leonard D. Schaeffer
Board of Trustees Member, RAND Corporation
Founding Chairman & CEO, WellPoint (now Elevance)
Judge Robert Maclay Widney Chair and Professor, USC

Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 10 Mitchell Kois
From: Frank J Gruber <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2025 3:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 12-A, July 29 City Council Meeting Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
I am writing regarding Agenda Item 12-A to give my support to the amendments RAND has proposed to the Development Agreement (DA) for their office building in the Civic Center.

By way of background, I have been involved with, or at least I have been paying attention to, developments at the Civic Center, including the RAND site, since 1993, when the City began the planning and design process that resulted in the Civic Center Specific Plan (CCSP). As an interested resident I actively participated in the 1993 process, and as a columnist for the Lookout I observed the amendment process that occurred after the City purchased most of RAND’s land. Then later on I was a member of the ill-fated task force charged with coming up with a plan to save the Civic Auditorium.

The CCSP was approved by City Council on a 7-0 vote. The approval, however, was then challenged by a signaturegathering campaign that put the CCSP on the June 1994 ballot. The argument against the CCSP was largely that it would was too much development that would create too much traffic. I was the Treasurer of the pro-CCSP campaign. The voters approved the plan by a margin of 60-40 percent.

As mentioned in the Item 12-A staff report, one of the purposes of the CCSP was to “create a diverse mix of uses and activities in the Civic Center, including government uses, parks and open space, affordable, workforce and market-rate housing, retail, office and cultural uses,” and a "vibrant mixed-use district.” Unfortunately this didn’t happen. The area is not “vibrant.” Why? Much less development occurred at the Civic Center than was contemplated in the original CCSP. Under the original version, approved by 60% of voters, RAND was entitled to develop approximately 425,000 more square feet than it ultimately built. This diminution of development was caused both by RAND not using all of its entitlements for its main office and other entitled development it had under the CCSP, and because the City ultimately removed 250,000 square feet of permitted development after it acquired most of the land from RAND. Under the original plan, this development, 250,000 square feet of either office or housing, was to be located where Tongva Park is now, which would have intensified the area across the freeway from downtown and facing City Hall. Instead of a park along the freeway, a park would have been located at the southeast corner (4th and Pico) of the Civic Center, where it could better serve both the Civic Center and Ocean Park.

I bring up this history because it is a sad fact that the Civic Center lacks the intensity of use that was originally planned for and which the voters overwhelmingly approved. The purpose of the plan, as mentioned above, was to turn the Civic Center area in a vibrant district surrounding our most important public buildings. The current situation is made even worse because, as discussed in the staff report, RAND is now using only a fraction of its main office. Hopefully this can be remedied in part by changing the uses of the RAND office building.

For these reasons, as well as the benefits RAND has agreed to, I urge you to approve the recommended amendments to the Development Agreement.

Thank you.

Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 11 Frank Gruber
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 3 Mitchell Kois
From: Judy Kruger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:42 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; Armine Chaparyan; Roxanne Tanemori; Paula Larmore; Jeremy Rawitch Subject: Council Mtg Agenda Item 12.A - RAND
Attachments: Chamber Ltr to City Council re RAND.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Good Morning Mayor and Councilmembers:

Please see attached letter from the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce in support of Agenda Items 12.A to be heard at City Council on July 29, 2025.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Best Regards,
Judy
Judy Kruger
CEO & President
213-703-1340
[email protected]
smchamber.com
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning July 28, 2025
Santa Monica City Council
City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: RAND’s Update to Development Agreement – Support
Dear Mayor Negrete and Members of the Council:

On behalf of the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce, we are writing to express our support for RAND Corporation’s proposed amendment to its Development Agreement with the City of Santa Monica.

This proposal offers clear and substantial benefits to our community. RAND has also committed to providing $5.5 million in direct community benefit payments and continuing its annual support for early childhood education through a $40,000 contribution to the Santa Monica Early Childhood Lab School. If RAND is able to sell its building, it will generate an estimated $3.3 million annually in new tax revenue for the City, as well as a one-time transfer tax payment of $20 to $25 million that will directly support public schools and affordable housing under Measure GS.

Further, increased activation of the building will boost local business activity and enhance the vitality of the surrounding area, bringing renewed energy to our downtown.

Importantly, these benefits are achieved without any expansion of the building’s footprint or impact on neighborhood scale.

We believe this amendment reflects a responsible and forward-thinking approach that aligns with the City’s economic development goals while supporting a longtime institutional partner. We respectfully urge the Council to approve this proposal.

Sincerely,
Judy Kruger
President & CEO
Board Executives
Chair
Paula Larmore
Harding, Larmore,
Kutcher & Kozal LLP
Past Chair
Charlie LopezQuintana
ETC Hotels
Treasurer
Addie VanGessel
Tavern on Main
Vice-Chair
Dustin Peterson
Fairmont Miramar
Hotel & Bungalows
Vice-Chair
Jeremy Rawitch
RAND
Vice-Chair
Vee Gomez
Beach Yoga SoCal
Vice-Chair
Melissa Cohen
Boston Properties
Vice-Chair
Elias Garcia
Kaiser Permanente
Directors
Eddie Guerboian
Jeweler
Neil Carrey
Attorney
Elnie Vannatim
Cedars-Sinai
Gina Gribow
EKA Public Affairs
Directors
Jessica Rincon
Sanbourne
Lilit Avagyan
US Bank
Jenn Verma
Lionsgate
Ben Marcus
UP Partners
Yvette Sims
Hair by Yvette
Cheree
Michael Altchule
UCLA Health
Shanna Johnson
Regent
Shari Davis
Santa Monica
College
Wesly Hernandez
SNAP Inc.

Berta Negari
XYZ Rent
Garrett Childers
SM Fire 1109
Doreen Lahav
Prism Places
Kara Block
DHF Architects
Carlos Madrid

SMPD POA
Jared Amerson
Providence Saint
John’s
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:50 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 12A -- RAND HQ Item - SM Forward Support Letter

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
Santa Monica Forward is working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica. We stand for fact-based, inclusive and civil public discourse that respects the many viewpoints of our residents, workers, businesses, representative neighborhood and community organizations, and other
stakeholders.

We are writing to express support for RAND’s proposed
amendment to its Development Agreement. We believe that a revised DA represents a logical and future-focused step that benefits both RAND and the Santa Monica community as a whole.

Since its founding in Santa Monica, RAND has conducted rigorous, nonpartisan research to tackle many of the world’s most urgent challenges, from healthcare and education to environmental sustainability, water and climate resilience and food security. Santa Monica has benefited from the prestige and impact of this organization. It is time to release it from the old DA.

Why This Amendment Matters
The original DA was adopted by the City Council 25 years ago. In many ways, it prevented flexibility in the use of its building. A revision would give RAND the ability to release important resources toward its core mission. Unfortunately, the restrictions imposed by Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 2 the 2000 DA are now holding RAND back, by permitting the organization the ability to lease portions of its underutilized Santa Monica office building, or, as we would urge City Council to consider, sell the building outright. A higher occupancy building would reinvigorate the surrounding area, and enhance
neighborhood vibrancy and safety, achieved without new
construction. In addition, our community would be well served if the historic and continuously operated research facility found a new home in the City.

The revised amendment’s impacts
Under the proposed DA amendment, RAND would gain the
flexibility to right-size its office footprint, lower its operating costs, and reinvest in its research mission. The city, in turn, would gain substantial benefits:

Higher occupancy will breathe new life into the surrounding area, and activating the building will enhance neighborhood vibrancy and safety, all without adding new construction or increasing building size.
$5.5 million in community benefit contributions, which includes $3.5 million paid up front.

New tax revenue, with an estimated $3.3 million per year for the City and $3.6 million per year for the County and State.

A one-time transfer tax of $20–$25 million if the building is sold, funding that will support public schools and affordable housing via Measure GS.

Continued annual funding ($40,000 per year) to support lowincome Santa Monica families at the Early Childhood Lab School.

Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 3 New economic activity from more tenants in the building, increasing foot traffic and support for local businesses.

Additional parking capacity, with the City receiving the right of first offer to lease unused spaces in RAND’s underground garage.

On Tuesday night, you have an opportunity to amend the 2000 DA and the Civic Center Specific Plan, giving the City an opportunity to bring its policies into alignment with current economic and workplace realities, while also unlocking long-term benefits for the people of Santa Monica.

We ask you to support RAND’s proposal and ensure that this important civic anchor continues to thrive and serve our shared goals for the decades that lie ahead.

Sincerely,
Brad Ewing and Carl Hansen
Co-chairs Santa
--
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.

SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1013 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Cc: Armine Chaparyan; Roxanne Tanemori; Oliver Chi; [email protected] Subject: Support Agenda item 12A - Rand Corporation DA Second Update Attachments: 2025-07 Support Agenda Item 12A SaMoSSA RAND DA Update.pdf

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

Please find attached our letter supporting the proposed second amendment to the RAND Corporation’s 2000 DA.

Cynthia Rose & Cris Guitierrez
Co-Chairs
Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance
--
Cynthia Rose
Co-Chair
Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance
SaMoSafeStreets.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.

Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1014 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning

July 29, 2028
RE: Support Agenda item 12A - Rand Corporation DA Second Update Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and Santa Monica City Council Members:

The Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance is writing to express our support for the proposed second amendment to the RAND Corporation’s 2000 DA, which will enable RAND to achieve a more sustainable workplace by downsizing its operation in Santa Monica and lease unused space in the building, or find a new and secure home, preferably in Santa Monica.

The original DA is outmoded. Changes in the way Americans work and the distribution of RAND Corporation facilities in the United States have contributed to a substantially smaller local workforce, which is spread out within its current building. This presents a less than optimal working environment.

Think tanks like RAND accomplish more when researchers, educators, visitors and staff members are all able to interact informally and exchange ideas.

RAND is an important community partner and, as one of the world's top research organizations, brings tremendous value to Santa Monica as a city that embraces critical thought and expertise. We encourage the Council to explore all opportunities and possibilities that support keeping Rand in Santa Monica in a new building/location.

In the past, RAND was associated with defense and diplomacy research. But in recent decades, its scope has broadened dramatically, exploring other areas critical to our survival, including deep dives on climate change, transportation, food production and food security, and housing policy. We believe their local facility should be allowed to shift to a more sustainable and efficient configuration to continue this work at a high level.

We urge you to adopt Staff’s recommendation of the second amendment to the RAND DA, and move this important matter to the first reading and adoption of the amendment.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance SaMoSafeStreets.org
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Agreement, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning July 29, 2025
Image: Diane Baldwin
RAND’s Santa Monica Office Building:

Creating a Win-Win for RAND and Santa Monica
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 1016 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development • Our mission is to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis
• Our work helps make people safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous
• Started in 1946 as a project within Douglas Aircraft Company in Santa Monica
• Became an independent non-profit in 1948
2 ABOUT RAND
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 1017 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development RAND’s building opened in 2004
• Financed through bonds taken out by RAND (no City funding) • ~330K interior RSF plus large courtyards (372K RSF total) • 5 floors, plus 3 subterranean levels with 799 parking spaces • Gold LEED certified and extensive use of recycled water 3 Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development 444
Development Agreement for Existing Building
The DA, approved almost 25 years ago in 2000,
includes the following restrictive terms • Limits use of building to “Institutional office” use • DA amendment needed to allow for – Any transfer/sale – To lease more than 15,000 sf to third parties The DA runs through 2055
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 1019 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Daily Presence
People
Capacity
(Typical Density)
5 Pandemic
Return to “normal” operations
Staff Assigned to
Santa Monica
After 20 years, occupancy of RAND’s Santa Monica
Headquarters has changed dramatically
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 1020 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development RAND is seeking to unlock resources to further its mission • RAND now needs much less space in the Santa Monica area • Technology changes and the pandemic led to an increase in remote work • In-person interaction with government sponsors has become more important • RAND has an opportunity to further our mission
• Sell building or lease a portion of the building
• If sell, move to a much smaller building in the area
• Invest proceeds to fund independent research over time 666
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 1021 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Proposed amendments to the Development Agreement
RAND and City Staff have agreed on the following proposed amendments:
• Allow a reasonable range of potential commercial uses for the existing building (DA and CCSP Amendment)
– Business/professional or creative office uses
– Research and development for life sciences
– Ground floor pedestrian-oriented retail/restaurants
• $5,500,000 in community-benefit payments to the City of Santa Monica • Right of first offer for the City to lease unused parking • $40,000 annual contribution to the Santa Monica early Childhood Lab School will continue and be extended
• 4.6% of sale price if a buyer is exempt from the Measure GS transfer tax • Extend DA term by 10 years to 2065
77 Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 1022 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development LUCE Implementation
• “Create a diverse mix of uses and activities in the Civic Center, including government uses, parks and open space, affordable, workforce and market-rate housing, retail, office and cultural uses.” (Policy D15.1.)
• “Create an economic base that satisfies the commercial service needs to the City’s residents while providing employment opportunities and a strong fiscal infrastructure for the City.” (Goal E1.)
• “Make land use decisions that respond to changing market conditions and meet the needs to City residents and visitors.” (Policy E1.1.)
• “Judiciously manage the growth of existing and new uses that can generate the greatest potential for fiscal well-being and ensure financial support for a high level of public services.” (Policy E1.2.)
• “Support the continued viability of existing office uses and local-serving offices as a means of supporting high-quality public services.” (Goal E9.) 88 Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 1023 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Civic Center Specific Plan Consistency
• CCSP calls for “The Village Special Use District” to aid in "transforming the Civic Center from a single-purpose district into a vibrant mixed-use neighborhood.” • CCSP Policy VD-29
• “The RAND Headquarters site shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Agreement between the City of Santa Monica and the RAND Corporation.” • RAND proposes a clarifying amendment to the CCSP to
• Acknowledge that the RAND DA is being amended consistent with LUCE and CCSP policies for the Civic Center area to be a vibrant mixed-use neighborhood with a diverse mix of uses • Clarify that existing references in the CCSP to the "RAND Headquarters" site/building refer to the 1776 Main Street site/building
99 Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 1024 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Proposal would benefit RAND & Santa Monica
RAND
• Gain funding for independent research to further our mission • Reduce operating costs, allowing more research for sponsors • Right-sized office space, enabling a better work environment Santa Monica
• $5.5 Million + $40K annual Community Benefit payments per the DA Amendment • Substantial fiscal and economic benefits from for-profit occupancy, estimated as:
• $3.3M / year in taxes for the City, in addition to $3.6M / year for the county and state • $20M - $25M transfer tax
• ~$130M for Santa Monica through the end of the current DA term • Activation of the area, improve its vibrancy
10 Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 1025 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Requested Action

1. Adopt the Class 1 CEQA exemption finding.

2. Adopt the resolution approving the Civic Center
Specific Plan Amendment.

3. Adopt the Second Amendment to RAND’s Development
Agreement.
11 Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 1026 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Image: Diane Baldwin
Questions?
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 1027 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Backups
13 Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 1028 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development Next Steps

1. City determination on DA amendment and CCSP
amendment • June 18th - Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval
• July 29th City Council decision hearing

2. Coastal Commission process

3. Market the Property

4. Find new location in Santa Monica or the Westside

5. Build out new facility and move
14 Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 1029 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development 15 Estimated Tax Benefits/Year (FY25$) from Sale & Typical Use Category Annual Change One-Time Benefit
Property Tax - SM $570,500
Property Tax VLF Tax $115,000
Parking Facilities Tax $204,500
Utility Users Tax $35,900
Transient Occupancy Tax ($64,000)
Sales Tax $129,400
Business License / Other Revenues $746,000
Other City Orgs (e.g., SMMUSD Property Tax) $1,611,600
Total $3,348,900
County and State Tax Benefits $3,555,000
One-Time 5.6% Transfer Tax ~$23,000,000
Assumes buyer is a for-profit firm
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 1030 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development 16 Total Estimated Tax Benefits through DA Term (FY25$) Category Total Net/Gain Through DA Term (2055)
Property Tax - SM $17,115,000
Property Tax VLF Tax $3,450,000
Parking Facilities Tax $6,135,000
Utility Users Tax $1,077,000
Transient Occupancy Tax ($1,920,000)
Sales Tax $3,882,000
Business License / Other Revenues $22,380,000
Other City Orgs (e.g., SMMUSD Property Tax) $48,348,000 Total from Annual Taxes $100,467,000
One-Time Transfer Tax ~$23,000,000
Overall Total Tax Benefit to City ~$123,500,000
County and State Benefits $106,650,000
Assumes buyer is a for-profit firm
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 1031 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development 17 In 2000, RAND sold 11.3 acres to the Santa Monica
Redevelopment Agency, retaining 3.7 acres
Owned by RAND and sold to city Retained by RAND Not owned by RAND • Market value
• RAND paid for the environmental
remediation of the 11.3 acres
• Proceeds put in an investment fund
for independent research
• Replaced outdated, damaged
building with one about the same
square footage but more compact
• Financed construction
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 1032 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development 18 The City
redeveloped
the 11.3 acres • Tongva Park • Mixed-use Village project including 160 affordable
apartments
• Olympic Drive extended
between Main and
Ocean for access
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 1033 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development RAND in Santa Monica
• Non-profit
– Property tax exemption
– Negligible business license tax
– Limited other fees/taxes
• Opened Main Street building in 1953
– 15 acres
– 2 floor main building
– 5-floor small ‘Z’ section
– Surface parking
– By the 1990s, needed major renovation or a new building Image: Cavan Images via Getty Images
19 Item 12-A
July 29, 2025
Item 12-A
July 29, 2025

12.A.h
Packet Pg. 1034 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (7106 : Amendments to RAND Development City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 29, 2025
Agenda Item: 12.B
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Arminé Chaparyan, Director, Administration
Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Extending and Amending Regulations Established by Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816 (CCS) to Permit the Establishment of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as Part of Projects Utilizing Senate Bill (SB) 1123 on Vacant Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential, Ensure Project Feasibility of SB 1123 Projects by Providing for Certain Relaxed Development Standards, and Expand the Establishment of ADUs to All Projects Utilizing Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41 Which Includes Parcels Within Multiple-Unit Zoning District as Permitted Pursuant to SB 684
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Statutory Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4.5(b) and a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

2. Introduce and Adopt Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Extending and Amending the Regulations Established by Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816 (CCS) to Permit the Establishment of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as Part of Projects Utilizing Senate Bill (SB) 1123 on Vacant Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential, Ensure Project Feasibility of SB 1123 Projects by Providing for Certain Relaxed Development Standards, and Expand the Establishment of ADUs to All Projects Utilizing Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41 Which Includes Parcels Within Multiple-Unit Zoning District as Permitted Pursuant to SB 684.

Summary
On September 19, 2024, Governor Newsom approved Senate Bill 1123 (SB 1123) (codified as Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41), which became effective on July 1, 2025. Primarily, SB 1123 expands upon prior State law (SB 684) to

12.B
Packet Pg. 1035
2 of 5
allow a parcel zoned for single-unit residential use to be ministerially subdivided into up to 10 parcels. While most aspects of SB 1123 are mandatory, certain provisions – such as the inclusion of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) – are left to the discretion of each local jurisdiction.

On May 13, 2025, City Council directed staff to return with an ordinance allowing ADUs in conjunction with projects utilizing SB 1123. On June 10, 2025, Council adopted Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance (IZO) Number 2816 (CCS) implementing the allowance of ADUs in SB 1123 projects, and provided additional direction to staff to return with amendments that modify specific requirements and development standards to ensure the feasibility of SB 1123 projects. Additionally, direction was provided to return with amendments to expand the allowance for ADUs in all projects utilizing Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41, which includes parcels within multiple-unit zoning districts as permitted pursuant to SB 684.

This staff report and attached ordinance summarizes the extension of and amendments to Emergency IZO Number 2816 (CCS) consistent with Council direction from June 10.

The Emergency IZO adopted on June 10, 2025 will expire on August 9, 2025 unless extended by Council in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section

9.46.090(C).

Discussion
Extension of the Emergency IZO
On June 10, 2025, Council adopted Emergency IZO Number 2816 (CCS), permitting the establishment of ADUs as part of projects utilizing SB 1123 on vacant parcels zoned for single-unit residential use. The interim zoning regulations established by Emergency IZO 2816 will expire unless extended by Council pursuant to SMMC Section

9.46.090(C). The attached ordinance extends the interim zoning regulations established by Emergency IZO 2816 until December 31, 2026, which will allow the City to study the effectiveness of the interim zoning regulations in ensuring feasibility of housing projects submitted pursuant to SB 1123. Staff anticipates codifying the provisions of SB 1123 into the Municipal Code prior to the expiration of the interim zoning regulations. Staff

12.B
Packet Pg. 1036
3 of 5
further anticipates that this codification will incorporate anticipated guidance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) – which holds enforcement authority over SB 1123 implementation – and any applicable judicial guidance that may be issued.

Amendments to the Interim Zoning Regulations
In addition to adopting Emergency IZO Number 2816 (CCS), on June 10, 2025, Council provided direction to return with amendments that modify specific requirements and development standards to ensure the feasibility of SB 1123 projects. Specifically, the amendments included the following:
• Eliminate the Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP) fee for projects with five or fewer units; and
• Modify the following development standards:
o Permit a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 1.5;
o Permit a maximum building height of 3 stories/33 feet; o Reduce the front setback by 30%, but no less than 10 feet; o Eliminate upper-story stepbacks; and
o Eliminate interior setbacks and stepbacks between ADUs on newly created parcels, except as required by the California Building Code (CBC).

The attached Emergency IZO extending the original ordinance includes these amendments.

Additionally, in response to a policy question posed by staff at the June 10, 2025 meeting, Council directed staff to expand the allowance for establishing ADUs in all projects utilizing Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41, which includes parcels within multiple-unit zoning districts as permitted pursuant to SB 684. The attached Emergency IZO extending the original ordinance includes this amendment.

Environmental Review

12.B
Packet Pg. 1037
4 of 5
The amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4.5(b), which states that an ordinance to implement Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41 (SB 1123/SB 684) shall not be considered a project subject to CEQA (Section 21000 et seq. of the Public Resources Code).

Additionally, the modifications to the development standards for qualifying projects under SB 1123/SB 684 are exempt from the provisions of the CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (common sense exemption). Based on the evidence in the record, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed changes (such as increased Floor Area Ratio, increased building height, reduced front setbacks, and elimination of upper-story stepbacks) to the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. These changes are administrative in nature and would not increase the potential for additional development beyond what was already analyzed in the certified 6th Cycle Housing Element Environmental Impact Report.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
No immediate financial impacts or budget actions are necessary as a result of the recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.

Based on City Council direction to exempt SB 1123 projects of five or fewer units from the affordable housing fee (SMMC Section 9.64.070(A)), there will be a financial impact due to the loss of funds used to support and develop affordable housing. Currently, the affordable housing fee is calculated as $43.91 for apartment projects or $51.30 for condominium projects per square foot of floor area of a multiple-unit project. For example, a condominium project that is 10,000 square feet would pay an affordable housing fee of $513,000 instead of providing an affordable unit. As SB 1123 is a new State law that has not yet been utilized in Santa Monica, the long-term impacts of this policy change are difficult to determine.

12.B
Packet Pg. 1038
5 of 5
Prepared By: Ross Fehrman, Principal Planner
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. SB 1123 EIZO Extension Ordinance
B. Written Comments

12.B
Packet Pg. 1039
1 City Council Meeting: July 29, 2025 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

EMERGENCY INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXTENDING AND AMENDING REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED BY EMERGENCY INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE 2816 (CCS) TO

PERMIT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUS) AS PART OF PROJECTS UTILIZING SENATE BILL (SB) 1123 ON VACANT PARCELS

ZONED FOR SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL, ENSURE PROJECT FEASIBILITY OF SB 1123 PROJECTS BY PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN RELAXED DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS, AND EXPAND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ADUS TO ALL PROJECTS UTILIZING GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65852.28 AND 66499.41 WHICH

INCLUDES PARCELS WITHIN MULTIPLE-UNIT ZONING DISTRICT AS PERMITTED PURSUANT TO SB 684
WHEREAS, California has a statewide housing crisis, represented by a shortage of nearly 3,500,000 homes; and
WHEREAS, California’s housing crisis stifles economic growth, contributes to the homelessness epidemic, consumes an ever-growing share of the paychecks of working families, and holds millions of households back from realizing the California dream of home ownership; and
WHEREAS, the State has declared that restrictive zoning, land use, and burdensome permitting policies at the local and state level are a major cause of the shortfall between California’s housing needs and the available supply of housing; and WHEREAS, home ownership is still the primary way in which most Americans build wealth and assets; and
WHEREAS, California has the third highest median home price in the country and the high cost of housing has pushed what was once a modest goal further and further out of reach for most people of color; and

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1040 Attachment: SB 1123 EIZO Extension Ordinance (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 2 WHEREAS, home ownership rates in California are among the lowest nationwide, and in recent years those numbers have continued downward, including a 3.19 percent decline from 2020 and 2022; and
WHEREAS, while the home ownership gap is an issue throughout the country, the rate of African American and Latinx home ownership is significantly worse in California – at a national level, African Americans and Latinx have a home ownership rate of 42 percent and 47 percent, respectively, while here in California, that rate drops down to 35 percent and 42 percent, respectively; and
WHEREAS, the Legislative Analyst’s Office has identified a lack of housing supply as one of the culprits for the severe home ownership gap; and WHEREAS, the office’s 2016 housing affordability report found that “the state’s housing shortage also makes many Californians, not only low-income residents, more likely to commute longer distances, live in overcrowded housing, and delay or forgo home ownership”; and
WHEREAS, according to the Urban Institute, multifamily construction built for sale accounted for only 5.4 percent of all multifamily starts and only 2.7 percent of all singlefamily and multifamily home construction for the first three quarters of 2021; and WHEREAS, houses cost more in California due to increased costs, heavy regulatory hurdles, and mandatory features and fees that add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of each unit; and
WHEREAS, as production has slowed and changed, for-sale inventory has tightened, particularly for entry-level homes; and

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1041 Attachment: SB 1123 EIZO Extension Ordinance (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 3 WHEREAS, higher home prices have translated to less diversity in who is able to purchase a home; and
WHEREAS, home ownership is a powerful tool to close the racial and ethnic wealth gap across the State of California and nationwide; and
WHEREAS, the production of new market-rate housing frees up existing, more affordable housing elsewhere in the region for sale or rent to lower and middle-income households; and
WHEREAS, based on these realities, on September 19, 2024, Governor Newsom signed and approved Senate Bill 1123 (SB 1123) which becomes operative on July 1, 2025; and
WHEREAS, SB 1123 expands upon prior State law (SB 684) to allow a “vacant” parcel zoned for single-unit residential to be ministerially subdivided to up to 10 ownership units; and
WHEREAS, while most aspects of SB 1123 are compulsory, there are some areas that are at the discretion of each local jurisdiction, including the ability to include Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in SB 1123 projects; and WHEREAS, SB 1123 states that “a local agency is not required to permit an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit on parcels created through the exercise of the authority contained within this section”; and WHEREAS, however, if a local jurisdiction does decide to permit ADUs, “the units shall not count as residential units” when determining how many units can be established within developments that have subdivided a parcel pursuant to SB 1123; and

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1042 Attachment: SB 1123 EIZO Extension Ordinance (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 4 WHEREAS, in order to provide more diverse housing options for residents in Santa Monica, on May 13, 2025, City Council gave direction to staff to return on June 10, 2025 with an ordinance to allow ADUs in conjunction with projects utilizing SB 1123; and WHEREAS, there are numerous applicants in the City that would like to avail themselves of these provisions, including the ability to include ADUs in their projects, as soon as SB 1123 becomes operative on July 1, 2025; and
WHEREAS, with approval of these interim zoning regulations, all applicable provisions under State ADU law and the City’s local implementation will be available to parcels created by utilizing SB 1123, including, but not limited to, the number of ADUs that can be permitted on a single parcel; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2025, City Council adopted Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance (IZO) Number 2816 (CCS) (IZO 2816) implementing the allowance of ADUs in SB 1123 projects; and
WHEREAS, the City Council provided additional direction at the June 10, 2025 hearing for staff to return with amendments to the interim zoning regulations established by IZO 2816 (interim zoning regulations) that modify specific requirements and development standards to ensure the feasibility of SB 1123 projects, including, but not limited to: (1) Eliminating the Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP) fee for projects with five or fewer units; and (2) Modifying the following development standards:
(a) permitting a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 1.5; (b) permitting a maximum building height of 3 stories/33 feet; (c) reducing the front setback by 30%, but no less than 10 feet; (d) eliminating upper-story stepbacks; and (e) eliminating interior setbacks and stepbacks between ADUs on newly created parcels, except as required by the California Building

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1043 Attachment: SB 1123 EIZO Extension Ordinance (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 5 Code (CBC); and
WHEREAS, Council further directed staff to return with amendments to the interim zoning regulations to expand the allowance for ADUs in all projects utilizing Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41, which includes parcels within multiple-unit zoning districts as permitted pursuant to SB 684; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the interim zoning regulations will further the City’s efforts to address the housing crisis, which has been reemphasized by the State legislature as recently as June 30, 2025, by the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 130, which declared the need to solve the housing crisis through a multifaceted, statewide approach, including an increase in the overall supply of housing, encouraging the development of housing that is affordable to households at all income levels, removing barriers to housing production, and expanding home ownership opportunities; and WHEREAS, Council desires to extend the interim zoning regulations established by IZO 2816 until December 31, 2026, which will allow the City to study the effectiveness of the interim zoning regulations in ensuring feasibility of housing projects submitted pursuant to Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41; and WHEREAS, the City is still evaluating all aspects of SB 1123 and will return at a future date with a more comprehensive ordinance upon receipt of guidance from the State on SB 1123’s implementation, including, but not limited to anticipated guidance from the California Department of Housing and Economic Development (HCD); and WHEREAS, there exists a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare requiring extension of this Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance due to: (1) statewide and local housing crisis; (2) the need to expand housing choices in the City’s

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1044 Attachment: SB 1123 EIZO Extension Ordinance (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 6 areas of highest opportunity; (3) the several applicants seeking to utilize these provisions as soon as the operative date for SB 1123; and (4) staff’s limited ability to bring forward permanent changes to the City’s Municipal Code by the effective date.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Santa Monica Municipal Code, housing development projects and subdivisions located on parcels zoned for singleunit residential that are eligible for ministerial approval under SB 1123, codified at Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41 shall be subject to the following:

A. Accessory Dwelling Units may be established in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Units;
B. For housing projects consisting of five units or less, the affordable housing fee required by Section 9.64.070 of Chapter 9.64, the Affordable Housing Production Program shall not be required; and
C. Development standards shall be modified to:
a. Permit a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 1.5;
b. Permit a maximum building height of 3 stories/33 feet; c. Reduce the front setback by 30%, but no less than 10 feet; d. Eliminate upper-story stepbacks; and
e. Eliminate interior setbacks and stepbacks between ADUs on newly created parcels, except as required by the California Building Code (CBC).

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1045 Attachment: SB 1123 EIZO Extension Ordinance (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 7 SECTION 2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Santa Monica Municipal Code, housing development projects and subdivisions located on parcels zoned for multiple-unit residential that are eligible for ministerial approval under SB 684, codified at Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41, may establish Accessory Dwelling Units in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Units.

SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. Pursuant to Sections 615 and 619 of the City Charter, and Section 9.46.090 of the Municipal Code, for the reasons stated in the recitals above, the staff report accompanying this ordinance, oral and written testimony received by the City

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1046 Attachment: SB 1123 EIZO Extension Ordinance (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 8 Council, and City Council discussion, the City Council declares this ordinance to be necessary as an emergency measure for preserving the public peace, health, and safety, with the result that this ordinance shall be introduced and adopted at the same meeting and shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall be of no further force and effect as of December 31, 2026, unless it is otherwise extended pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section

9.46.090(C).

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1047 Attachment: SB 1123 EIZO Extension Ordinance (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 1 David Yakobson
From: Lillian Lim <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete
Subject: No on SB1123 and "1230 Ashland"

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members, Mayor Negrete, and Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, I sent a form email yesterday but I wanted to also reach out with a more personalized message. I believe many of you say you read each and every email from your constituents and I hope you'll take the time to consider mine.

I've lived in LA County since 2003. From 2005-2010 I was a renter in Ocean Park in a fairly affordable unit.

Then, when my husband and I wanted to buy a house, we were priced out of Santa Monica so we bought in Mar Vista and lived there for 12 years. Recently, we were fortunate enough to be able to afford to build our dream home in Sunset Park so we've been Santa Monica homeowners since 2019.

I used to be a TV Producer/Executive but when we started our family I transitioned to real estate investing to give me a flexible schedule to raise our daughter who is now 8. I've built 3 smaller scale renovations/additions (outside of Santa Monica), and 1 new construction project (our personal home here).

I am a first generation immigrant from Myanmar and grew up working class. I know what it's like to reach and work hard for a better life. I'm laying all this out to say I understand and have lived many sides of the socio-economic arguments when it comes to housing matters.

I want everyone to have opportunities for safe, affordable living, but I am in complete shock and disagreement with how laws like SB9 and SB1123 are going to be abused by developers and change the face of Santa Monica for the worse.

Some of you claim you've talked to thousands of residents who support these measures. I'm sure if you ask anyone if there should be more affordable housing, of course the answer is "Yes!" But did you actually ask any homeowner, "Do you want an apartment building built right next to your house in a R1 neighborhood?"
With the threat of the "Ashland Del Mar" project at 1230 Ashland, I have actually been in contact with most of my neighbors and we say "NO!" But no one knocked on our doors and asked us our position.

I understand the greater goals of adding more housing to bring rents down overall and providing varying levels of entry points for renters and buyers, but there needs to be more care and logic taken. 1230 Ashland does NOT offer low income units nor starter homes. They will be multi-million dollar properties Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1048 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 2 marketed to an investor. This helps no one but the developer, and degrades the quality of life for us with more traffic and density on a very small street.

There is a reason Santa Monica is such a coveted place. It offers both the start and end goal of the American dream with its diverse population and range of housing. But over development will wipe out the quiet neighborhoods where kids can still ride their bikes (in some places) that Californians aspired to in the first place.

Santa Monica, Los Angeles and all cities in California should improve districts and corridors that need revitalization so we can build safer "dream" communities throughout the city. Not completely change the face of already established neighborhoods.

There are so many areas like the Gelsons lot and Bergamot Station that are being developed. Why can't we study these projects first, before completely changing the face of our R1 neighborhoods? It is absolutely heartbreaking how the hard work and dreams of homeowners are being completely trampled upon by developers and the politicians who are in their pockets. I know that is a bold accusation but it's so unfathomable that anyone would think building apartments down next to quiet R1 homes makes any sense other than the financial gain of developers and their political "friends." Please take the time to really listen to these messages and oppose the measure tonight that makes SB1123 even worse, and also reject the 8 unit plan at 1230 Ashland Ave.

Thank you,
Lillian Lim
1353 Ashland Ave
310-254-4144

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1049 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 3 David Yakobson
From: May Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Please Oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week of Jul 28

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week. Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
May Lee
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1050 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 1 David Yakobson
From: Bedford Office <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 4:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Jennifer Josephs
90405
Jennifer Josephs
1786 Bryn Mawr Ave. Santa Monica CA
(801) 201-5909 cell
[email protected]
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1051 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 2 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1052 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 3 David Yakobson
From: y Ama <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 3:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Y. Amaria
90405
Get Outlook for Android
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1053 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 4 David Yakobson
From: Nicolas Ospina <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:12 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for Item 12B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I’m writing as a Santa Monica resident to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementation of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportunities allowed under state law can actually succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
- Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more options for seniors, families, and caregivers;
- Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders;
- Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can actually be built on typical lots; - Extends these opportunities to more parts of the city, including multi-unit areas under SB 684.

These are practical, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing options while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and continue supporting solutions that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Nicolas Ospina
663 Ocean Ave
Santa Monica CA
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1054 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 5 David Yakobson
From: Tim Defuria <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 3:03 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I’m writing as a Santa Monica resident to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementation of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportunities allowed under state law can actually succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
- Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more options for seniors, families, and caregivers;
- Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders; - Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can actually be built on typical lots; - Extends these opportunities to more parts of the city, including multi-unit areas under SB 684.

These are practical, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing options while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods.

Please vote yes on Item 12B and continue supporting solutions that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership on creating more housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Tim Defuria
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1055 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 6 David Yakobson
From: Steen Strand <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, I ask you to oppose item 12B on Council's agenda this week.

Council members Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit primarily an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly nonemergency situations? We absolutely need to create affordable housing for the less fortunate, but this "emergency" ordinance does nothing to help that. Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! This ordinance could dramatically and forever change the nature of many neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park. We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses.

What is being proposed is truly excessive. This kind of dramatic change to the amount of development that is allowed on individual parcels of R1--zoned neighborhoods will compromise the identity of my neighborhood.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designation. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency."

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
This is a Broken Process. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1056 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 7 I call on Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-tem Torosis, Councilman Raskin, Councilman Snell, and Councilman Zernitsyaka to reject this unacceptable use of an emergency ordinance, which undermines all other true emergencies, and also will radically change many neighborhoods in Santa Monica.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you,
Steen Strand
Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1057 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 8 David Yakobson
From: Dan Winjum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Please Oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week of Jul 28

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
As a Santa Monica resident and home owner, please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week. Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency. This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers. Development needs to be done responsibly, especially in R1 areas, before you destroy what makes Santa Monica great! If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Dan Winjum
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1058 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 9 David Yakobson
From: ALICE ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 1:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Importance: High

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Alice Ellis
Santa Monica Resident
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1059 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 10 David Yakobson
From: Joe Wicentowich <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 1:37 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I’m writing as a Santa Monica resident to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementation of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportunities allowed under state law can actually succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
- Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more options for seniors, families, and caregivers;
- Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders; - Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can actually be built on typical lots; - Extends these opportunities to more parts of the city, including multi-unit areas under SB 684.

These are practical, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing options while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and continue supporting solutions that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address or Neighborhood (optional)]
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1060 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 11 David Yakobson
From: Joe Wicentowich <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 1:37 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I’m writing as a Santa Monica resident to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementation of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportunities allowed under state law can actually succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
- Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more options for seniors, families, and caregivers;
- Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders; - Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can actually be built on typical lots; - Extends these opportunities to more parts of the city, including multi-unit areas under SB 684.

These are practical, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing options while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and continue supporting solutions that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address or Neighborhood (optional)]
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1061 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 12 David Yakobson
From: Lillie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 1:21 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I’m writing as a Santa Monica resident to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementation of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportunities allowed under state law can actually succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
- Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more options for seniors, families, and caregivers;
- Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders; - Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can actually be built on typical lots; - Extends these opportunities to more parts of the city, including multi-unit areas under SB 684.

These are practical, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing options while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and continue supporting solutions that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Lillie Kasim
2306 28th Street, Santa Monica CA 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1062 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 13 David Yakobson
From: Andrea Robinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 1:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, I ask you to oppose item 12B on Council's agenda this week.

Council members Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit primarily an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly nonemergency situations? We absolutely need to create affordable housing for the less fortunate, but this "emergency" ordinance does nothing to help that. Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! This ordinance could dramatically and forever change the nature of many neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park. We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses. What is being proposed is truly excessive. This kind of dramatic change to the amount of development that is allowed on individual parcels of R1--zoned neighborhoods will compromise the identity of my neighborhood.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designation. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency."

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months This is a Broken Process. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

I call on Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-tem Torosis, Councilman Raskin, Councilman Snell, and Councilman Zernitsyaka to reject this unacceptable use of an emergency ordinance, which undermines all other true emergencies, and also will radically change many neighborhoods in Santa Monica.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you,
Andrea Strand
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1063 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 14 Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1064 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 15 David Yakobson
From: John Londono <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 1:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 12 B

EXTERNAL
I am opposed to this item.

I request that the council reject it.
-John Londono
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1065 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 16 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week. Council members Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency. This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers. If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Kelly Hsiao
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1066 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 17 David Yakobson
From: Ryan Leff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:36 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I’m writing as a Santa Monica resident to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementation of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportunities allowed under state law can actually succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
- Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more options for seniors, families, and caregivers;
- Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders; - Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can actually be built on typical lots; - Extends these opportunities to more parts of the city, including multi-unit areas under SB 684.

These are practical, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing options while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and continue supporting solutions that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Ryan Leff
Best,
Ryan Leff
(818) 620-0865
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1067 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 18 David Yakobson
From: Kathleen Murphy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Kathleen Murphy
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1068 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 19 David Yakobson
From: Ann Kummer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Ann Kummer
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1069 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 20 David Yakobson
From: Russell Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:33 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Strong Support for housing - PASS 12B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
Many of my friends and industry peers (Millennials & Gen X) who have successful careers and families have been forced out of the Santa Monica area due to limited housing availability. If this continues, SM will begin to become an irrelevant community filled with a dying generation that cannot contribute to the economic growth of such an amazing city like SM. Families will choose to invest their money elsewhere leaving Santa Monica behind as a modern city reflective of modern-day society.

I’m writing as to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementation of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportunities allowed under state law can succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
- Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more options for seniors, families, and caregivers;
- Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders;
- Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can be built on typical lots; - Extends these opportunities to more parts of the city, including multi-unit areas under SB 684.

These are practical, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing options while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and continue supporting solutions that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Russell Thompson
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1070 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 21 David Yakobson
From: Ellen Mark <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Importance: High

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Ellen Mark
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1071 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 22 David Yakobson
From: Carolyn Hanlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Carolyn Hanlin
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1072 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 23 David Yakobson
From: Mindi Shank <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance. It is so upsetting that our city council representatives keep sticking in these tricky and sneaky provisions in trying to destroy R1 Zoning ordinances. Wish the council would look out for the residents for once, and not developers.

Thank you,
Mindi Shank
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1073 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 24 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: July 29, 2025 - City Council 12B - Fake Emergency - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
City Council -
We do not have a housing supply emergency. On the contrary, we have overproduced on our RHNA market-rate numbers - more than doubling our assigned target only halfway through the cycle. We need to HALT zoning changes that incentivize more market rate development because we are NOT required to built more of that under RHNA!
Also, where is our MID-CYCLE RHNA REVIEW? We are now halfway through the 8-year cycle and neither council nor staff are the slightest bit introspective. We need to press pause and assess where we are, what has worked, what hasn't, and tailor any remaining development in this cycle to the targets we haven't met. Those targets will NEVER be touched by further eroding single family neighborhoods and replacing them with luxury condos and apartments. But your developer buddies will continue to support your political careers...

I urge you to oppose item 12-B on Council's agenda this week.

This item introduces an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is not a legitimate emergency, which requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare," but rather a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit primarily developers—not the residents of Santa Monica. And it does NOTHING to create affordable housing.

Using this faux "emergency" ordinance to impose zoning changes not even required by SB 1123 (in other words, the state is NOT telling us to do this), but using SB 1123 as a cover, skips due process for the benefit of developers! We already have laws that permit townhouses. This is way more than that. It could, by design, decimate remaining single family neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit, so this permits a 20-fold increase in density.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods.

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS). This results in increased density with no increase in affordability.

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designation. Under the law, an "emergency Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1074 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 25 ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency."

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months, effectively suspending the deliberative public process for massive upzoning a year and a half.

This is a Broken Process. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact. Are you trying to be like the Trump Administration? Please reject this misuse of emergency powers and instead reaffirm their commitment to a transparent, resident-centered process. How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly non-emergency situations? Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
I call on Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Councilmember Raskin, Councilmember Snell, and Councilmember Zernitsyaka to reject this unacceptable use of an emergency ordinance, which undermines all other true emergencies, and also has the potential to radically change Sunset Park, as well as many other neighborhoods.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Sunset Park Resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1075 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 26 David Yakobson
From: sitara contreras <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers, Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week. Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency. This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers. If passed, this ordinance would: 1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit. 2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation. 5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance. Thank you, Sitara Contreras. 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1076 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 27 David Yakobson
From: Dylan Nobel <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:03 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I’m writing as a Santa Monica resident to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementation of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportunities allowed under state law can actually succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
- Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more options for seniors, families, and caregivers;
- Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders;
- Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can actually be built on typical lots; - Extends these opportunities to more parts of the city, including multi-unit areas under SB 684.

These are practical, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing options while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and continue supporting solutions that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Dylan Nobel
Santa Monica, CA
Dylan Nobel
Assistant Project Manager
Pacific Cove Development, Inc.

C: (310) 730-9484
1223 Wilshire Blvd., #1570
Santa Monica, CA 90403
www.PacificCoveDevelopment.com
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1077 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 28 David Yakobson
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - 16C Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
PS.

I know that you are discussing using new tech to get answers on units. And that that is a year away.

We don’t need new tech for you to say how many units have been approved as of today. It is time for you as a responsible council to do a mid-cycle review and adjust approach. Dan Hall for the sake of transparency, please explain why we would continue to allow any market rate units, or at the current 10% affordable rate that is by-right.

At that rate we will have built ten times our market target by the time we get to our affordable target.

Certainly it is time for these numbers to be adjusted.

Sincerely,
Karen Croner
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1078 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 29 David Yakobson
From: Karen Frid-Madden <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, I ask you to oppose item 12B on Council's agenda this week.

Council members Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit primarily an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly nonemergency situations? We absolutely need to create affordable housing for the less fortunate, but this "emergency" ordinance does nothing to help that. Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! This ordinance could dramatically and forever change the nature of many neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park. We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses. What is being proposed is truly excessive. This kind of dramatic change to the amount of development that is allowed on individual parcels of R1--zoned neighborhoods will compromise the identity of my neighborhood.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designation. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency."

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months This is a Broken Process. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

I call on Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-tem Torosis, Councilman Raskin, Councilman Snell, and Councilman Zernitsyaka to reject this unacceptable use of an emergency ordinance, which undermines all other true emergencies, and also will radically change many neighborhoods in Santa Monica.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you,
Karen Frid-Madden
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1079 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 30 Santa Monica resident
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.bikasadesigns.com__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!udmfEOGYPo1HNtuITD5IC5 cH_ov0m-tQlDHvgWjdWQ1qhavTYkcUed9aR12uL2yC-ci_MZPZEOBlQACUcaiX5uY1Ri46itOClbVWJA$ follow me on Pinterest pinterest.com/bikasadesigns and Facebook @ bikasadesigns Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1080 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Cydney Kirschbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Cydney and Kenneth Kirschbaum
90405
Cydney Kirschbaum
[email protected]
cell: 310-613-0767
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1081 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 2 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1082 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 3 Mitchell Kois
From: Allison Greene <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week. As a single family homeowner in Sunset Park, I am horrified to think what this change would do to the nature and charm of this community. Strong family residenƟal neighborhoods are the heart of most communiƟes, long term residents that support local businesses and get to know their neighbors! Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Sincerely,
Allison Greene
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1083 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 4 Mitchell Kois
From: Ryan Polito <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Sunset Park oppose item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Ryan Polito
Only 5 houses away and a Sunset Park residence sense 1999.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1084 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 5 Mitchell Kois
From: S AS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Robert Sherick
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1085 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 6 Mitchell Kois
From: S AS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Jack ShericK
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1086 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 7 Mitchell Kois
From: Stacey AS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Stacey Abrams-Sherick
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1087 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 8 Mitchell Kois
From: Sally Johnston <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Sally Johnston
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1088 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 9 Mitchell Kois
From: Keira Lynch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a 21 year resident of Santa Monica, I ask you to oppose item 12B on Council's agenda this week.

Council members Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit primarily an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly nonemergency situations? We absolutely need to create affordable housing for the less fortunate, but this "emergency" ordinance does nothing to help that. Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! This ordinance could dramatically and forever change the nature of many neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park. We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses.

What is being proposed is truly excessive. This kind of dramatic change to the amount of development that is allowed on individual parcels of R1--zoned neighborhoods will compromise the identity of my neighborhood.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designation. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency."

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1089 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 10 This is a Broken Process. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

I call on Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-tem Torosis, Councilman Raskin, Councilman Snell, and Councilman Zernitsyaka to reject this unacceptable use of an emergency ordinance, which undermines all other true emergencies, and also will radically change many neighborhoods in Santa Monica.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you,
Keira Lynch
Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1090 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 11 Mitchell Kois
From: Jerry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
[Your Name Here]
Jerry Nodiff
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1091 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 12 Mitchell Kois
From: Dominique Chausse <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Dominique Chausse
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1092 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 13 Mitchell Kois
From: Jennifer Lynch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a 25+ year resident of Santa Monica, I ask you to oppose item 12B on Council's agenda this week.

Council members Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit primarily an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly nonemergency situations? We absolutely need to create affordable housing for the less fortunate, but this "emergency" ordinance does nothing to help that. Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! This ordinance could dramatically and forever change the nature of many neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park. We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses.

What is being proposed is truly excessive. This kind of dramatic change to the amount of development that is allowed on individual parcels of R1--zoned neighborhoods will compromise the identity of my neighborhood.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designation. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency."

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1093 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 14 This is a Broken Process. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

I call on Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-tem Torosis, Councilman Raskin, Councilman Snell, and Councilman Zernitsyaka to reject this unacceptable use of an emergency ordinance, which undermines all other true emergencies, and also will radically change many neighborhoods in Santa Monica.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you,
Jennifer Lynch
Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1094 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 15 Mitchell Kois
From: Jodi Strock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Jodi Strock
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1095 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 16 Mitchell Kois
From: Peter Mezza <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Peter Mezza
2504 30th Street
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1096 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 17 Mitchell Kois
From: Kelsey Liber <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
90405
Kelsey Liber
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1097 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 18 Mitchell Kois
From: Sharon Everitt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Oppose Item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
As a 20 year homeowner in Sunset Park, I’m writing to ask you to oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” There is no emergency here that can be solved by overdevelopment.

This is a massive threat to the residents of Santa Monica, but it benefits developers who want to make as much money as possible.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.
- This alone is incredible. How are we going from 1 family to 20 families on the same lot? How in the universe could the city support that kind of traffic, parking, and development? Can you imagine the impact on existing residents?

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods - Again, how can our infrastructure support the traffic and parking for this? How will space, light, and airflow be affected for existing homes?

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this damaging "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Sharon Everitt
1507 Ashland Ave.
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1098 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 19 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1099 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 20 Mitchell Kois
From: Ira Dworkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Ira Dworkin
long-time resident in 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1100 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 21 Mitchell Kois
From: ADAM JOHNSTON <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Adam Johnston
1349 Oak Street
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1101 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 22 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1102 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 23 Mitchell Kois
From: Holly Silvers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Holly & Dennis Granelli
Condo & SM business owner
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1103 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 24 Mitchell Kois
From: LINDA KNAB <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Linda Reinbold
1333 Ashland Avenue
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1104 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 25 Mitchell Kois
From: HARRIS SILVER <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Harris Silver
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1105 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 26 Mitchell Kois
From: Kathleen von Schlegell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Opposition to Agenda Items 12B and 16C – Preserve the Character of Sunset Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I write to you not only as a lifelong resident of Sunset Park but also as someone who deeply cherishes the unique character and community spirit that have long defined Santa Monica. I am urging you to reconsider and ultimately reject items 12B and 16C on this week’s Council agenda.

Our city has undergone significant transformation over the years, and with that change, much of the charm and identity that once made Santa Monica such a desirable place to live, raise a family, and retire has been steadily eroded. Amidst this, Sunset Park and Ocean Park Boulevard remain among the last remaining enclaves that reflect the soul of the city we all love. The proposed developments threaten to displace that character in ways that are both irreversible and out of step with the values of those you were elected to represent.

These proposals are not just zoning items—they are decisions that will shape the future of our neighborhoods. I ask that you listen to the voices of longtime residents and thoughtful constituents who want to see Santa Monica grow responsibly and retain its distinct sense of place.

Please do the right thing and vote no on items 12B and 16C.

Sincerely,
Kathleen von Schlegell
Sunset Park Resident - 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1106 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 27 Mitchell Kois
From: aaronfurlong <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please, please, please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Aaron Furlong
Santa Monica
90405
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1107 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 28 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1108 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 29 Mitchell Kois
From: nancykless <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
THE COMMUNITY IS CAREFULLY WATCHING HOW YOU VOTE.

Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you!
Nancy Kless
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1109 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 30 Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1110 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 31 Mitchell Kois
From: Lynn Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Lynn Murdock
1209 Pine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1111 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 32 Mitchell Kois
From: Gail Denney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
[Your Name Here]
90405
Sent from
Gail Denney
Professional Retail Sales Consultant
[email protected]
310 621 7486
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1112 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 33 Mitchell Kois
From: Robert Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I adamantly oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced a bogus "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Robert Brown
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1113 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 34 Mitchell Kois
From: Gail Denney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
[Your Name Here]
90405
Sent from
Gail Denney
Professional Retail Sales Consultant
[email protected]
310 621 7486
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1114 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 35 Mitchell Kois
From: Nancy Pearl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Nancy Pearl
90405
Nancy Pearl, MA
Living Loving Legacies: Life Story Interview Videos
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1115 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 36 Phone: 310-804-4503
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.livinglovinglegacies.com

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1116 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 37 Mitchell Kois
From: Elizabeth Joensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Joensen
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1117 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 38 Mitchell Kois
From: Hilary Galanoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week. Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency. This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers. If passed, this ordinance would: 1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant singlefamily R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit. 2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation. 5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Hilary Galanoy
2636 32nd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1118 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 39 Mitchell Kois
From: tim joensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Tim Joensen
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1119 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 40 Mitchell Kois
From: Allyson Dworkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Allyson Dworkin
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1120 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 41 Mitchell Kois
From: Alex Purcell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Alex Purcell
2311 Cloverfield Blvd.

Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1121 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 42 Mitchell Kois
From: Chris Downey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Chris Downey
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1122 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 43 Mitchell Kois
From: Daniel Funk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Daniel T. Funk, Sunset Park Resident since 1989
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1123 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 44 Mitchell Kois
From: MARILYN HARRIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,

MARILYN HARRIS
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1124 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 45 Mitchell Kois
From: Crystal Reed <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Crystal Reed
Born, raised and still live here, since 1971. Our Sunset Park house has been owned by our family since it was built in 1942.
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1125 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 46 Mitchell Kois
From: Robin OConnell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Robin O'Connell
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1126 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 47 Mitchell Kois
From: Hillary Rollins <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Hillary Rollins
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1127 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 48 Mitchell Kois
From: Debbie Millar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Please reject item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B. This is not a true "emergency" ordinance. Developers in Santa Monica are already building more housing than other cities in our region. It also completely destroys the work the city planners have done to make our city livable.

Thank you,
Debbie Millar
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1128 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 49 Mitchell Kois
From: Katherine Reuter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week. Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." The current situation is not an emergency. This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots? Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods.

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS). Since these will be built by developers, why let them off the hook?

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

I am not against building additional housing, but unless the priorities include low income housing AND adequate parking (at least one space per unit), it will not meet the increased need to house people who live and/or work in Santa Monica. The fantasy that everyone will bike everywhere is just that - a fantasy. Along with many friends, I am older (78), and won't be biking anywhere. Young families have to take their young kids to school and then get to work Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1129 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 50 within a limited time, requiring driving. Families have to buy a week's worth of groceries, which certainly don't fit on a bicycle. In many areas with multiple family dwellings, there is already not enough parking.

Thank you,
Katherine Reuter
1210 Grant Street 90405
P.S. How's that bus route down Lincoln, from Montana STRAIGHT DOWN to Pico going? With all of the development on Lincoln, there is still NO direct NORTH-SOUTH Lincoln bus line!! How can such a major thoroughfare not have a bus all the way along it? Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1130 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 51 Mitchell Kois
From: Deborah Bourget <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Deborah Bourget
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1131 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 52 Mitchell Kois
From: Merle Newman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
[Your Name Here]
Merle Newman
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1132 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 53 Mitchell Kois
From: Hillary Rollins <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, I ask you to oppose item 12B on Council's agenda this week.

Council members Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit primarily an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly nonemergency situations? We absolutely need to create affordable housing for the less fortunate, but this "emergency" ordinance does nothing to help that. Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! This ordinance could dramatically and forever change the nature of many neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park. We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses.

What is being proposed is truly excessive. This kind of dramatic change to the amount of development that is allowed on individual parcels of R1--zoned neighborhoods will compromise the identity of my neighborhood.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designation. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency."

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1133 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 54 This is a Broken Process. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

I call on Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-tem Torosis, Councilman Raskin, Councilman Snell, and Councilman Zernitsyaka to reject this unacceptable use of an emergency ordinance, which undermines all other true emergencies, and also will radically change many neighborhoods in Santa Monica.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you,
Hillary Rollins
Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1134 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 55 Mitchell Kois
From: oesr <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Jane Dempsey
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1135 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 56 Mitchell Kois
From: Laura Park <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Laura Park
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1136 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 57 Mitchell Kois
From: Jim Bernstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
James Bernstein
2627 Highland Ave #7
Santa Monica, CA 90405
30 year resident of Santa Monica
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1137 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 58 Mitchell Kois
From: Dalila Fuentes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Dalila Fuentes, resident Sunset Park
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1138 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 59 Mitchell Kois
From: John Levy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency. And calling it such denigrates, and threatens to desensitize people to, true such emergencies.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
John Levy
2673 33rd St.

Santa Monica
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1139 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 60 Mitchell Kois
From: Mary <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

This is excessive, destructIve to neighborhoods, quality of life, and is unnecessary.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Mary Hubbell
90405
Sent from my iPad
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1140 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 61 Mitchell Kois
From: Paul Costello <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Paul Costello
90405
Sent from my iPad
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1141 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 62 Mitchell Kois
From: Cheryl Downey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,Cheryl Downey
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1142 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 63 Mitchell Kois
From: Phil Harnage <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Phil & Susan Harnage
Sunset Park since 1987
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1143 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 64 Mitchell Kois
From: Emily Davidson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance!
Thank you,
Emily Davidson
Sunset Park Resident
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1144 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 65 Mitchell Kois
From: Kathy Kane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Kathy Cody
Bay Street, 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1145 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 66 Mitchell Kois
From: Dicky Eagan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Richard Eagan
2340 Hill
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1146 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 67 Mitchell Kois
From: janet rt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Janet Tunick
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1147 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 68 Mitchell Kois
From: Alex Novakovich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Alex Novakovich
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1148 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 69 Mitchell Kois
From: S Ruth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:06 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Stevan Hill
Subject: SAVE OUR R1 LOTS FROM DEVELOPERS – Item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, please preserve our beautiful RI neighborhoods while also thoughtfully expanding affordable housing opportunities in R1 zones.

Rushing through this ordinance only benefits developers! Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an ordinance connected to SB 1123. This ordinance currently impacts only one property:
1101 Stanford, the property at the center of SNACO’s ongoing lawsuit. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units (10 main housing units and 10 ADUS) on any vacant single-family R1 lot. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit

2. Permit 3-story multifamily housing buildings in R1 neighborhoods. There has been no analysis whether increasing the current 2 story height limit is really needed for SB 1123 projects. Nor has there been any study about the impact of three story projects will have on the character of R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for most lot splits in R1 zones, when these same council members loudly claim Santa Monica needs affordable housing

4. Bypass the public process (which includes Planning Commission review and multiple public hearings) through misuse of “emergency” designation

5. Extend the ADU “emergency” ordinance from the usual 60 days to 18 months �� A Broken Process
None of that is happening now. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

We call on the Council to reject this misuse of emergency powers and instead reaffirm their commitment to a transparent, resident-centered process.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you,
Steve Ruth
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1149 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 70 1501 Georgina Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1150 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 71 Mitchell Kois
From: Steve Rogers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gail Denney; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Save Our R1 Lots From Developers -- Item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am a proud Santa Monica resident. It is not easy but please appropriately balance preserving our Santa Monica R1 neighborhoods while also thoughtfully expanding affordable housing opportunities. Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance SB 1123 is not right. It impacts only one property, 1101 Stanford St., which is a site at the center of an ongoing lawsuit. There is no exigency at all and no reason to label this an emergency. Instead, the bill appears to be a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit an out of state corporation to the detriment of my Santa Monica community. Due process is fundamental to deal with these issues. We need appropriate discussion, public input, and an analysis of community impact. Please reject this dangerous misuse of emergency powers.

Thank you,
Steve Rogers
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1151 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 72 Mitchell Kois
From: Lillian Lim <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 1:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, I ask you to oppose item 12B on Council's agenda this week.

Council members Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit primarily an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly nonemergency situations? We absolutely need to create affordable housing for the less fortunate, but this "emergency" ordinance does nothing to help that. Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! This ordinance could dramatically and forever change the nature of many neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park. We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses.

What is being proposed is truly excessive. This kind of dramatic change to the amount of development that is allowed on individual parcels of R1--zoned neighborhoods will compromise the identity of my neighborhood.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designation. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency."

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1152 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 73 This is a Broken Process. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

I call on Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-tem Torosis, Councilman Raskin, Councilman Snell, and Councilman Zernitsyaka to reject this unacceptable use of an emergency ordinance, which undermines all other true emergencies, and also will radically change many neighborhoods in Santa Monica.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you,
Lillian Lim
Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1153 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 74 Mitchell Kois
From: Marc Abraham <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 1:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gail Denney
Subject: Item 12B
Attachments: Dear Council Members.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
The city council must defeat this flawed and unnecessaery Item … 12B (connected to SB 1123)
Sincerely,
Marc Abraham
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1154 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, I know most of my
neighbors understand the importance of affordable
housing. However, does rushing an ordinance under the
guise of an emergency; that would in fact allow 20 units to be built in a residential neighborhood where the prices of the homes is not actually easily affordable for everyone.

Does that make sense? Does the council truly believe that the developers are going to sell the units or rent them for significantly less than market value. Really? All the while rushing a process that will destroy the character of a
neighborhood. And make no mistake it will have a
profound negative effect, this replacing of landscaping with concrete, flooding a neighborhood with substantial
elevated traffic and parking.

Why have Councilmembers Zwick and Hall introduced an
"emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123? An
ordinance that currently impacts only one property: 1101 Stanford - the property at the center of SNACO’s ongoing lawsuit. This is not a legitimate emergency. It does not benefit residents of Santa Monica.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units (10 main housing units and 10
ADUS) on any vacant single-family R1 lot. Any R1 lot
can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit

2. Permit 3-story multifamily housing buildings in R1
neighborhoods. There has been no analysis whether
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1155 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) increasing the current 2 story height limit is really
needed for SB 1123 projects. Nor has there been any
study about the impact three story projects will have
on the character of R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for most lot splits in R1 zones, when these same council members
loudly claim Santa Monica needs affordable housing

4. Bypass the public process (which includes Planning
Commission review and multiple public hearings)
through misuse of “emergency” designation

5. Extend the ADU “emergency” ordinance from the
usual 60 days to 18 months
�� A Broken Process
None of that is happening now. This rushed ordinance
disregards due process, public input, and community
impact.

We call on the Council to reject this misuse of emergency powers and instead reaffirm their commitment to a
transparent, resident-centered process.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you
Marc Abraham
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1156 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 75 Mitchell Kois
From: Robyn Sherman Raskin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 12:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, I ask you to oppose item 12B on Council's agenda this week.

Council members Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is not a legiƟmate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit primarily an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly non-emergency situaƟons?
We absolutely need to create affordable housing for the less fortunate, but this "emergency" ordinance does nothing to help that. Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! This ordinance could dramaƟcally and forever change the nature of many neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park. We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses. What is being proposed is truly excessive. This kind of dramaƟc change to the amount of development that is allowed on individual parcels of R1--zoned neighborhoods will compromise the idenƟty of my neighborhood.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designaƟon. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency."

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months This is a Broken Process. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

I call on Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-tem Torosis, Councilman Raskin, Councilman Snell, and Councilman Zernitsyaka to reject this unacceptable use of an emergency ordinance, which undermines all other true emergencies, and also will radically change many neighborhoods in Santa Monica.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1157 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 76 Thank you,
Gary and Robyn Raskin
Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1158 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 77 Mitchell Kois
From: Adam Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 1:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, spcifically Sunset Park, I ask you to oppose item 12B on Council's agenda this week.

Council members Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit primarily an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly nonemergency situations? I’m just deeply concerned. The development is out of hand. Are we selling off our community for developer profits. It sure feels that way. We will certainly fight within our legal rights against this measure. It feels like it’s punishment to the community and we haven’t done anything to deserve this.

Kind regards,
Adam Cohen
Santa Monica resident
Adam Cohen  Super Delicious
6121 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite G
Hollywood, CA 90038
[email protected]
O: (323) 785-2660
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1159 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 78 Mitchell Kois
From: Darlene Vogel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, I ask you to oppose item 12B on Council's agenda this week.

Council members Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit primarily an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly nonemergency situations? We absolutely need to create affordable housing for the less fortunate, but this "emergency" ordinance does nothing to help that. Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! This ordinance could dramatically and forever change the nature of many neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park. We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses.

What is being proposed is truly excessive. This kind of dramatic change to the amount of development that is allowed on individual parcels of R1--zoned neighborhoods will compromise the identity of my neighborhood.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designation. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency."

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1160 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 79 This is a Broken Process. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

I call on Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-tem Torosis, Councilman Raskin, Councilman Snell, and Councilman Zernitsyaka to reject this unacceptable use of an emergency ordinance, which undermines all other true emergencies, and also will radically change many neighborhoods in Santa Monica.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you,
Darlene Vogel
Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1161 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 80 Mitchell Kois
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 11:43 AM
To: Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems
Subject: I support item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
As a Santa Monica resident who cares about this city, its communities, and its future, I strongly support item 12B and the implementation of SB1123 and SB 684.

Creating more affordable homeownership opportunities in neighborhoods that have traditionally excluded lower- and middle-income families and communities of color is a crucial step toward making our city more inclusive, accessible, sustainable, and livable.

As a council, your responsibility is to act in the best interest of the community and future generations. I hope you remain focused on this greater good, rather than being distracted by resistance to change or minor complaints rooted in fear.

This is a well-thought-out ordinance that I believe we should be proud to implement, and I urge you to support item 12B.

Thank you,
Caro Vilaiin
90404
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1162 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 81 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SAVE OUR R1 LOTS FROM DEVELOPERS -ITEM 12 B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, please preserve our beautiful RI neighborhoods while also thoughtfully expanding affordable housing opportunities in R1 zones. f Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This ordinance currently impacts only one property: 1101 Stanford, the property at the center of SNACO’s ongoing lawsuit. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit an outof-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units (10 main housing units and 10 ADUS) on any vacant single-family R1 lot. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit

2. Permit 3-story multifamily housing buildings in R1 neighborhoods. There has been no analysis whether increasing the current 2 story height limit is really needed for SB 1123 projects. Nor has there been any study about the impact three story projects will have on the character of R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for most lot splits in R1 zones, when these same council members loudly claim Santa Monica needs affordable housing

4. Bypass the public process (which includes Planning Commission review and multiple public hearings) through misuse of “emergency” designation

5. Extend the ADU “emergency” ordinance from the usual 60 days to 18 months 뢏뢐 A Broken Process
None of that is happening now. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

We call on the Council to reject this misuse of emergency powers and instead reaffirm their commitment to a transparent, resident-centered process.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you
Gail Denney
Consultant - Retail/Strategic Sales
[email protected]
310 621 7486
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1163 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 82 Mitchell Kois
From: Heinzle, Janet <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 9:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, I ask you to oppose item 12B on Council's agenda this week.

Council members Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit primarily an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly non-emergency situations?
We absolutely need to create affordable housing for the less fortunate, but this "emergency" ordinance does nothing to help that. Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! This ordinance could dramatically and forever change the nature of many neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park. We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses. What is being proposed is truly excessive. This kind of dramatic change to the amount of development that is allowed on individual parcels of R1--zoned neighborhoods will compromise the identity of my neighborhood.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designation. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency."

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months This is a Broken Process. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

I call on Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-tem Torosis, Councilman Raskin, Councilman Snell, and Councilman Zernitsyaka to reject this unacceptable use of an emergency ordinance, which undermines all other true emergencies, and also will radically change many neighborhoods in Santa Monica.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you,
Janet Heinzle
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1164 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 83 Santa Monica resident

JANET HEINZLE

LICENSED REAL ESTATE SALESPERSON

DOUGLAS ELLIMAN REAL ESTATE
2025 Ellie Platinum Award, Ranked # 17 Individual Agent in California, Top 7% of Agents Ranked in 2025 RealTrends Verified Top Agents and Teams OFFICE: 424.203.1800
MOBILE: 3108043499
[email protected]
11990 SAN VICENTE BLVD SUITE 100, LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 DRE #: 02080077

MY LISTINGS

DISCOVER THE VALUE OF YOUR HOME
FACEBOOK | X | YOUTUBE | INSTAGRAM | LINKEDIN | TIKTOK
At Douglas Elliman, we won't ask you for your social security number, bank account or other highly confidential information over email. *Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring ANY money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have the authority to bind a third party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication.

This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this email without the author's prior permission. We will never send or ask for sensitive or non-public information via e-mail, including bank account, social security information or wire information. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. The information contained in this communication may be confidential and may be subject to the attorneyclient privilege.If you are the intended recipient and you do not wish to receive similar electronic messages from us in the future then please respond to the sender to this effect. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Company.

Douglas Elliman may engage a third party vendor to answer telephone, email, text, and internet inquiries. This vendor acts as an agent for Douglas Elliman, and keeps all information confidential.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1165 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 84 Mitchell Kois
From: Lynne Schlosstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, I ask you to oppose item 12B on Council's agenda this week.

Council members Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is not a legiƟmate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit primarily an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly non-emergency situaƟons?
We absolutely need to create affordable housing for the less fortunate, but this "emergency" ordinance does nothing to help that. Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! This ordinance could dramaƟcally and forever change the nature of many neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park. We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses. What is being proposed is truly excessive. This kind of dramaƟc change to the amount of development that is allowed on individual parcels of R1--zoned neighborhoods will compromise the idenƟty of my neighborhood.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designaƟon. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency."

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months This is a Broken Process. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

I call on Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-tem Torosis, Councilman Raskin, Councilman Snell, and Councilman Zernitsyaka to reject this unacceptable use of an emergency ordinance, which undermines all other true emergencies, and also will radically change many neighborhoods in Santa Monica.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1166 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 85 Thank you,
Lynne Schlosstein
Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1167 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 86 Mitchell Kois
From: Dave Childs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, I ask you to oppose item 12B on Council's agenda this week.

Council members Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit primarily an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly nonemergency situations? We absolutely need to create affordable housing for the less fortunate, but this "emergency" ordinance does nothing to help that. Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! This ordinance could dramatically and forever change the nature of many neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park. We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses.

What is being proposed is truly excessive. This kind of dramatic change to the amount of development that is allowed on individual parcels of R1--zoned neighborhoods will compromise the identity of my neighborhood.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designation. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency."

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1168 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 87 This is a Broken Process. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

I call on Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-tem Torosis, Councilman Raskin, Councilman Snell, and Councilman Zernitsyaka to reject this unacceptable use of an emergency ordinance, which undermines all other true emergencies, and also will radically change many neighborhoods in Santa Monica.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you,
Dave Childs
Santa Monica resident
Dave Childs
3137 Frederick Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
[email protected]
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1169 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 88 Mitchell Kois
From: Julie Pearl Slater <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
How is it that things keep getting WORSE in our little community and not better with you all at the helm!!!
As a resident of Santa Monica, I ask you to oppose item 12B on Council's agenda this week.

Council members Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit primarily an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly nonemergency situations? We absolutely need to create affordable housing for the less fortunate, but this "emergency" ordinance does nothing to help that. Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! This ordinance could dramatically and forever change the nature of many neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park. We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses.

What is being proposed is truly excessive. This kind of dramatic change to the amount of development that is allowed on individual parcels of R1--zoned neighborhoods will compromise the identity of my neighborhood.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designation. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency." Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1170 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 89 5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
This is a Broken Process. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

I call on Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-tem Torosis, Councilman Raskin, Councilman Snell, and Councilman Zernitsyaka to reject this unacceptable use of an emergency ordinance, which undermines all other true emergencies, and also will radically change many neighborhoods in Santa Monica.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you,
Julie Pearl Slater
Ian Slater
Santa Monica resident
Julie Pearl Slater
310.948.4464
www.curatedcampustours.com
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. image
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1171 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 90 Mitchell Kois
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2025 11:52 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for Item 12B – SB 1123 Emergency Zoning Ordinance Extension and Amendments
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
On behalf of Santa Monica Forward, we write in strong support of Item 12B, the Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance that extends and updates Ordinance 2816 to support the implementation of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These updates are essential to ensure that new ownership housing opportunities created by state law can actually work in practice here in Santa Monica. Without these adjustments, projects on vacant single-family parcels may be legally permitted but financially or physically infeasible.

We applaud the City for taking thoughtful action to provide the flexibility needed to make these projects successful, including:
 Allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), which support multigenerational living and increase housing options without counting against SB 1123’s unit cap;  Waiving Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP) fees for small-scale ownership projects (5 units or fewer), helping keep costs manageable for first-time buyers and small developers;  Modernizing development standards—such as increased FAR, reduced setbacks, and eliminating unnecessary stepbacks—to make modest infill construction viable while maintaining neighborhood character;
 Extending ADU eligibility to SB 684 parcels in multifamily zones, enabling a broader range of infill projects across the city.

These are smart, targeted adjustments that reflect real-world development constraints while advancing our shared goals of sustainability, inclusion, and housing opportunity. They help turn the promise of SB 1123 and SB 684 into meaningful results on the ground.

We urge you to adopt this ordinance and continue showing leadership in addressing California’s housing crisis at the local level.

Thank you,
Brad Ewing and Carl Hansen
Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1172 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 91 --
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.

SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1173 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 92 Mitchell Kois
From: Burt Goldstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 4:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Opposition to Agenda Item (12.B)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

I oppose Agenda Item (12.B.

I take it to be concerning: Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Extending and Amending the Regulations Established by Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816 (CCS) One emergency that concerns me more is the failure of the City to fund the Police Chief’s request for more officers, and the failure of the out of control over-development in the City to provide adequate policing for the influx of new residents and hotel patrons that the City’s actions is provoking.

Not to mention the abandonment of the former Master Plan’s requirement for a study of ’transit times’ to monitor the increased traffic resulting from issuing variances to our former restrictions on high rises and overbuilding.

Sincerely,
Burt Goldstein
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1174 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Dirk van de Bunt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I urge you to oppose Item 12B on this week’s agenda.

This “emergency” ordinance tied to SB 1123 does not meet the legal standard for an emergency: I see no immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare. Instead, it fast-tracks major zoning changes that favor developers, not residents.

If enacted, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on any single-family R1 lot—easily triggered by a demolition permit

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Waive affordable housing fees for 10-unit projects (5 homes + 5 ADUs) in R1 zones

4. Bypass public input and Planning Commission review by abusing the “emergency” label

5. Extend a temporary ADU ordinance from 60 days to 18 months without justification This is a major land use decision masquerading as an emergency. It deserves proper review—not a rush job.

Please vote no on Item 12B.

Thank you,
Dirk van de Bunt
1624 Hill St
Santa Monica 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1175 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 2 Mitchell Kois
From: Sandy Laderas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Sandra Laderas
90405
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1176 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 3 Mitchell Kois
From: Lois Bostwick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Lois Bostwick
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1177 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 4 Mitchell Kois
From: MIB <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Vikram and Monica Bhardwaj
2504 33rd st
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1178 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 5 Mitchell Kois
From: Chris Rowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

And these larger buildings require MUCH MORE DISRUPTIVE construction than single family houses, which puts an undue burden on the senior citizens who comprise so many of our neighbors.

My parents are 80 and live in Sunset Park, and there is a new house with a basement going in next to them. It's a huge pit, and the noise of this construction site is above and beyond what should be allowed in a quiet neighborhood. Yet that is nothing compared to the depth of foundation and massiveness of structure that would be required for an apartment building with underground parking etc. We live across the 10 freeway from any rail line. Nobody is taking the bus. We don't need massive apartment buildings traumatizing the senior community, most of whom have been in their houses for 40+ years.

Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Christopher Rowe
2442 22nd St
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1179 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 6 Mitchell Kois
From: Susan Shapiro <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Susan Shapiro
1618 Wellesley Drive
90405
Sent from Outlook
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1180 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Karen Comegys-Wortz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please OPPOSE item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
PLEASE, respect the the needs of residents, NOT developers! Please reject this rediculous "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Karen Comegys-Wortz
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1181 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 2 Mitchell Kois
From: Gail Denney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
[Your Name Here]
90405
Sent from
Gail Denney
Professional Retail Sales Consultant
[email protected]
310 621 7486
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1182 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 4 Mitchell Kois
From: Rose Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you, Rose Nelson
90402
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1183 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 5 Mitchell Kois
From: Paula Mazur <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Robert Mickelson
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL

DEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS,
WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU OPPOSE ITEM 12.B ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA THIS WEEK.

THIS EMAIL IS NOT A NIMBY RESPONSE TO ITEM 12.B. WE ARE PRO HOUSING.

AND WE WANT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO HANDLE THE NEED FOR HOUSING WITH MORE NUANCE, AND WITH RESPECT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WILL BE AFFECTED.

RIGHT NOW “EMERGENCY” ITEM 12B, WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS ZWICK AND HALL HAVE

INTRODUCED, FEELS LIKE A CAVALIER, KNEE JERK, NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT RESPONSE TO A VERY REAL CRISIS, AND WILL END UP BEING A DEVELOPER’S BONANZA.

THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA WILL HAVE ACTED WITHOUT NUANCED ENOUGH CONSIDERATION, AND

NEIGHBORHOODS WILL SUFFER UNNECESSARILY, WHEN THERE ARE HOUSING SOLUTIONS TO BE HAD, THAT MUST BE HAD.

ITEM 12B IS NOT THAT SOLUTION.

WE ASK THAT YOU REJECT THIS EMERGENCY ORDINANCE.

BEST,

PAULA MAZUR

ROBERT MICKELSON
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1184 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 8:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Phyllis Chavez
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1185 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 2 Mitchell Kois
From: Caroline Denyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 7:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Caroline Denyer
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1186 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 3 Mitchell Kois
From: Gina Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 7:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Gina Garcia
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1187 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 4 Mitchell Kois
From: Harper Savage <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 7:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Harper
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1188 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 5 Mitchell Kois
From: Theresa Forster <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 6:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
[Your Name Here]
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1189 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 6 Mitchell Kois
From: afnelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 6:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Allen Nelson
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1190 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 7 Sent from my Galaxy
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1191 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 8 Mitchell Kois
From: Bill Josephs <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 5:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
[Your Name Here]
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1192 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 9 Mitchell Kois
From: Jenny Blum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 3:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Jennifer Blum
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1193 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 10 Mitchell Kois
From: Stevan Hill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:26 AM
To: Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Emergency
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Letter in opposition to (a) the proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance concerning relaxed development standards for projects using SB1123; and (b) the extension of the Emergency Interim Ordinance 2816 permitting ADUs on SB1123 projects.

I write to oppose the proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance concerning relaxed development standards for projects using SB1123, and the extension of the Emergency Interim Ordinance 2816 permitting ADUs on SB1123 projects.

1. THERE IS NO EMERGENCY! Under the City's municipal code, in order to bypass the usual, deliberate rules for adopting or amending a zoning ordinance, there must be an "emergency" that constitutes a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." SMMC

9.46.090(B). Without such a finding, an emergency ordinance is prohibited.

A. The proposed emergency ordinance does not identify what the “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare” is, that justifies the new emergency ordinance. Instead, the preamble to the new ordinance states that “there exists a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare requiring extension of this Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance.” (Emphasis added). The new proposed emergency ordinance does purport to extend the emergency ADU ordinance by an extraordinary 18 months. But there are no reasons given that explain why the relaxed building standards in the new proposed emergency ordinance are justified by “a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare requiring extension of this Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance.” This alone should result in the rejection of the new emergency ordinance on development standards.

B. Perhaps the Clerk and the City Attorney believed the reasons given for extending the ADU emergency ordinance also justified the new development standards emergency ordinance. Or maybe it was just a drafting error. In either case, the new reasons that purport to demonstrate “a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare” do not establish an “emergency,” either for extending the ADU ordinance or adopting the relaxed development standards.

Here are the four reasons given in the proposed emergency ordinance that supposedly show a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare” (1) a statewide and local Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1194 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 11 housing crisis; (2) the need to expand housing choices in the City’s 6 areas of highest opportunity; (3) the several applicants seeking to utilize these provisions as soon as the operative date for SB 1123; and (4) staff’s limited ability to bring forward permanent changes to the City’s Municipal Code by the effective date.
(1) A statewide and local housing crisis. The state legislature declared there was a housing crisis, especially in affordable housing, in California many years ago. For example, in 2021, the legislature declared there was a in “ensuring affordable housing.” See Senate Bill 9, §4. In SB684, adopted in 2023, the Legislature declared “California has a statewide housing crisis, represented by a shortage of nearly 3,500,000 homes.” See SB684, §1. In 2024, in section 4 of SB1123, the Legislature declared “that the state faces a severe housing shortage, largely due to the lack of available housing affordable to lower and moderateincome families.” There is nothing identified in the proposed emergency ordinance that makes the housing shortage, especially in affordable housing, a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Indeed, the basis for the proposed emergency ordinance is SB1123, where the Legislature delayed the effective date of the statute for a year, undercutting a claim there is an immediate need to bypass the requirements for approval of an ordinance because of a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Besides, the Council’s certainly hasn’t acted as though there is a crisis. It delayed from September 2024 until now to consider any kind of ordinance to implement SB1123. That SB1123 took effect could not prompt an “emergency.” Nothing prevents a developer from using the state law itself (which already contains many relaxed development standards) to apply for a tentative tract map (the first step in the SB1123 process). (2) The need to expand housing choices in the City’s 6 areas of highest opportunity. There likely is a great need to expand housing choices, especially affordable housing, but this also does not create an “emergency” or a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Expanding housing choices is a laudable goal and should be pursued, but what evidence is that this proposed ordinance is needed right now because of a current and immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare.

Nor is it clear which 6 areas the proposed ordinance targets or why the expansion of housing choices requires the Council to bypass at this time, the deliberate and thoughtful normal process to change local zoning laws.
(3) The several applicants seeking to utilize these provisions as soon as the operative date for SB 1123. The preamble of the proposed emergency ordinance states that "numerous applicants in the City ... would like to avail themselves" of SB1123, which took effect on July 1, 2025. Later the preamble recites that there were "the several applicants" who wanted to use SB1123. When the City responded to a Public Records Act that asked the City to identify the "numerous" or "several applicants" referenced in the preamble emergency ordinance, the City identified no one at all.

That was probably not entirely a truthful response. There is currently one vacant lot in Santa Moncia that could be available now for an SB1123 development, and that lot is owned by Stanford del Mar LLC (“SDM”) at 1101 Stanford Street. Undoubtedly, Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1195 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 12 SDM representatives asked about using SB1123 since the proposed SB9 development on that same vacant lot is stalled because the SB9 development does not comply with state law.

The Public Records Act request should have at least identified an SDM inquiry about SB1123.

One inquiry about one available lot doesn’t create an emergency. (There are a couple of other R-1 vacant lots in the northern part of the city, but they likely don’t qualify under SB1123 because they are in a very high fire hazard severity zone). In fact, even if there really were “several” or “numerous” inquiries, that would still not create and emergency or establish a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Even without a local ordinance, emergency or otherwise, a developer can “utilize” SB1123 right now. State law does not require a local ordinance to be used. SB1123 already contains relaxed development standards,and a developer can start the process under SB1123 by submitting a tentative parcel map for ministerial approval to the Planning Department.

Besides, there could not be a real “emergency” since the City Council itself created the predicament. SB1123proposed a new form of housing on vacant land in R-1 zoned districts. It permitted subdividing a vacant R-1 lotinto 10 or less small parcels that had to be at least 1200 square feet. The housing unit on the small parcel also cannot be larger than 1750 square feet maximum the state law allows. Many parcels in R-1 zones at more than four times the size of a potential SB1123 parcel, and the housing unit in an R-1 zone is often larger than 1750 square feet. Still, with careful planning, an SB1123 project could be designed so that the new housing does not materially change the character of an R-1 zoned neighborhood. That is why the Legislature gave local communities extra time to implement SB1123, if they wanted to enact a local ordinance. As a result, our Planning Department and City Council had from September 19, 2024, until July 1, 2025, to plan for implementing SB1123. There was ample time for thoughtful consideration of how these small parcel projects can fit into R-1 vacant land, using the normal procedure outlined in the Municipal Code that, among other things, requires robust public participation.

There is no excuse for the Council’s failure to start the process of implementing SB1123 a year ago. TheCouncil’s delay, when the Legislature gave the Council extra time to implement SB1123, is inexplicable. But the delay, when nothing prevented the Council from acting before July1, does not create an emergency. Without a true “emergency,” the Council cannot adopt an “Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance” for the proposed development standards emergency ordinance.

Nor should the Council be able to extend the first “Emergency Interim Ordinance” concerning ADUs. There was no emergency that supported its adoption on June 10, and there is no “emergency” that requires it be extended an additional 18 months. There is still no evidence of a continuing emergency that proves “a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare."
In addition, the July 4 published public notice is defective. The published notice failed to include a material term, namely how long the Council proposed to extend the ADU “emergency” ordinance.

There is irony here. The President is taking all manner of despicable actions, claiming many different emergencies to justify his actions. Mr. Zwick and Mr. Hall, and the other Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1196 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 13 members of the Council who claim there is an “emergency,” are doing exactly the same thing. The Council majority is taking "emergency" actions to justify impactful changes to the City's zoning ordinances, whilebypassing the established and required procedures to consider the zoning changes.

The Council should proceed like it did when implementing the City's SB9 ordinance. The discretionary issues in SB9 were considered by City staff and during a study session before the City Council. There was guidance from the Housing and Community Development Agency, and the issue received thoughtful consideration from the Planning Commission. There were at least two public hearings on the proposed SB9 ordinance. NONE of that happened with the first SB1123 emergency ordinance, or none has happened with the second.

Finally, even if there is anything that qualifies as an ‘emergency,” it is especially disquieting that there is only one possible SB1123 project now, and it is again the property owned by Stanford del Mar LLC. Just like the illegal recent amendments to the SB9 ordinance, severalCity Council members are advancing significant housing policy changes, mostly for their friends who claim to own the Stanford corporation. Again, as we see with the federal government, it is almost never good public policy to make big changes in city (or federal) law, for the obvious benefit of a single corporation.

(4) The staff’s limited ability to bring forward permanent changes to the City’s Municipal Code by the effective date. The inability to direct staff resources to what the Council now claims is an “emergency,” smacks of legislative malpractice. If there really was an “emergency,” you can bet the City Council and Planning Department would have found the resources to analyze the impact of various alternative development standards and propose an ordinance to implement SB1123. The “staff’s limited ability” does not create an emergency, especially in light of the many directions to staff by Council Members to develop truly crazy (and illegal) policies. For example, the staff was directed by Council Members to modify the City’s SB9 ordinance to eliminate mandatory provisions of state law. Rather than directing staff in January to return with an ordinance that violated state law, staff time could have been better spent evaluating and proposing a thoughtful change to the zoning laws that could have implemented SB1123.

The scandal now is that there is absolutely still no analysis of the impact of the proposed emergency ordinance. Indeed, has anyone in City government actually determined whether the proposed “relaxed” development standards will promote projects under SB1123, or if housing can be safely built under the proposed emergency ordinance, with reduced or no setbacks? Has anyone consulted the Fire Department? Has the staff considered how the emergency ordinancewill impact the character of singlefamilyneighborhoods? Surely there are relaxed development standards that both promote affordable and diverse housing, that also do not destroy the single-familyneighborhoods that make Santa Monica so attractive.

It is the staff’s failure now, before an emergency ordinance is effective for perhaps as long as five years, that is a “a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1197 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 14 2. THE PROPOSED RELAXED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HAVE NOT BEEN VETTED AND MAY NOT BE NEEDED TO BUILD SB1123 HOUSING CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF AN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.

A. It is easy to claim the opposition to this and the earlier “emergency ordinance” is just NIMBY opposition to housing. That is categorically untrue. I support building more housing and would welcome low- and moderate-income housing in SB1123 projects. I don’t support putting apartments and townhouses on every available green space in the City. SB1123 presents a unique chance for thoughtful implementation of multi-family housing in R-1 zones, in a way that does not destroy the essential character of the neighborhood.

The relaxed development standards proposed in this “Emergency Ordinance” are, for the most part, not required by SB1123. These changes might be useful and might be needed to promote housing choices. But given the mandated minimum size of each parcel and the mandated maximum size of each housing unit, there has been no consideration concerning whether the relaxed standards beyond those in SB1123 itself are needed or even desirable for Santa Monica.

For example, the draft “Emergency Ordinance” expands the floor area ratio (FAR) to 1.5 for all projects, regardless of size. This FAR would result in very intense housing development. SB1123 itself requires a significantly smaller FAR of 1.0 for developments of 3- 7 units, and 1.25 for developments of 8-10 units. What is the justification on an emergency basis for increasing the FAR to 1.5, rather than applying the state mandate of 1.0 or 1.25, when a 1750 sq foot housing unit can readily be designed to fit even on a small parcel?

Another example is the proposed increase in building height. The draft “Emergency Ordinance” proposes toincrease the building height to three stories. SB1123 requires only two stories, which is the current height limit in most R-1 zones. Again, what is the justification on an emergency basis for this increase when a 1750 sq foot building can likely be built in 2 stories?
The draft “Emergency Ordinance” proposes to reduce the front setback to 10-20 feet. SB1123 says nothing about front setbacks. Currently front setbacks are usually 30 feet. Reducing the front setback is not needed to support a maximum 1750 sq. foot building, on even a small parcel.

Both the front setbacks and the height limit are highly desirable features of many R-1 neighborhoods. If the housing objectives of SB1123 can be met without eliminating these zoning rules, what is justification for doing so?

The same is true of the proposal to eliminate interior setbacks and stepbacks. Should they be eliminated, or is a reduction of the setback a more desirable choice? And how will the California Building Code impact fire safety and building standards?

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1198 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 15 I am not architect and the brief, informal conversations with architects in the few days since the text of the draft “Emergency Ordinance” was available is no substitute for the rigorous review that is needed for a new kind of housing in a previously restricted housing zone. Zoning by emergency ordinance is zoning exactly backwards. We have great resources in Santa Monica, and they should be used and their suggestions considered before the Council adopts this emergency ordinance. The apparent suggestion that the emergency ordinance be reviewed in 18 months, after SB1123 projects are built is nonsense. Imagine if a threestory project is constructed under the “Emergency Ordinance,” but after a detailed review 18 months later with Planning Commission and community input, the City decides SB1123 projects should conform to the usual R-1 neighborhood height standard. Will the City insist the third story be removed?

If a housing unit is built with only a 10-foot front set back, and after thoughtful consideration 18 months later, the consensus is the neighborhood standard should be preserved, will the City require the building be relocated on the lot? In both cases, the character of the neighborhood was changed by the “Emergency Ordinance,” and practically, there is nothing the City can do to “put Humpty Dumpty back together again.”

B. And what about affordable housing? Santa Monica is on track to build 225% of its objective for market rate housing. It is unlikely to come near its target for affordable housing.

The Council Members who proposed the emergency ordinance decry the lack of affordable housing –the “missing middle”, at every opportunity, and yet the proposed ordinance has no provision for required affordable housing. In fact, the emergency ordinance eliminates funding for affordable housing by eliminating the affordable housing fee required under the Affordable Housing Production Program for most SB1123 housing. That fee funds affordable housing projects in Santa Monica. What is the policy justification for eliminating the affordable housing fees, when we need more, not less affordable housing? Is it sensible to reduce access to affordable housing, especially without any analysis of what the impact will be? Here is a tangible way to help build affordable housing. We should not squander the opportunity to do something tangible about affordable housing in our community.

The Council should reject the extension of the emergency ordinance concerning SB1123 and ADUs and emergency ordinance to eliminate affordable housing fees and relax development standards. Applications for SB1123 projects should be accepted by the City and be required to follow state law, until there has been a thorough vetting of development options that best serve Santa Monica.

Stevan Hill
Business Development for North America
310-880-9200
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1199 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 16 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1200 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 17 Mitchell Kois
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Item 12.B
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park.
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1201 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 18 Mitchell Kois
From: Stevan Hill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Emergency
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Letter in opposition to (a) the proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance concerning relaxed development standards for projects using SB1123; and (b) the extension of the Emergency Interim Ordinance 2816 permitting ADUs on SB1123 projects.

I write to oppose the proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance concerning relaxed development standards for projects using SB1123, and the extension of the Emergency Interim Ordinance 2816 permitting ADUs on SB1123 projects.

1. THERE IS NO EMERGENCY! Under the City's municipal code, in order to bypass the usual, deliberate rules for adopting or amending a zoning ordinance, there must be an "emergency" that constitutes a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." SMMC

9.46.090(B). Without such a finding, an emergency ordinance is prohibited.

A. The proposed emergency ordinance does not identify what the “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare” is, that justifies the new emergency ordinance. Instead, the preamble to the new ordinance states that “there exists a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare requiring extension of this Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance.” (Emphasis added). The new proposed emergency ordinance does purport to extend the emergency ADU ordinance by an extraordinary 18 months. But there are no reasons given that explain why the relaxed building standards in the new proposed emergency ordinance are justified by “a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare requiring extension of this Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance.” This alone should result in the rejection of the new emergency ordinance on development standards.

B. Perhaps the Clerk and the City Attorney believed the reasons given for extending the ADU emergency ordinance also justified the new development standards emergency ordinance. Or maybe it was just a drafting error. In either case, the new reasons that purport to demonstrate “a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare” do not establish an “emergency,” either for extending the ADU ordinance or adopting the relaxed development standards.

Here are the four reasons given in the proposed emergency ordinance that supposedly show a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare” (1) a statewide and local housing crisis; (2) the need to expand housing choices in the City’s 6 areas of highest Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1202 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 19 opportunity; (3) the several applicants seeking to utilize these provisions as soon as the operative date for SB 1123; and (4) staff’s limited ability to bring forward permanent changes to the City’s Municipal Code by the effective date.
(1) A statewide and local housing crisis. The state legislature declared there was a housing crisis, especially in affordable housing, in California many years ago. For example, in 2021, the legislature declared there was a in “ensuring affordable housing.” See Senate Bill 9, §4. In SB684, adopted in 2023, the Legislature declared “California has a statewide housing crisis, represented by a shortage of nearly 3,500,000 homes.” See SB684, §1. In 2024, in section 4 of SB1123, the Legislature declared “that the state faces a severe housing shortage, largely due to the lack of available housing affordable to lower and moderateincome families.” There is nothing identified in the proposed emergency ordinance that makes the housing shortage, especially in affordable housing, a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Indeed, the basis for the proposed emergency ordinance is SB1123, where the Legislature delayed the effective date of the statute for a year, undercutting a claim there is an immediate need to bypass the requirements for approval of an ordinance because of a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Besides, the Council’s certainly hasn’t acted as though there is a crisis. It delayed from September 2024 until now to consider any kind of ordinance to implement SB1123. That SB1123 took effect could not prompt an “emergency.” Nothing prevents a developer from using the state law itself (which already contains many relaxed development standards) to apply for a tentative tract map (the first step in the SB1123 process). (2) The need to expand housing choices in the City’s 6 areas of highest opportunity. There likely is a great need to expand housing choices, especially affordable housing, but this also does not create an “emergency” or a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Expanding housing choices is a laudable goal and should be pursued, but what evidence is that this proposed ordinance is needed right now because of a current and immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare.

Nor is it clear which 6 areas the proposed ordinance targets or why the expansion of housing choices requires the Council to bypass at this time, the deliberate and thoughtful normal process to change local zoning laws.
(3) The several applicants seeking to utilize these provisions as soon as the operative date for SB 1123. The preamble of the proposed emergency ordinance states that "numerous applicants in the City ... would like to avail themselves" of SB1123, which took effect on July 1, 2025. Later the preamble recites that there were "the several applicants" who wanted to use SB1123. When the City responded to a Public Records Act that asked the City to identify the "numerous" or "several applicants" referenced in the preamble emergency ordinance, the City identified no one at all.

That was probably not entirely a truthful response. There is currently one vacant lot in Santa Moncia that could be available now for an SB1123 development, and that lot is owned by Stanford del Mar LLC (“SDM”) at 1101 Stanford Street. Undoubtedly, SDM representatives asked about using SB1123 since the proposed SB9 development on Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1203 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 20 that same vacant lot is stalled because the SB9 development does not comply with state law.

The Public Records Act request should have at least identified an SDM inquiry about SB1123.

One inquiry about one available lot doesn’t create an emergency. (There are a couple of other R-1 vacant lots in the northern part of the city, but they likely don’t qualify under SB1123 because they are in a very high fire hazard severity zone). In fact, even if there really were “several” or “numerous” inquiries, that would still not create and emergency or establish a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Even without a local ordinance, emergency or otherwise, a developer can “utilize” SB1123 right now. State law does not require a local ordinance to be used. SB1123 already contains relaxed development standards,and a developer can start the process under SB1123 by submitting a tentative parcel map for ministerial approval to the Planning Department.

Besides, there could not be a real “emergency” since the City Council itself created the predicament. SB1123proposed a new form of housing on vacant land in R-1 zoned districts. It permitted subdividing a vacant R-1 lotinto 10 or less small parcels that had to be at least 1200 square feet. The housing unit on the small parcel also cannot be larger than 1750 square feet maximum the state law allows. Many parcels in R-1 zones at more than four times the size of a potential SB1123 parcel, and the housing unit in an R-1 zone is often larger than 1750 square feet. Still, with careful planning, an SB1123 project could be designed so that the new housing does not materially change the character of an R-1 zoned neighborhood. That is why the Legislature gave local communities extra time to implement SB1123, if they wanted to enact a local ordinance. As a result, our Planning Department and City Council had from September 19, 2024, until July 1, 2025, to plan for implementing SB1123. There was ample time for thoughtful consideration of how these small parcel projects can fit into R-1 vacant land, using the normal procedure outlined in the Municipal Code that, among other things, requires robust public participation.

There is no excuse for the Council’s failure to start the process of implementing SB1123 a year ago. TheCouncil’s delay, when the Legislature gave the Council extra time to implement SB1123, is inexplicable. But the delay, when nothing prevented the Council from acting before July1, does not create an emergency. Without a true “emergency,” the Council cannot adopt an “Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance” for the proposed development standards emergency ordinance.

Nor should the Council be able to extend the first “Emergency Interim Ordinance” concerning ADUs. There was no emergency that supported its adoption on June 10, and there is no “emergency” that requires it be extended an additional 18 months. There is still no evidence of a continuing emergency that proves “a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare."
In addition, the July 4 published public notice is defective. The published notice failed to include a material term, namely how long the Council proposed to extend the ADU “emergency” ordinance.

There is irony here. The President is taking all manner of despicable actions, claiming many different emergencies to justify his actions. Mr. Zwick and Mr. Hall, and the other members of the Council who claim there is an “emergency,” are doing exactly the same Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1204 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 21 thing. The Council majority is taking "emergency" actions to justify impactful changes to the City's zoning ordinances, whilebypassing the established and required procedures to consider the zoning changes.

The Council should proceed like it did when implementing the City's SB9 ordinance. The discretionary issues in SB9 were considered by City staff and during a study session before the City Council. There was guidance from the Housing and Community Development Agency, and the issue received thoughtful consideration from the Planning Commission. There were at least two public hearings on the proposed SB9 ordinance. NONE of that happened with the first SB1123 emergency ordinance, or none has happened with the second.

Finally, even if there is anything that qualifies as an ‘emergency,” it is especially disquieting that there is only one possible SB1123 project now, and it is again the property owned by Stanford del Mar LLC. Just like the illegal recent amendments to the SB9 ordinance, severalCity Council members are advancing significant housing policy changes, mostly for their friends who claim to own the Stanford corporation. Again, as we see with the federal government, it is almost never good public policy to make big changes in city (or federal) law, for the obvious benefit of a single corporation.

(4) The staff’s limited ability to bring forward permanent changes to the City’s Municipal Code by the effective date. The inability to direct staff resources to what the Council now claims is an “emergency,” smacks of legislative malpractice. If there really was an “emergency,” you can bet the City Council and Planning Department would have found the resources to analyze the impact of various alternative development standards and propose an ordinance to implement SB1123. The “staff’s limited ability” does not create an emergency, especially in light of the many directions to staff by Council Members to develop truly crazy (and illegal) policies. For example, the staff was directed by Council Members to modify the City’s SB9 ordinance to eliminate mandatory provisions of state law. Rather than directing staff in January to return with an ordinance that violated state law, staff time could have been better spent evaluating and proposing a thoughtful change to the zoning laws that could have implemented SB1123.

The scandal now is that there is absolutely still no analysis of the impact of the proposed emergency ordinance. Indeed, has anyone in City government actually determined whether the proposed “relaxed” development standards will promote projects under SB1123, or if housing can be safely built under the proposed emergency ordinance, with reduced or no setbacks? Has anyone consulted the Fire Department? Has the staff considered how the emergency ordinancewill impact the character of singlefamilyneighborhoods? Surely there are relaxed development standards that both promote affordable and diverse housing, that also do not destroy the single-familyneighborhoods that make Santa Monica so attractive.

It is the staff’s failure now, before an emergency ordinance is effective for perhaps as long as five years, that is a “a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1205 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 22 2. THE PROPOSED RELAXED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HAVE NOT BEEN VETTED AND MAY NOT BE NEEDED TO BUILD SB1123 HOUSING CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF AN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.

A. It is easy to claim the opposition to this and the earlier “emergency ordinance” is just NIMBY opposition to housing. That is categorically untrue. I support building more housing and would welcome low- and moderate-income housing in SB1123 projects. I don’t support putting apartments and townhouses on every available green space in the City. SB1123 presents a unique chance for thoughtful implementation of multi-family housing in R-1 zones, in a way that does not destroy the essential character of the neighborhood.

The relaxed development standards proposed in this “Emergency Ordinance” are, for the most part, not required by SB1123. These changes might be useful and might be needed to promote housing choices. But given the mandated minimum size of each parcel and the mandated maximum size of each housing unit, there has been no consideration concerning whether the relaxed standards beyond those in SB1123 itself are needed or even desirable for Santa Monica.

For example, the draft “Emergency Ordinance” expands the floor area ratio (FAR) to 1.5 for all projects, regardless of size. This FAR would result in very intense housing development. SB1123 itself requires a significantly smaller FAR of 1.0 for developments of 3- 7 units, and 1.25 for developments of 8-10 units. What is the justification on an emergency basis for increasing the FAR to 1.5, rather than applying the state mandate of 1.0 or 1.25, when a 1750 sq foot housing unit can readily be designed to fit even on a small parcel?

Another example is the proposed increase in building height. The draft “Emergency Ordinance” proposes toincrease the building height to three stories. SB1123 requires only two stories, which is the current height limit in most R-1 zones. Again, what is the justification on an emergency basis for this increase when a 1750 sq foot building can likely be built in 2 stories?
The draft “Emergency Ordinance” proposes to reduce the front setback to 10-20 feet. SB1123 says nothing about front setbacks. Currently front setbacks are usually 30 feet. Reducing the front setback is not needed to support a maximum 1750 sq. foot building, on even a small parcel.

Both the front setbacks and the height limit are highly desirable features of many R-1 neighborhoods. If the housing objectives of SB1123 can be met without eliminating these zoning rules, what is justification for doing so?

The same is true of the proposal to eliminate interior setbacks and stepbacks. Should they be eliminated, or is a reduction of the setback a more desirable choice? And how will the California Building Code impact fire safety and building standards?

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1206 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 23 I am not architect and the brief, informal conversations with architects in the few days since the text of the draft “Emergency Ordinance” was available is no substitute for the rigorous review that is needed for a new kind of housing in a previously restricted housing zone. Zoning by emergency ordinance is zoning exactly backwards. We have great resources in Santa Monica, and they should be used and their suggestions considered before the Council adopts this emergency ordinance. The apparent suggestion that the emergency ordinance be reviewed in 18 months, after SB1123 projects are built is nonsense. Imagine if a threestory project is constructed under the “Emergency Ordinance,” but after a detailed review 18 months later with Planning Commission and community input, the City decides SB1123 projects should conform to the usual R-1 neighborhood height standard. Will the City insist the third story be removed?

If a housing unit is built with only a 10-foot front set back, and after thoughtful consideration 18 months later, the consensus is the neighborhood standard should be preserved, will the City require the building be relocated on the lot? In both cases, the character of the neighborhood was changed by the “Emergency Ordinance,” and practically, there is nothing the City can do to “put Humpty Dumpty back together again.”

B. And what about affordable housing? Santa Monica is on track to build 225% of its objective for market rate housing. It is unlikely to come near its target for affordable housing.

The Council Members who proposed the emergency ordinance decry the lack of affordable housing –the “missing middle”, at every opportunity, and yet the proposed ordinance has no provision for required affordable housing. In fact, the emergency ordinance eliminates funding for affordable housing by eliminating the affordable housing fee required under the Affordable Housing Production Program for most SB1123 housing. That fee funds affordable housing projects in Santa Monica. What is the policy justification for eliminating the affordable housing fees, when we need more, not less affordable housing? Is it sensible to reduce access to affordable housing, especially without any analysis of what the impact will be? Here is a tangible way to help build affordable housing. We should not squander the opportunity to do something tangible about affordable housing in our community.

The Council should reject the extension of the emergency ordinance concerning SB1123 and ADUs and emergency ordinance to eliminate affordable housing fees and relax development standards. Applications for SB1123 projects should be accepted by the City and be required to follow state law, until there has been a thorough vetting of development options that best serve Santa Monica.

Stevan Hill
Business Development for North America
310-880-9200
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1207 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 24 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1208 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 25 Mitchell Kois
From: Stevan Hill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Emergency ordinance
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Letter in opposition to (a) the proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance concerning relaxed development standards for projects using SB1123; and (b) the extension of the Emergency Interim Ordinance 2816 permitting ADUs on SB1123 projects.

I write to oppose the proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance concerning relaxed development standards for projects using SB1123, and the extension of the Emergency Interim Ordinance 2816 permitting ADUs on SB1123 projects.

1. THERE IS NO EMERGENCY! Under the City's municipal code, in order to bypass the usual, deliberate rules for adopting or amending a zoning ordinance, there must be an "emergency" that constitutes a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." SMMC

9.46.090(B). Without such a finding, an emergency ordinance is prohibited.

A. The proposed emergency ordinance does not identify what the “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare” is, that justifies the new emergency ordinance. Instead, the preamble to the new ordinance states that “there exists a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare requiring extension of this Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance.” (Emphasis added). The new proposed emergency ordinance does purport to extend the emergency ADU ordinance by an extraordinary 18 months. But there are no reasons given that explain why the relaxed building standards in the new proposed emergency ordinance are justified by “a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare requiring extension of this Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance.” This alone should result in the rejection of the new emergency ordinance on development standards.

B. Perhaps the Clerk and the City Attorney believed the reasons given for extending the ADU emergency ordinance also justified the new development standards emergency ordinance. Or maybe it was just a drafting error. In either case, the new reasons that purport to demonstrate “a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare” do not establish an “emergency,” either for extending the ADU ordinance or adopting the relaxed development standards.

Here are the four reasons given in the proposed emergency ordinance that supposedly show a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare” (1) a statewide and local housing crisis; (2) the need to expand housing choices in the City’s 6 areas of highest Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1209 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 26 opportunity; (3) the several applicants seeking to utilize these provisions as soon as the operative date for SB 1123; and (4) staff’s limited ability to bring forward permanent changes to the City’s Municipal Code by the effective date.
(1) A statewide and local housing crisis. The state legislature declared there was a housing crisis, especially in affordable housing, in California many years ago. For example, in 2021, the legislature declared there was a in “ensuring affordable housing.” See Senate Bill 9, §4. In SB684, adopted in 2023, the Legislature declared “California has a statewide housing crisis, represented by a shortage of nearly 3,500,000 homes.” See SB684, §1. In 2024, in section 4 of SB1123, the Legislature declared “that the state faces a severe housing shortage, largely due to the lack of available housing affordable to lower and moderateincome families.” There is nothing identified in the proposed emergency ordinance that makes the housing shortage, especially in affordable housing, a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Indeed, the basis for the proposed emergency ordinance is SB1123, where the Legislature delayed the effective date of the statute for a year, undercutting a claim there is an immediate need to bypass the requirements for approval of an ordinance because of a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Besides, the Council’s certainly hasn’t acted as though there is a crisis. It delayed from September 2024 until now to consider any kind of ordinance to implement SB1123. That SB1123 took effect could not prompt an “emergency.” Nothing prevents a developer from using the state law itself (which already contains many relaxed development standards) to apply for a tentative tract map (the first step in the SB1123 process). (2) The need to expand housing choices in the City’s 6 areas of highest opportunity. There likely is a great need to expand housing choices, especially affordable housing, but this also does not create an “emergency” or a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Expanding housing choices is a laudable goal and should be pursued, but what evidence is that this proposed ordinance is needed right now because of a current and immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare.

Nor is it clear which 6 areas the proposed ordinance targets or why the expansion of housing choices requires the Council to bypass at this time, the deliberate and thoughtful normal process to change local zoning laws.
(3) The several applicants seeking to utilize these provisions as soon as the operative date for SB 1123. The preamble of the proposed emergency ordinance states that "numerous applicants in the City ... would like to avail themselves" of SB1123, which took effect on July 1, 2025. Later the preamble recites that there were "the several applicants" who wanted to use SB1123. When the City responded to a Public Records Act that asked the City to identify the "numerous" or "several applicants" referenced in the preamble emergency ordinance, the City identified no one at all.

That was probably not entirely a truthful response. There is currently one vacant lot in Santa Moncia that could be available now for an SB1123 development, and that lot is owned by Stanford del Mar LLC (“SDM”) at 1101 Stanford Street. Undoubtedly, SDM representatives asked about using SB1123 since the proposed SB9 development on Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1210 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 27 that same vacant lot is stalled because the SB9 development does not comply with state law.

The Public Records Act request should have at least identified an SDM inquiry about SB1123.

One inquiry about one available lot doesn’t create an emergency. (There are a couple of other R-1 vacant lots in the northern part of the city, but they likely don’t qualify under SB1123 because they are in a very high fire hazard severity zone). In fact, even if there really were “several” or “numerous” inquiries, that would still not create and emergency or establish a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Even without a local ordinance, emergency or otherwise, a developer can “utilize” SB1123 right now. State law does not require a local ordinance to be used. SB1123 already contains relaxed development standards,and a developer can start the process under SB1123 by submitting a tentative parcel map for ministerial approval to the Planning Department.

Besides, there could not be a real “emergency” since the City Council itself created the predicament. SB1123proposed a new form of housing on vacant land in R-1 zoned districts. It permitted subdividing a vacant R-1 lotinto 10 or less small parcels that had to be at least 1200 square feet. The housing unit on the small parcel also cannot be larger than 1750 square feet maximum the state law allows. Many parcels in R-1 zones at more than four times the size of a potential SB1123 parcel, and the housing unit in an R-1 zone is often larger than 1750 square feet. Still, with careful planning, an SB1123 project could be designed so that the new housing does not materially change the character of an R-1 zoned neighborhood. That is why the Legislature gave local communities extra time to implement SB1123, if they wanted to enact a local ordinance. As a result, our Planning Department and City Council had from September 19, 2024, until July 1, 2025, to plan for implementing SB1123. There was ample time for thoughtful consideration of how these small parcel projects can fit into R-1 vacant land, using the normal procedure outlined in the Municipal Code that, among other things, requires robust public participation.

There is no excuse for the Council’s failure to start the process of implementing SB1123 a year ago. TheCouncil’s delay, when the Legislature gave the Council extra time to implement SB1123, is inexplicable. But the delay, when nothing prevented the Council from acting before July1, does not create an emergency. Without a true “emergency,” the Council cannot adopt an “Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance” for the proposed development standards emergency ordinance.

Nor should the Council be able to extend the first “Emergency Interim Ordinance” concerning ADUs. There was no emergency that supported its adoption on June 10, and there is no “emergency” that requires it be extended an additional 18 months. There is still no evidence of a continuing emergency that proves “a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare."
In addition, the July 4 published public notice is defective. The published notice failed to include a material term, namely how long the Council proposed to extend the ADU “emergency” ordinance.

There is irony here. The President is taking all manner of despicable actions, claiming many different emergencies to justify his actions. Mr. Zwick and Mr. Hall, and the other members of the Council who claim there is an “emergency,” are doing exactly the same Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1211 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 28 thing. The Council majority is taking "emergency" actions to justify impactful changes to the City's zoning ordinances, whilebypassing the established and required procedures to consider the zoning changes.

The Council should proceed like it did when implementing the City's SB9 ordinance. The discretionary issues in SB9 were considered by City staff and during a study session before the City Council. There was guidance from the Housing and Community Development Agency, and the issue received thoughtful consideration from the Planning Commission. There were at least two public hearings on the proposed SB9 ordinance. NONE of that happened with the first SB1123 emergency ordinance, or none has happened with the second.

Finally, even if there is anything that qualifies as an ‘emergency,” it is especially disquieting that there is only one possible SB1123 project now, and it is again the property owned by Stanford del Mar LLC. Just like the illegal recent amendments to the SB9 ordinance, severalCity Council members are advancing significant housing policy changes, mostly for their friends who claim to own the Stanford corporation. Again, as we see with the federal government, it is almost never good public policy to make big changes in city (or federal) law, for the obvious benefit of a single corporation.

(4) The staff’s limited ability to bring forward permanent changes to the City’s Municipal Code by the effective date. The inability to direct staff resources to what the Council now claims is an “emergency,” smacks of legislative malpractice. If there really was an “emergency,” you can bet the City Council and Planning Department would have found the resources to analyze the impact of various alternative development standards and propose an ordinance to implement SB1123. The “staff’s limited ability” does not create an emergency, especially in light of the many directions to staff by Council Members to develop truly crazy (and illegal) policies. For example, the staff was directed by Council Members to modify the City’s SB9 ordinance to eliminate mandatory provisions of state law. Rather than directing staff in January to return with an ordinance that violated state law, staff time could have been better spent evaluating and proposing a thoughtful change to the zoning laws that could have implemented SB1123.

The scandal now is that there is absolutely still no analysis of the impact of the proposed emergency ordinance. Indeed, has anyone in City government actually determined whether the proposed “relaxed” development standards will promote projects under SB1123, or if housing can be safely built under the proposed emergency ordinance, with reduced or no setbacks? Has anyone consulted the Fire Department? Has the staff considered how the emergency ordinancewill impact the character of singlefamilyneighborhoods? Surely there are relaxed development standards that both promote affordable and diverse housing, that also do not destroy the single-familyneighborhoods that make Santa Monica so attractive.

It is the staff’s failure now, before an emergency ordinance is effective for perhaps as long as five years, that is a “a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1212 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 29 2. THE PROPOSED RELAXED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HAVE NOT BEEN VETTED AND MAY NOT BE NEEDED TO BUILD SB1123 HOUSING CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF AN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.

A. It is easy to claim the opposition to this and the earlier “emergency ordinance” is just NIMBY opposition to housing. That is categorically untrue. I support building more housing and would welcome low- and moderate-income housing in SB1123 projects. I don’t support putting apartments and townhouses on every available green space in the City. SB1123 presents a unique chance for thoughtful implementation of multi-family housing in R-1 zones, in a way that does not destroy the essential character of the neighborhood.

The relaxed development standards proposed in this “Emergency Ordinance” are, for the most part, not required by SB1123. These changes might be useful and might be needed to promote housing choices. But given the mandated minimum size of each parcel and the mandated maximum size of each housing unit, there has been no consideration concerning whether the relaxed standards beyond those in SB1123 itself are needed or even desirable for Santa Monica.

For example, the draft “Emergency Ordinance” expands the floor area ratio (FAR) to 1.5 for all projects, regardless of size. This FAR would result in very intense housing development. SB1123 itself requires a significantly smaller FAR of 1.0 for developments of 3- 7 units, and 1.25 for developments of 8-10 units. What is the justification on an emergency basis for increasing the FAR to 1.5, rather than applying the state mandate of 1.0 or 1.25, when a 1750 sq foot housing unit can readily be designed to fit even on a small parcel?

Another example is the proposed increase in building height. The draft “Emergency Ordinance” proposes toincrease the building height to three stories. SB1123 requires only two stories, which is the current height limit in most R-1 zones. Again, what is the justification on an emergency basis for this increase when a 1750 sq foot building can likely be built in 2 stories?
The draft “Emergency Ordinance” proposes to reduce the front setback to 10-20 feet. SB1123 says nothing about front setbacks. Currently front setbacks are usually 30 feet. Reducing the front setback is not needed to support a maximum 1750 sq. foot building, on even a small parcel.

Both the front setbacks and the height limit are highly desirable features of many R-1 neighborhoods. If the housing objectives of SB1123 can be met without eliminating these zoning rules, what is justification for doing so?

The same is true of the proposal to eliminate interior setbacks and stepbacks. Should they be eliminated, or is a reduction of the setback a more desirable choice? And how will the California Building Code impact fire safety and building standards?

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1213 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 30 I am not architect and the brief, informal conversations with architects in the few days since the text of the draft “Emergency Ordinance” was available is no substitute for the rigorous review that is needed for a new kind of housing in a previously restricted housing zone. Zoning by emergency ordinance is zoning exactly backwards. We have great resources in Santa Monica, and they should be used and their suggestions considered before the Council adopts this emergency ordinance. The apparent suggestion that the emergency ordinance be reviewed in 18 months, after SB1123 projects are built is nonsense. Imagine if a threestory project is constructed under the “Emergency Ordinance,” but after a detailed review 18 months later with Planning Commission and community input, the City decides SB1123 projects should conform to the usual R-1 neighborhood height standard. Will the City insist the third story be removed?

If a housing unit is built with only a 10-foot front set back, and after thoughtful consideration 18 months later, the consensus is the neighborhood standard should be preserved, will the City require the building be relocated on the lot? In both cases, the character of the neighborhood was changed by the “Emergency Ordinance,” and practically, there is nothing the City can do to “put Humpty Dumpty back together again.”

B. And what about affordable housing? Santa Monica is on track to build 225% of its objective for market rate housing. It is unlikely to come near its target for affordable housing.

The Council Members who proposed the emergency ordinance decry the lack of affordable housing –the “missing middle”, at every opportunity, and yet the proposed ordinance has no provision for required affordable housing. In fact, the emergency ordinance eliminates funding for affordable housing by eliminating the affordable housing fee required under the Affordable Housing Production Program for most SB1123 housing. That fee funds affordable housing projects in Santa Monica. What is the policy justification for eliminating the affordable housing fees, when we need more, not less affordable housing? Is it sensible to reduce access to affordable housing, especially without any analysis of what the impact will be? Here is a tangible way to help build affordable housing. We should not squander the opportunity to do something tangible about affordable housing in our community.

The Council should reject the extension of the emergency ordinance concerning SB1123 and ADUs and emergency ordinance to eliminate affordable housing fees and relax development standards. Applications for SB1123 projects should be accepted by the City and be required to follow state law, until there has been a thorough vetting of development options that best serve Santa Monica.

Stevan Hill
Business Development for North America
310-880-9200
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1214 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 31 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1215 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 32 Mitchell Kois
From: Jo Wright <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an emergency ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will greatly benefit housing developers, and harm many residents of Santa Monica.

While we desperately need more housing, this is not the way to do it, nor is it at the level of density that will benefit the city long-term.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods - I am not 100% opposed to this, but it must be done carefully, thoughƞully, and in appropriate locaƟons.

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Jo Wright
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1216 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 33 Mitchell Kois
From: JOHN PRINDLE <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:54 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I’m wriƟng as a Santa Monica resident to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementaƟon of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportuniƟes allowed under state law can actually succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
- Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more opƟons for seniors, families, and caregivers;
- Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders; - Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can actually be built on typical lots; - Extends these opportuniƟes to more parts of the city, including mulƟ-unit areas under SB 684.

These are pracƟcal, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing opƟons while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and conƟnue supporƟng soluƟons that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
John Prindle
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1217 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 34 Mitchell Kois
From: Matias Fuchs-Lynch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:00 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I’m wriƟng as a Santa Monica resident to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementaƟon of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportuniƟes allowed under state law can actually succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
- Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more opƟons for seniors, families, and caregivers;
- Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders; - Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can actually be built on typical lots; - Extends these opportuniƟes to more parts of the city, including mulƟ-unit areas under SB 684.

These are pracƟcal, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing opƟons while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and conƟnue supporƟng soluƟons that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
MaƟ Fuchs-Lynch
1068 Yale Street
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1218 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 35 Mitchell Kois
From: Brian Lanich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 11:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Brian Lanich
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1219 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 36 Mitchell Kois
From: Brent Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Opposition to Agenda Item 12B – Emergency Ordinance Related to SB 1123 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Agenda Item 12B, the proposed emergency ordinance concerning SB 1123.

While I understand the intent to address housing shortages, I am concerned that this ordinance may not meet the criteria for an "emergency" as defined by law. According to the California Office of Administrative Law, emergency regulations are intended to address situations that call for immediate action to avoid serious harm to the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare. The proposed changes appear to fast-track significant zoning alterations without the standard public review process.

Specifically, the ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 10 housing units on vacant single-family (R1) lots, with the possibility of additional accessory dwelling units (ADUs), potentially increasing density beyond what is appropriate for these neighborhoods.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 zones, altering the character of established singlefamily neighborhoods.

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer units in R1 zones, reducing contributions to essential affordable housing funds.

4. Bypass the usual public zoning process, including Planning Commission review and public hearings, through the emergency designation.

5. Extend the duration of the emergency ordinance related to ADUs from the standard 60 days to 18 months.

These changes could significantly impact the fabric of our neighborhoods and set a precedent for circumventing established planning procedures. I urge the Council to reject this emergency ordinance and instead engage in a comprehensive, transparent process that includes community input and thorough analysis.

Thank you for considering my perspective.

Sincerely,
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1220 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 37 - Brent Cohen, 30-year Santa Monica Resident in 90405 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1221 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 38 Mitchell Kois
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:51 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: Bruce Leddy
Subject: ITEM 12. B - OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

TO: Mayor Negrete and Council Members
RE: ITEM 12.B, July 29, 2025 – OPPOSE
The Board of NOMA opposes Item 12.B, which would
exercise the Council’s emergency
powers. We oppose this item for two reasons:

First, it would rush, without proper study, deliberation, and public review, a massive
increase in residential density limits and relaxed
development standards for denser
residential development well beyond what is required by state law.

Second, there is no basis to declare an “emergency.”
Senate (SB) 1123 provides for ministerial subdivision of single-family zoned parcels,
offering the potential for greatly increased residential density in our city’s single-family
zoned neighborhoods. While the City must comply with
the explicit requirements of SB
1123, Item 12.B would double the residential density
that is required by SB 1123
and would relax development standards beyond the
relaxed standards that state law
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1222 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 39 already requires.

With this item, the Council would declare that “there
exists a current and immediate
threat to public health, safety, and welfare” requiring the extension of the emergency
interim allowance for ADUs in SB 1123 subdivisions and
the relaxing of development
standards for SB 1123 subdivisions. The Council should
instead consider that requiring
ministerial approval of residential density and relaxed development standards, well in
excess of what is required by state law and without
sufficient study, vetting, or public
deliberation, could itself, in fact, create a threat to public health, safety, and welfare.

For example, the development standards that the Council would relax with this item,
such as setbacks, can be protective of health, safety, and welfare, by, for example,
preventing the spread of fire. The entire NOMA
neighborhood was under an evacuation
order or warning during the Palisades Fire this past
January 2025. We encourage you
to consider that ministerial approval of added residential density could more readily
facilitate the spread of fire and challenge safe
evacuations in future disasters.

Ministerial subdivisions are expressly prohibited in
designated Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones by SB 1123. As you are aware, the recently designated Fire Hazard Severity
Zones extend into our neighborhood. Senate Bill 1123
subdivisions are prohibited by state law
from the northern boundary of our city to a couple blocks south. The Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone in our neighborhood transitions into the High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone such that from one property to the next (on the same block and on the same side
of the street) one property could be prohibited from an SB 1123 subdivision, while the
property next door could be susceptible to the massive
added density and relaxation of
development standards under the item you are
considering.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1223 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 40 We implore the Council to reject the approval of an
emergency interim ordinance, and
please consider any development allowances above and
beyond what are required by state law
through the normal deliberative process for ordinances, with input of our Planning Commission.

Any less would be a disservice and danger to our beloved community and to our neighbors.

The Board of NOMA
smnoma.org
[email protected]
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1224 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 41 Mitchell Kois
From: Holden Savage <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Holden Savage
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1225 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 42 Mitchell Kois
From: Wendy Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Wendy Cohen
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1226 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 43 Mitchell Kois
From: greg chasen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:34 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I’m writing as a Santa Monica resident to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementation of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportunities allowed under state law can actually succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
- Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more options for seniors, families, and caregivers;
- Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders;
- Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can actually be built on typical lots; - Extends these opportunities to more parts of the city, including multi-unit areas under SB 684.

These are practical, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing options while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and continue supporting solutions that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Greg Chasen
Mid-City
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1227 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 44 Mitchell Kois
From: fabrizio giorgi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Fabrizio Giorgi
90405
Fabrizio Giorgi
Sent from my iPhone.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1228 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 45 Mitchell Kois
From: Kirsten Campisi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Kirsten Campisi
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1229 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 46 Mitchell Kois
From: Sandy Wells <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Sandy Wells
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1230 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 47 Mitchell Kois
From: Ivana Suvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Ivana Suvak
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1231 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 48 Mitchell Kois
From: CJ Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 9:54 PM
To: Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete
Subject: Item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to implore you to OPPOSE item 12B.

Charading as an "emergency" this only benefits developers with no concern for residents, neighborhoods or the overall character or health of the City. In any case, there is simply no need to bypass the public zoning process and review by the Planning Commission.

Please reject this so-called "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
C Johnson
90405

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1232 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 49 Mitchell Kois
From: Eileen Tunick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 9:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
EILEEN TUNICK homeowner since 1979
1639 Sunset Ave.
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1233 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 50 Mitchell Kois
From: Casey Garner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 9:27 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I’m writing as a Santa Monica resident to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementation of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportunities allowed under state law can actually succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
- Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more options for seniors, families, and caregivers;
- Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders;
- Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can actually be built on typical lots; - Extends these opportunities to more parts of the city, including multi-unit areas under SB 684.

These are practical, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing options while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and continue supporting solutions that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Casey Garner
Downtown Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1234 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 51 Mitchell Kois
From: John Lin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 9:23 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I’m writing as a Santa Monica resident to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementation of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportunities allowed under state law can actually succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
- Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more options for seniors, families, and caregivers;
- Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders;
- Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can actually be built on typical lots; - Extends these opportunities to more parts of the city, including multi-unit areas under SB 684.

These are practical, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing options while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and continue supporting solutions that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
John Lin
500 Broadway
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1235 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 52 Mitchell Kois
From: Bronwyn Barkan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 9:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers, Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week. Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency. This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers. If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit. 2.

Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation. 5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Bronwyn Barkan
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1236 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 53 Mitchell Kois
From: Taylor Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: No on Item 12.B for council agenda 7/29/25
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote no on agenda item 12.B at this Tuesday's (7/29/25) council meeting for the following reasons:

1. Rather than 10 modest, affordable homes on small lots, owned by 10 families as SB1123 envisions, rather, this ordinance incentivizes the development of 5, larger lot homes with the additional cost of an ADU, requiring substantially more capital to purchase, in contradiction to the stated intent of the ordinance "WHEREAS, higher home prices have translated to less diversity in who is able to purchase a home"

2. This ordinance will likely NOT incentivize more units to be built than under SB1123 currently. Lot size in Santa Monica basically constrains development to under 10 either way. Analysis should be done

3. 5 larger lots with ADU's are more likely to be retained by a developer or purchased by an investor to rent, rather than 10 smaller lots which would more likely be sold.

4. It is imprudent to pass this ordinance under the provisions of an emergency. Analysis needs to be conducted to ensure it will achieve, rather than hinder, the stated goals of entry level home ownership.

Furthermore, the increased density, additional height allowances, reduction of setbacks, applicability to r1 vs commercial, definition and/or intent of "vacant" are all important provisions to be discussed openly and deliberately by the community rather than hurriedly rushed through.

5. From the staff report: "Based on City Council direction to exempt SB 1123 projects of five or fewer units from the affordable housing fee (SMMC Section 9.64.070(A)), there will be a financial impact due to the loss of funds used to support and develop affordable housing. For example, a condominium project that is 10,000 square feet would pay an affordable housing fee of $513,000 instead of providing an affordable unit. As SB 1123 is a new State law that has not yet been utilized in Santa Monica, the long-term impacts of this policy change are difficult to determine." This should give you pause! I thank you all for your consideration and for your service to Santa Monica, Taylor Scott
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1237 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 54 Mitchell Kois
From: db @ EXP <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica & Sunset Park, I ask you to oppose item 12B on Council's agenda this week.

Council members Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit primarily an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly nonemergency situations? We absolutely need to create affordable housing for the less fortunate, but this "emergency" ordinance does nothing to help that. Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! This ordinance could dramatically and forever change the nature of many neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park. We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses.

What is being proposed is truly excessive. This kind of dramatic change to the amount of development that is allowed on individual parcels of R1--zoned neighborhoods will compromise the identity of my neighborhood.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designation. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency."

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1238 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 55 This is a Broken Process. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

I call on Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-tem Torosis, Councilman Raskin, Councilman Snell, and Councilman Zernitsyaka to reject this unacceptable use of an emergency ordinance, which undermines all other true emergencies, and also will radically change many neighborhoods in Santa Monica.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods! I will happily join forces with any Santa Monica resident who wishes to pursue legal action against the city for damages should this pass.

Thank you,
David Bruce - Realtor
Santa Monica resident
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1239 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 56 Mitchell Kois
From: Tony O'Connell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Anthony O'Connell
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1240 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 57 Mitchell Kois
From: Kathy Knight <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Kathy Knight and Joe Faris
Sunset Park residents
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1241 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 58 Mitchell Kois
From: Taylor Ferguson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, I ask you to oppose item 12B on Council's agenda this week.

Council members Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is not a legiƟmate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit primarily an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

How will we ever be able to believe you and respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly non-emergency situaƟons?
We absolutely need to create affordable housing for the less fortunate, but this "emergency" ordinance does nothing to help that. Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! This ordinance could dramaƟcally and forever change the nature of many neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park. We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses. What is being proposed is truly excessive. This kind of dramaƟc change to the amount of development that is allowed on individual parcels of R1—zoned neighborhoods will compromise the idenƟty of my neighborhood.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designaƟon. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency."

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months This is a Broken Process. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact. This is extremely upseƫng.

I call on Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-tem Torosis, Councilman Raskin, Councilman Snell, and Councilman Zernitsyaka to reject this unacceptable use of an emergency ordinance, which undermines all other true emergencies, and also will radically change many neighborhoods in Santa Monica.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1242 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 59 PLEASE do the right thing.

Thank you,
Taylor Ferguson
Santa Monica Resident
___________________
Taylor Ferguson
ExecuƟve Producer
310-207-7800 LA office
310-801-3994 mobile
LA | SF | NYC
hƩps://urldefense.com/v3/__hƩp://www.bodegastudios.com__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!oTYnhEERWompsP4fWf0lcefNjIC WC_9ODNox-HNN4Ax5EfPrGoZsZy1ZOe5mlR8Dlw3dZLXUxS-38Q89qrwLdHpC3rCZ-30$ Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1243 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 60 Mitchell Kois
From: Toby Berlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Toby Berlin
1701 Pier Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90405
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1244 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 61 Mitchell Kois
From: Nancy Owens <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
[Nancy Owens]
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1245 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 62 Mitchell Kois
From: Sam Shapiro-Kline <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:17 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I’m writing as a Santa Monica resident to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementation of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportunities allowed under state law can actually succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
- Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more options for seniors, families, and caregivers;
- Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders;
- Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can actually be built on typical lots; - Extends these opportunities to more parts of the city, including multi-unit areas under SB 684.

These are practical, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing options while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and continue supporting solutions that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Sam Shapiro-Kline
90403
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1246 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 63 Mitchell Kois
From: Raquel Vallejo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, I ask you to oppose item 12B on Council's agenda this week.

Council members Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is NOT A LEGITIMATE EMERGENCY, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit primarily an out-ofstate corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly nonemergency situations? Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers, and does absolutely nothing to create affordable housing for the less fortunate.

This ordinance could dramatically and forever change the nature of many neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park. We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses.

What is being proposed is truly excessive. This kind of dramatic change to the amount of development that is allowed on individual parcels of R1--zoned neighborhoods will compromise the identity of my neighborhood.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designation. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency."

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1247 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 64 This is a Broken Process. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

I call on Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-tem Torosis, Councilman Raskin, Councilman Snell, and Councilman Zernitsyaka to reject this unacceptable use of an emergency ordinance, which undermines all other true emergencies, and also will radically change many neighborhoods in Santa Monica.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you,
Raquel Vallejo
Santa Monica resident/Sunset Park Resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1248 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 65 Mitchell Kois
From: Clay Savage <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Clay Savage
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1249 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 66 Mitchell Kois
From: Stu Selonick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:49 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I’m wriƟng as a Santa Monica resident to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementaƟon of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportuniƟes allowed under state law can actually succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
- Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more opƟons for seniors, families, and caregivers;
- Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders; - Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can actually be built on typical lots; - Extends these opportuniƟes to more parts of the city, including mulƟ-unit areas under SB 684.

These are pracƟcal, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing opƟons while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and conƟnue supporƟng soluƟons that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Stu Selonick
6th street, Santa Monica
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1250 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 67 Mitchell Kois
From: Linda Mansolillo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Linda Mansolillo
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1251 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 68 Mitchell Kois
From: Eli Gill <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:27 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I’m writing as a Santa Monica resident to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementation of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportunities allowed under state law can actually succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
- Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more options for seniors, families, and caregivers;
- Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders;
- Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can actually be built on typical lots; - Extends these opportunities to more parts of the city, including multi-unit areas under SB 684.

These are practical, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing options while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and continue supporting solutions that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Eli Gill
90403
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1252 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 69 Mitchell Kois
From: Susan Savage <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Susan Savage
Thank you,
[Your Name Here]
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1253 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 70 Mitchell Kois
From: restlesstraveler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Tiiu Lukk and Mark Litwak
1211 Ashland Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1254 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 71 Mitchell Kois
From: Ose Dalldorf <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; David White
Subject: Item 12 B ... Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Item 12.B
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
I am against these extreme, manipulative measures, especially under the guise of being pro - residents.

Your long time SM resident
Ose
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1255 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 72 Mitchell Kois
From: Judy Parsons <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Michael Parsons
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1256 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 73 Mitchell Kois
From: Jamie Levy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: SM Item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I urge you to oppose item 12B.

This proposed "emergency" ordinance, connected to SB 1123, does not meet the legal definition of an emergency, which requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." Its designation as such is a misuse of the process.

This fast-tracked measure will not benefit residents; its sole beneficiaries will be developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots (any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit).

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods.

3. Bypass the public zoning process, including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings, through the abuse of the "emergency" designation.

Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Jamie Levy
Thank you,
Jamie Levy
2425 32nd St, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1257 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 74 Mitchell Kois
From: Robert Dean <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Robert Dean
90405

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information contained in this communication (including, without limitation, in any attachment) is confidential and is intended for disclosure only to the addressee(s). If you are not an intended recipient or have otherwise received this communication in error, please notify the sender and then delete it, and Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1258 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 75 you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of any of the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1259 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 76 Mitchell Kois
From: NANCY TYRE <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Nancy Tyre
90402
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1260 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 77 Mitchell Kois
From: Connor Webb <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 12B- Support SB 1123 implementation and missing-middle housing Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I strongly support Item 12B to extend the emergency IZO allowing the inclusion of ADUs in SB 1123 projects, with the proposed amendments to eliminate AHPP fees for small projects and allow a FAR of

1.5, height of 3 stories, reduced front setback, and eliminate stepbacks.

This is an essential step for promoting the production of missing-middle housing in Santa Monica, which is a crucial bridge between large multifamily developments and out-of-reach exclusive single family homes. These projects are perfect for retaining one of the most important demographics for a healthy, close-knit community and strong economy -- Young families who are otherwise priced out of Santa Monica as their family grows and housing needs change.

As someone who will likely be starting a family soon, I often worry about the financial feasibility of staying in this city-- a community that I truly love and hope to witness thrive over the many coming decades. SB 1123 projects will help build the housing necessary to allow me that future, but only if we make them feasible. The proposed changes to the IZO are crucial for that feasibility.

Thank you,
Connor Webb
90404
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1261 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 78 Mitchell Kois
From: Margery Kratz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency. This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

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-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1262 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 79 Mitchell Kois
From: KS OG <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Kathleen O'Grady
90405

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1263 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 80 Mitchell Kois
From: Nancy Hicks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:

We oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week. There is no emergency. This is a fasttracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica, but will only benefit developers.

It is an outrage that consideration is being given to allow this type of over development.

Nancy & Wes Hicks
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1264 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 81 Mitchell Kois
From: Estelle Mednick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,BeƩy Mednick
2622 29th Street
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1265 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 82 Mitchell Kois
From: Leslee Mickshaw <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Leslee Mickshaw
90405
Leslee Mickshaw
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1266 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 83 Mitchell Kois
From: Traci Wallace <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Traci Wallace
1731 Dewey Street
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1267 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 84 Mitchell Kois
From: ANDREW DENYER <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Opposition to item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to ask that you vote to oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

This measure appears to be fast-tracked, and I ask that you each carefully consider if ultimately it is in the long-term benefit of the residents of Santa Monica, who must be your priority.

Please also consider the considerable investment and mortgages those who have purchased homes in R1 neighborhoods have made.

Purchasing any home is for many the most significant investment and financial decision any potential homeowner makes in their lifetime.

Look at any real estate agent’s listing, and the residential rating of a neighborhood is of paramount importance to any purchase decision.

Residents of Sunset Park and Santa Monica as a whole made a considerable investment to purchase homes based in no small part on the Zoning restrictions in place when doing so.

To refresh your memory regarding R1 zoning:

Purpose:
 R1 zoning maintains a specific character for neighborhoods, often prioritizing singlefamily homes and promoting low-density development.  Restrictions:

It usually includes regulations on lot size, building height, and lot coverage to ensure the suburban feel of the area.

We all know the world develops, and we cannot always hold onto traditions of the past and we need new and fresh ideas to solve today's problems. However, we cannot and must Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1268 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 85 always resist fundamentally changing neighborhoods. There are too many examples in our county of this being done and neighborhoods destroyed.

I urge each of you to find ways for our city to embrace the changes needed without fundamentally changing the neighborhoods that make Santa Monica, Santa Monica.

Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Andrew Denyer
90405
+1 310-795-3084
[email protected]
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1269 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 86 Mitchell Kois
From: Pablo De La Rosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Pablo De La Rosa
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1270 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 87 Mitchell Kois
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Fwd: Item 12.B - OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 5:17 PM
Subject: Item 12.B - OPPOSE
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: lana.negrete <[email protected]>, Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1271 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 88 Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Danielle Charney
Stop the sellout of our City
Dan and Jesse you aren't even from here - you come here to get $$ from developers for your careers - shame on your existance 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1272 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 89 Mitchell Kois
From: elena estrin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
elena estrin
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1273 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 90 Mitchell Kois
From: steve kandell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
steve kandell
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1274 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 91 Mitchell Kois
From: Darko Suvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B OPPOSE!!!!!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Darko Suvak
Anton Suvak
266632nd St
Santa Monica CA 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1275 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 92 Mitchell Kois
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Danielle Charney
Stop the sellout of our City
Dan and Jesse you aren't even from here - you come here to get $$ from developers for your careers - shame on your existance Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1276 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 93 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1277 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 94 Mitchell Kois
From: Stephen Everitt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers, Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week. Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency. This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers. If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit. 2.

Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation. 5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Stephen Everitt] 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1278 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 95 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Megan FitzGerald
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1279 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 96 Mitchell Kois
From: Mary De La Rosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Mary De La Rosa
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1280 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 97 Mitchell Kois
From: Ani S. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Ani Sherman
90405
Sent from my iPad
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1281 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Stevan Hill <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Over building in R1 lots

EXTERNAL
I am attaching an image of what potential over development could look like in our beautiful R1 neighborhoods.

If you have any questions
Stevan Hill
Business Development for North America
310-880-9200
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1282 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 1 Mitchell Kois
From: violet walther <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 8:26 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 12B

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Councilmembers,
As a concerned resident of Sunset Park, I urge you to oppose Item 12B which proposes an "emergency" ordinance tied to SB 1123.

By definition, an emergency ordinance must address a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare. There is no such emergency present here. This designation is being used to bypass standard procedures and public input—a misuse of the law and a threat to democratic planning.

This rushed measure would undermine the character of Sunset Park and other R1 neighborhoods across Santa Monica. It does not reflect the interests of residents, but rather serves developers seeking to exploit our zoning laws.

If adopted, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots—any lot can be made "vacant" with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3 story multifamily buildings in our R1 neighborhoods, dramatically altering the scale and character of our community.

3. Bypass public input in the zoning process including review by the Planning Commission and input through public hearings, by misusing the “emergency” designation.

Sunset Park is a stable, well-functioning neighborhood. Drastic zoning changes like these deserve a full, transparent public process- not emergency shortcuts. We deserve the chance to weigh in on changes that will directly affect our homes, streets, and quality of life.

I respectfully ask you to reject Item 12B and preserve the integrity of both our planning process and our neighborhoods.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Resident, Sunset Park – Santa Monica
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1283 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 2 Mitchell Kois
From: Veronica Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 8:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, I ask you to oppose item 12B on Council's agenda this week.

Council members Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is not a legiƟmate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit primarily an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly non-emergency situaƟons?
We absolutely need to create affordable housing for the less fortunate, but this "emergency" ordinance does nothing to help that. Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! This ordinance could dramaƟcally and forever change the nature of many neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park. We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses. What is being proposed is truly excessive. This kind of dramaƟc change to the amount of development that is allowed on individual parcels of R1--zoned neighborhoods will compromise the idenƟty of my neighborhood.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designaƟon. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency."

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months This is a Broken Process. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

I call on Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-tem Torosis, Councilman Raskin, Councilman Snell, and Councilman Zernitsyaka to reject this unacceptable use of an emergency ordinance, which undermines all other true emergencies, and also will radically change many neighborhoods in Santa Monica.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you,
Veronica Garcia
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1284 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 3 Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1285 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 4 Mitchell Kois
From: David Walther <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 8:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 12B

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B.

This would be an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency and is a misuse of the process.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

I live on 32nd st, and the thought that a developer could buy my neighbors house and build a whopping condominium next door (via this ridiculous “emergency” loophole) is unfathomable. It would simply ruin our neighborhood.

Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
David Walther
90405

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1286 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 5 Mitchell Kois
From: Tina <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 7:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers, Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week. Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency. This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers. If passed, this ordinance would: 1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit. 2.

Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation. 5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance. Thank you, [Your Name Here] 90405
Tina Cox
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1287 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 1 Mitchell Kois
From: M. Keon Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:57 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I’m wriƟng as a Santa Monica resident to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementaƟon of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportuniƟes allowed under state law can actually succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
- Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more opƟons for seniors, families, and caregivers;
- Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders; - Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can actually be built on typical lots; - Extends these opportuniƟes to more parts of the city, including mulƟ-unit areas under SB 684.

These are pracƟcal, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing opƟons while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and conƟnue supporƟng soluƟons that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Morgan Smith
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1288 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 2 Mitchell Kois
From: Mark Borenstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:53 AM
To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office; councilmtgitems Cc: Jesse Zwick
Subject: Objections to proposed emergency ordinance concerning SB1123 -- Item 12B Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Council Members, I urge you to reject the proposed emergency ordinance, Item 12-B on the Agenda for July 29, 2025.

1. The Council should be reminded that the adoption of the proposed emergency ordinance requires five council members to approve it. City Charter, ARTICLE VI, section 615.Surely there are three council members who can see the emergency ordinance is bad policy and should not be adopted. There is no emergency that presents an immediate threat to the health, safety and welfare. The extension of the emergency ordinance concerning ADUs on SB1123 projects and the new emergency ordinance concerning development standards and affordable housing should follow the procedure described in the Municipal Code, namely a full staff evaluation of the proposed zoning ordinances, referral to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation, before City Council consideration. See SMMC

9.46.050 and 9.46.060.

2. The published public notice concerning the extension of the earlier emergency ordinance, EIZO 2816, is defective. SMMC 9.46.090 requires public notice of the proposed emergency action. However, the public notice concerning extension of the ADU emergency notice failed to specify the duration of the extension, which could be as little as one day and as long as five years. The proposed duration is a material term of the proposed extension of the emergency ordinance and the failure to specify the proposed term, should render the public notice ineffective. Without proper public notice, the Council cannot act on the proposed emergency extension of the ADU ordinance.

3. It is not clear whether there is one or two proposed emergency ordinances. The public notice could be read as two separate proposed emergency ordinances, one to extend the prior EIZO concerning ADUs for 18 months, and a new proposed emergency ordinance to eliminate affordable housing fees and to adopt new development standards for SB1123, which would be effective for only 60 days.

Or it could be read as an attempted amendment of the expiring ADU emergency ordinance to now include far more subjects that are materially different from the ADU emergency ordinance. There is no provision in the Municipal Code that allows amendments to an emergency ordinance. Allowing unrelated amendments to a prior emergency ordinance would circumvent the very limited circumstances for approval of an emergency ordinance and its duration. If the proposed emergency ordinance is an attempted amendment of the prior emergency ordinance, it would be unauthorized and void.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1289 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 3 4. There has been no evaluation of either the need for, or the impact of the proposed new development standards. Although these standards are packaged as being proposed by the Planning Department, they were not developed by the Department. Instead, the proposed development standards were developed by several members of the City Council, attempting to completely bypass any review by the Planning Commission or the Planning Department. Material zoning changes should not be adopted simply because a few Council Members announced them at a meeting and directed the City Attorney to develop a draft emergency ordinance. That is especially true when the "emergency" is non-existent and SB1123 itself has a ministerial process and development standards that do not require any City Council action at all. The state law itself can be used right now, without any "emergency" ordinance at all.

5. Why should Affordable Housing fees--the only tool the City has to actually encourage much needed affordable housing, be eliminated for many SB1123 projects? That provision from the "emergency" ordinance should itself be eliminated.

The Council should reject both the extension of the "emergency" ADU ordinance and reject either an amendment of the ADU ordinance or a new "emergency" ordinance concerning AHPP fees and proposed development standards for S1123 project..

Mark Borenstein
Stanford Street
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1290 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 4 Mitchell Kois
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
In addiƟon to opposing item 12 B, I urge you to do two things:

1.Again in response to Dan Hall’s call for transparency, I urge you to immediately start an invesƟgaƟon into how the RHNA numbers went from 5,000 to 9,000 for required affordable units. I remember when the city council protested, the lobbyist threatened the city saying that if the city didn’t accept the 9,000, she could force the city to have to accept over 14,000 new affordable units. This decision has resulted in a glut of market rate units. And as Mayor Negrete has pointed out, this has not lowered the rents. Mayor Negrete has lived in SM all of her life, most of the rest of the council are newcomers and seem to have less experience with how supply and demand does not play out as expected in a beach town like SM. It’s a simple fact. When 1/3 of the new market rate units remain empty, isn’t it Ɵme to take a hard look at the goal of affordable housing and consider whether or not your strategy is working.

What is the scorecard now that we’ve built 300 percent of market rate housing? The public needs and deserves to know as Dan Hall has repeatedly said.

2. Immediately provide to the tax paying residents exact numbers for units built, units projected to be built given the approval of developments up to July 29th.

Where are we on the 9,000 exactly? What is the city plan for 90,000 new units, necessary to get 9,000 affordable, a seeming impossibility to this resident.

It is common knowledge that 4,000 units are siƫng unrented at this very moment. If the city truly cares about affordable housing, then take immediate acƟon to register those units and consider vacancy fees or taxes. Also everyone knows many many units are used secretly as illegal vacaƟon rentals.

Several years ago 2 people were hired at a salary of $150,000 apiece to track and fine those units. What exactly are their findings? And if no such numbers or fines exist, why are those salaries being paid?

3. Present the residents with a specific city plan. How will the city look in 5 years? In 10 years? Show us models, graphics, visuals. Does someone have an actual vision “penciled out,” or are we operaƟng piecemeal with no unified vision for this city the residents call home. What an opportunity someone has to create something spectacular here. The bar is high.

Rise up to it!
thank you.

Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1291 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 5 Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Karen Croner
90405
Karen Croner
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1292 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 6 Mitchell Kois
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." We are not in an emergency, by that definition. This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

I do think that emergency rules have their place. But ruling by "emergency" has a distinctively Trumpian quality to it in a case like this, when passing the ordinance would not immediately relieve a threat to health, safety or welfare. It is bypassing the system in order to get what you want. When a precedent is set to use "emergency" law for things that are not true emergencies, what stops this kind of legislation from being used for things that YOU don't want in the future? I fear for the Democratic party in California, and elsewhere, if elected officials in it continue to legislate in a way that is as willing to throw out our carefully constructed democratic and constitutional traditions as Trump is.

Then there is of course the fact that the end result of passing this rule will do absolutely nothing to alleviate the cost of housing for anyone in Santa Monica. Market rate luxury housing (which anything using this ordinance will be) only increases the cost of land, as developers compete to buy it, scrape everything on it, and build more and more luxury units. It actually makes it harder for truly affordable housing to be built, because it becomes more expensive for the city to subsidize it as the cost of land goes up. Why are we building more and more housing for more and more rich people? In Santa Monica, the high price of homes has everything to do with the income of people moving to this desirable coastal city, it will not come down by building more and more luxury units.

Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Heather Thomason
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1293 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 7 Mitchell Kois
From: Andrew Almendras <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:51 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Strong Support of 12B - More Housing Needed!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I’m writing as a Santa Monica resident to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementation of SB 1123 and SB 684.

Many of my friends and industry peers (Millennials & Gen X) who have successful careers and families have been forced out of the Santa Monica area due to limited housing availability. If this continues, SM will begin to become an irrelevant community filled with a dying generation that cannot contribute to the economic growth of such an amazing city like SM. Families will choose to invest their money elsewhere leaving Santa Monica behind as a modern city reflective of modern day society.

Therefore, building more housing in SM should be available and accessible to accommodate the next generation of homeowners.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportunities allowed under state law can actually succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
 Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more options for seniors, families, and caregivers;
 Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders;
 Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can actually be built on typical lots;
 Extends these opportunities to more parts of the city, including multi-unit areas under SB 684.

These are practical, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing options while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and continue supporting solutions that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1294 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 8 --
Andrew Almendras
818.439.9741
[email protected]
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1295 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 9 Mitchell Kois
From: Susan Alinsangan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demoliƟon permit.

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designaƟon.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Susan Alinsangan
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1296 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 10 Mitchell Kois
From: Warren Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123.

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS)

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Warren Allen, MD
1011 Pine St
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1297 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 11 Mitchell Kois
From: Tim Tareco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:46 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I’m wriƟng as a Santa Monica resident to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementaƟon of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportuniƟes allowed under state law can actually succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
- Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more opƟons for seniors, families, and caregivers;
- Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders; - Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can actually be built on typical lots; - Extends these opportuniƟes to more parts of the city, including mulƟ-unit areas under SB 684.

These are pracƟcal, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing opƟons while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and conƟnue supporƟng soluƟons that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Tim Tareco
201 Ocean Avenue 1503B
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Christodora CreaƟve

NY & LA
Ɵmtareco.com
917.576.7791
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1298 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 12 Mitchell Kois
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:43 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: SMCC 2025-07-29 Item 12-B - Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Attachments: Santa Monica 6th Cycle Progress as of 07-28-2025 City Chart.png; California Residential Construction Starts - First Tuesday 04-14-2025 Chart 1.png Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
To Santa Monica Councilmembers and Mayor Negrete,
I am writing in emphatic opposition to agenda item 12-B - Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance. On its face, this proposal is an exercise in gratuitous pandering to development and investment interests at the expense of the city’s residents that will not advance the City’s progress against any relevant RHNA target shortfalls. By allowing such unmitigated densification, it will further strain City finances with additional demands s for services without any revenue upsides.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on many single-family R1 lots, and 10+ units on most R1 lots

2. Permit many more 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for lot splits in R1 zones

4. Bypass the public process through misuse of “emergency” designation

5. Extend “emergency” status from the standard 60 days to 18 months Implementation of this ordinance will not in any way contribute towards the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA deficit since that deficit is EXCLUSIVELY comprised of shortfalls in the below market rate (BMR) unit categories, which this ordinance does not address. Total BMR achievement of the 6th Cycle RHNA targets stands at 23%. This shortfall is a function of a lack of subsidies and the absurdly low rate (down to 10%) of affordable inclusion in market rate projects that the State law allows, and that developers are using, in Santa Monica.

This ordinance is exclusively about unleashing market rate development in single family areas. The city is less than 50% into the 6th Cycle RHNA and it has already exceeded its ENTIRE 6th Cycle market rate target by 127%! The City’s published status as of yesterday is summarized as follows:

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1299 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 13 In relatively expensive R1 (Single Family) residential areas, the economics do not support affordable unit projects. Upzoning will only attract luxury market rate developments. And even if there are included affordable units in those projects, they would likely be a token 1 affordable unit for every 9 luxury market rate units, not moving the needle at all in meeting the RHNA targets.

That means upzoning R1 areas is an entirely gratuitous and opportunistic developer profiteering exercise at the cost of destroying our neighborhoods for no gain. That is why this should not be allowed to go forward.

As the Council is well aware, the RHNA targets are themselves arbitrary and capricious, as the shameless 2019 lobbying by Abundant Housing LA clearly demonstrated.

As the 6th Cycle Midpoint approaches, it is highly likely that 95% of cities will not meet their midpoint milestone targets. This is because RHNA is completely devoid of any economic logic other than, of course, providing developers free rein to opportunistically profiteer at the expense of communities (as Santa Monica’s market rate performance amply demonstrates). Because of this disconnect, RHNA has entirely failed to move the development needle in California:

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1300 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 14 When policy outcomes so comprehensively fail to meet policy objectives for such an overwhelming majority of participants, a failure rate of this magnitude indicates fundamental systemic State RHNA issues. When faced with such a high rate of city failure, the focus must shift to a comprehensive review of the RHNA policy’s design, implementation strategies. In this, the City should be actively pursuing a two pronged strategy of identifying new and expanded sources of BMR subsidies and building alliances with the vast multitude of cities that are facing the exact same issues.

As our elected representatives, doubling down on the failed RHNA process by decimating single family areas in Santa Monica is entirely irresponsible, unacceptable and enters the realm of legislative malfeasance.

Marc L. Verville
Sunset Park
Former Chair, Santa Monica Audit Subcommittee
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1301 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1302 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1303 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and 15 Mitchell Kois
From: Sharon Carothers <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:42 AM
To: Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete
Subject: PLEASE OPPOSE Item 12.B on this week's agenda
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to ask that you oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week. I understand Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." What is the emergency? As a homeowner in 90405 for almost 20 years, I understand this is not an emergency and implore you to prioritize the residents of Santa Monica and what is beneficial to them and NOT developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods.

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS).

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation.

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months.

How this ordinance benefit residents?
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Sharon Carothers
634 Navy Street
Santa Monica, 90405
202-285-4992
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1304 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 16 Mitchell Kois
From: Richard Milanesi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SAVE OUR LOT FROM DEVELOPERS -ITEM 12 B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
City Council Members
Why are you waiving the Owner Occupancy Requirement and ignoring SB9? This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input and community impact. What’s really driving this?
Why aren’t you standing up for R-1 homeowners?
Is this really about a housing shortage — or are you using that as cover for something else? “More housing” is your go-to slogan. But more of what? Market-rate units that don't solve affordability? Units that benefit out of state developers, not residents? You're opening the door to unchecked density and loss of local control — all while refusing to defend the character of single-family neighborhoods.

Stop hiding behind the state. Stop pretending you're forced into this.

We elected you to protect our community — not to roll over.

Do the right thing protect our R1 neighborhoods!

RICHARD MILANESI -SANTA MONICA RESIDENT
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1305 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 17 Mitchell Kois
From: Christine Donald <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Save Our R1 Lots From Developers-Item 12B
Attachments: SNACO COMMENTS MB 2.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1306 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, please preserve our beautiful RI neighborhoods while also thoughtfully expanding affordable housing opportunities in R1 zones. f Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This ordinance currently impacts only one property: 1101 Stanford, the property at the center of SNACO’s ongoing lawsuit. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units (10 main housing units and 10 ADUS) on any vacant single-family R1 lot. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit

2. Permit 3-story multifamily housing buildings in R1 neighborhoods. There has been no analysis whether increasing the current 2 story height limit is really needed for SB 1123 projects. Nor has there been any study about the impact three story projects will have on the character of R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for most lot splits in R1 zones, when these same council members loudly claim Santa Monica needs affordable housing

4. Bypass the public process (which includes Planning Commission review and multiple public hearings) through misuse of “emergency” designation

5. Extend the ADU “emergency” ordinance from the usual 60 days to 18 months
A Broken Process
None of that is happening now. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

We call on the Council to reject this misuse of emergency powers and instead reaffirm their commitment to a transparent, resident-centered process.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1307 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 18 Mitchell Kois
From: Danielle Kim <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:37 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I’m wriƟng as a Santa Monica resident to voice my strong support for Item 12B, which extends and updates the City’s interim zoning ordinance to support the implementaƟon of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These changes are important to ensure that new homeownership opportuniƟes allowed under state law can actually succeed in Santa Monica. Without some local flexibility, these projects risk being too difficult or expensive to build — even though they are legal under state policy.

I’m especially glad to see that this ordinance:
- Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on new small-lot ownership parcels, providing more opƟons for seniors, families, and caregivers;
- Removes fees for small (5-unit or fewer) projects, helping keep housing affordable for buyers and small builders; - Modernizes building standards so that well-designed projects can actually be built on typical lots; - Extends these opportuniƟes to more parts of the city, including mulƟ-unit areas under SB 684.

These are pracƟcal, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing opƟons while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and conƟnue supporƟng soluƟons that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Danielle Kim
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1308 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 19 Mitchell Kois
From: Eve Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Public Safety: Items 12B and 16C - Please Oppose Attachments: Public Comment re Agenda Items 12B and 16C.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Attached please find my written public comment regarding agenda items 12B and 16C.

Thank you.

Eve Lopez
Santa Monica Resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1309 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) July 29, 2025
Re: Agenda Items 12B and 16C
Dear Mayor Negrete and Honorable Councilmembers,
I write to express my deep and urgent concern regarding Agenda Items 12B and 16C, both of which propose to further facilitate development in our city without first addressing critical public safety requirements mandated by state law.

A recent Los Angeles Times article, published on July 25, 2025 (https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-07-25/l-a-fire-evacuation-plans-remainuntested), highlighted the troubling trend among Southern California cities of promoting development while ignoring their primary legal obligation to plan for emergency evacuation. Santa Monica is not exempt from this criticism.

On several occasions, including on February 11, 2025, I submitted both oral and written public comments to this Council raising precisely this issue: that in its rush to incentivize development, the City has neglected to comply with key statutory mandates related to public safety. California Government Code §§ 65302(g)(1) and 65302.15 clearly require local governments to conduct evacuation capacity assessments and to ensure, at a minimum, that emergency routes are viable, accessible, and capable of accommodating the population under a range of emergency scenarios.

Despite these concerns, the Council has taken no visible steps to address these deficiencies.

When this Council adopted an updated Safety Element on February 11, 2025, it failed to include the analyses required by:
• GC §65302.15, which mandates cities assess the capacity, safety, and viability of evacuation routes under varying emergency conditions;
• GC §65302(g)(5), which requires the identification of residential developments in hazard areas lacking at least two evacuation routes; and
• GC §65584.04(e)(2)(E), which requires consideration of evacuation constraints in allocating RHNA housing targets.

Following the Council’s adoption of the Safety Element, I submitted a public records request (R033450-022025) seeking the emergency evacuation capacity analysis that should have underpinned the adopted plan. Shockingly, no such analysis has been conducted. Furthermore, the public records request revealed that:
• Internal staff communications documented the City’s Chief Resilience Officer admission that she “forgot to ask” about the process for updating evacuation routes; • The staff member responsible for the Safety Element believed the City’s consultant was merely relying on outdated evacuation routes from prior plans, potentially dating back to 1995.
• No Local Hazard Mitigation Plan has yet been presented even though the Office of Emergency Management has, for years, been “actively coordinating the City’s process for Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1310 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) LHMP (Local Hazard Mitigation Plan) updates and mitigation planning efforts in sync with the Safety Element planning team”.

As the LA Times noted, conducting a proper evacuation assessment costs about the same as installing a single streetlight. The City’s failure to prioritize this analysis when the cost is so modest and the stakes so high, is not just an administrative oversight. It is a failure to plan for how residents, workers, and visitors will safely evacuate in the event of a wildfire, tsunami, earthquake or other disaster. It represents a violation of state law and, more fundamentally, a breach of public trust.

Given these deficiencies, it would be irresponsible and arguably criminally negligent for this Council to proceed with ordinances that further ease development standards without first ensuring compliance with the City’s most basic legal duty: protecting public safety.

I respectfully urge this Council not to adopt Agenda Items 12B or 16C or any further measures that promote additional development or densification and to instead consider the following suggestions to demonstrate the Council’s genuine commitment to increasing public safety:

1. Conduct a Comprehensive Emergency Evacuation Capacity Study Direct City staff to immediately conduct and publicly release a data-informed evacuation route capacity analysis to be incorporated into the Safety Element as required by Government Code §65302.15(a). This study must evaluate the capacity, safety, and viability of all evacuation routes under various emergency scenarios including wildfires, tsunamis, earthquakes, flooding and other disasters.

2. Identify At-Risk Residential Developments
Require staff to systematically identify all residential developments in designated hazard zones, such as tsunami, wildfire, liquification and earthquake areas that lack at least two viable emergency evacuation routes, per Government Code §65302(g)(5). This information should be made available to the public and used to prioritize infrastructure and policy improvements.

3. Fulfill Staff’s February 11, 2025 Commitments
Implement the oral commitments made by City staff at the February 11, 2025, Council meeting, including installing tsunami sirens at critical locations.

4. Create a Standing Agenda Item on Public Safety
Amend City Council's procedural rules to include a standing agenda item for public safety items at every regular Council meeting, ensuring that safety-related matters are heard prior to other, less urgent business. This would signal to residents that safety is a top priority and ensure regular updates and accountability.

5. Accelerate the Adoption of a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) Direct the Office of Emergency Management to prioritize finalizing and publicly presenting the longoverdue Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). This plan should align with the updated Safety Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1311 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) Element and be available for public review prior to Council adoption, as required under FEMA and CalOES guidelines.

Prioritizing public safety is not only sound policy, as our elected officials, it is your collective legal priority.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Eve Lopez
Santa Monica Resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1312 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) LOS ANGELES TIMES ARTICLE – JULY 25, 2025
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-07-25/l-a-fire-evacuation-plans-remain-untested Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1313 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) Just before sunrise on Nov. 8, 2018, a power line fell from a wind-worn Pacific Gas & Electric transmission tower and whipped into the structure nestled in the Sierra foothills. An electric arc sent molten metal into the dry vegetation below. It ignited.

Five minutes later, a PG&E employee spotted the fire while driving on a nearby Why is L.A.'s fire-evacuation plan still untested? - Los Angeles Times 1 of 7
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-07-25/l-a-fireevacuation-plans-remain-untested Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1314 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) highway and reported it. Within two hours of the sighting, the town of Paradise, seven miles away, sent its first evacuation order, but it was already too late. Within two minutes, flames were reported at the town’s edge. Landing embers quickly ignited dozens of spot fires in town. With only four major roads out of town, the streets quickly gridlocked. Paradise burned.

Sixty-four people died in Paradise during the agonizing seven-hour evacuation. Six of them were found in or next to their cars as they tried to evacuate.

Marc Levine, a state legislator at the time, listened over radio to the horrific scenes of people, stuck in traffic, abandoning their cars to flee on foot. “It made me think of the people falling from the World Trade Centers on 9/11,” he said. “They were going to be incinerated or they were going to jump. … They knew they would die either way.”
So, Levine wrote legislation requiring California cities and counties to analyze whether their roads could support a quick evacuation during emergencies such as fires, floods and tsunamis. Assembly Bill 747 passed in 2019. Yet, to date, the city of Los Angeles has failed to publicly report such an analysis, while fire safety advocates say L.A. County’s evacuation analysis fails to meet the law’s requirements.

The Times reached out to nearly a dozen city, county and state agencies involved with evacuation planning. All either did not respond to requests for comment, could not to point to an evacuation analysis in line with the state’s guidelines for AB 747 or indicated the responsibility for doing the work lies with other agencies. “The fact that local government leaders would not do as much as they can to protect human life and safety is just shocking to me,” Levine said.

In January, the streets of Pacific Palisades mirrored the scene that distressed Levine in 2018. Traffic was at a standstill on Sunset Boulevard and Palisades Drive — two of the only routes out of the burning landscape. When a spot fire exploded next to the route, police ran down the street, shouting at evacuees to run for their lives.

Every year, dozens of evacuations are ordered in California, organized and completed without any casualties — or even a news story. In these cases, public safety officials have all the lead time that they need to organize a safe and orderly evacuation before a fire reaches a community.

But it’s the much more dire evacuation scenarios — when the lead time is shorter than the time it takes to evacuate, like in the Palisades — where emergency planning is both most important and often ignored.
“There’s no incentive to ever present an evacuation plan that isn’t very positive,” said Thomas Cova, a professor at the University of Utah who studies wildfire evacuation analysis. “Why would an emergency planner — say some young upstart in an emergency operation center — ever want to present a plan to their colleagues that involves some people burning?”
The chaos of these worst-case scenario evacuations often looks nothing like the Why is L.A.'s fire-evacuation plan still untested? - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-07-25/l-a-fire-evacuat... 2 of 7
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1315 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) orderly phased evacuations cities often focus on. Unlike in “blue sky” evacuations, smoke can hinder visibility and cause crashes. Often whole towns must leave at once. Power outages can prevent public safety officials from communicating with residents.

It’s why Marylee Guinon — president of the State Alliance for Firesafe Road Regulations, an advocacy group aimed at protecting and expanding the state’s community fire safety requirements — suspects AB 747 is facing pushback from local governments. “They don’t want data that would tell them that it’s going to be a ninehour evacuation,” she said.

All the while, the risk of fast-moving fires is growing.

In a 2024 study, researchers from the University of Colorado in Boulder analyzed more than 60,000 fires documented by NASA satellites in the first two decades of the 21st century. By 2020, fires in California were growing, on average, four times faster than they were in 2001.

AB 747 requires local governments to include their evacuation analyses in the safety element of their general plan — the long-term blueprint for future development of a city or county.

The city of L.A.’s current safety element provides no such analysis. Instead, it simply lists evacuation planning as “ongoing.”
In a statement to The Times, the city’s Planning Department, responsible for writing and revising the general plan, said details of evacuation routes are not made publicly available since “large urban cities such as the City of Los Angeles are high profile targets for terrorist attacks.”
The city did not immediately clarify what legal authority it has to keep the analysis private as California law generally requires safety elements to be public. “It is a mystery how hiding evacuation route capacity and viability can save lives when community members are fleeing a natural disaster,” Levine said in an email to The Times. “It is a dubious claim that terrorists could possibly be well positioned to take advantage of such a catastrophic situation.”
Meanwhile, the county said it complied through an analysis it included in its 2025 safety element. However, fire safety advocates criticized the county’s analysis as simplistic and failing to adequately determine whether quick and safe evacuations are feasible.

The Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, which provides guidance on state planning laws, recommended that local governments use traffic software to simulate different evacuations to estimate how long they might take. Instead, the county grabbed a list of all roads in unincorporated areas within its borders and listed them as “evacuation routes” so long as they were paved, public and not a dead end.

Why is L.A.'s fire-evacuation plan still untested? - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-07-25/l-a-fire-evacuat... 3 of 7
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1316 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) The intent of the law is “not ‘just list the roads you have,’” Levine said. “So I’m super disappointed that L.A. County is dismissive in this way. You would expect, particularly post this year’s fires, Palisades and Eaton, they would take this far more seriously.”
When pressed on their deviations from the state’s guidance, both the city and county planning departments deferred to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, which indicated in assessments that the two departments’ safety elements were compliant.

Cal Fire, however, said that its assessments were nonbinding and that complying with the law falls on the city and county.

Yet, none of the local or state agencies directly responded to an inquiry from The Times asking them to explain the discrepancy between the guidance and the safety elements.

The city and county both have detailed evacuation plans that coordinate how public safety officials in the emergency operations and police and fire departments would orchestrate a mass exodus. However, the analysis of roadway networks to estimate how long those evacuations — even if perfectly orchestrated — may take, is different. “Historically, fire agencies put forth evacuation plans that are operationally driven,” said retired Fire Battalion Chief Doug Flaherty. “They talk about communications.

They talk about unified command. … What is missing is an actual detailed, road-byroadway capacity analysis of the time that it’s going to take for people to safely evacuate the area.”
For Guinon, the lack of follow-through from cities and counties across the state is indicative of a common trend in wildfire legislation.
“Virtually every piece of legislation that I dig into, I find out it was the result of a tragic catastrophe,” she said. “This legislation comes out with really, really clear intent over and over, and then it gets forgotten.”
Despite the complexity of simulating cars on a computerized network of roads to understand evacuation times, the scientific prowess exists — and the software to do it is widely accessible.

When Flaherty, a Tahoe Basin resident, became frustrated with his area’s lack of movement on the issue, he commissioned an evacuation study through his nonprofit, TahoeCleanAir.org. The retired fire battalion chief, with 50 years of emergency response planning experience under his belt, partnered with Leo Zlimen, fresh out of UC Berkeley and co-founder of the emergency management software startup Ladris. “We fell into this wildfire space because everywhere we looked, people were [asking] ‘draw a circle on the map and tell me how long it takes to get those people out,’” Why is L.A.'s fire-evacuation plan still untested? - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-07-25/l-a-fire-evacuat... 4 of 7
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1317 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) Zlimen said. “And it turns out, that’s actually a really complicated problem.” Ladris’ software simulates realistic fire evacuations. It starts by taking a map of roads in a community and plopping little purple dots at virtually every home. Each one represents a vehicle.

A fire starts on the map. It spreads. The purple dots get orders to flee, and the evacuation starts.

The computer can play out a multihour evacuation in mere seconds, and it can account for an excruciating amount of detail. A roadblock, representing a falling tree or car crash, can stop purple dots from using a portion of the road. Some purple dots, not realizing how dire the situation is, wait an extra few minutes — or hours — to evacuate. The dots even wait their turn at stop signs, crosswalks and traffic lights.

Ladris’ program almost looks like a video game. Officials can test evacuation scenarios far in advance or in real time during an emergency. The company is also working to use artificial intelligence to help quickly configure scenarios so users can almost literally “draw a circle on the map” and get an evacuation time.

Flaherty said his detailed Tahoe Basin study, a comprehensive analysis based on Ladris’ simulations, had a price tag just shy of $100,000 — roughly equivalent to the cost of installing one traffic light in town.
“In the scheme of things, it’s very cost effective and reasonably priced,” he said.

Another piece of software from Old Dominion University — simpler than Ladris’ — is available to the public for free. It takes less than half an hour to set up a simulation in the program, called FLEET (for “Fast Local Emergency Evacuation Times”).

Consequently, it’s been used not only by local governments making fire evacuation plans, but also by Scouting America troops interested in flood hazards and sporting Why is L.A.'s fire-evacuation plan still untested? - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-07-25/l-a-fire-evacuat... 5 of 7
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1318 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) event planners wondering how bad the postgame traffic may be.

Among those using FLEET simulations for evacuation planning: the town of Paradise.

After the Camp fire, Paradise became an inadvertent experiment in how towns can better prepare for evacuations. After the disaster, it won a $199-million federal grant for infrastructure projects designed to rebuild Paradise into a more fire-safe town.

Before the fire, the town’s entire yearly budget was around $12 million.

After the Camp fire, Paradise hired a traffic consulting firm that used FLEET. It found an evacuation would take over five hours under perfect conditions while utilizing all traffic lanes. It then used the modeling to understand what could be done to alter traffic flow to reduce that time.

For Paradise — as is the case for many towns — a big problem is traffic bottlenecks:

To evacuate, virtually the entire town has to use one of four main roads.

The seemingly most straightforward solution? Build more roads. However, these projects get complicated fast, said Marc Mattox, Paradise’s public works director and town engineer.

Often the roads that a municipality needs to improve evacuation would have to go through private property — a nonstarter for residents in the proposed path.

Or, it’s simply too costly. Although Paradise has received funds to widen two evacuation routes and connect three dead ends with the rest of town, a new evacuation route out of town would be prohibitively expensive. Mattox estimated such a route, navigating Paradise’s steep ridges and canyons, would cost in excess of half a billion dollars.

So, Paradise has also invested in a much cheaper, yet still effective tool to speed up evacuations: clear communication.

Paradise installed signs all over town that proclaim when residents enter and exit different evacuation zones. The town is also looking into using a different color sign for private or dead-end roads that warn drivers to avoid them, as well as digital signs above key roadways that can display real-time evacuation information.

In Southern California, Malibu — which completed an evacuation analysis after it suffered the Woolsey fire the same day as the Camp fire — has similar plans.

Malibu is adding reflective markers to roadways to reduce the chances of crashes amid thick smoke. For neighborhoods with few evacuation routes and individuals with limited mobility, the city encourages evacuating whenever the National Weather Service warns of dangerous fire weather — well before a possible ignition.

Los Angeles is much bigger than Malibu and Paradise — L.A. has a population of 3.9 million; Paradise’s is just over 9,100. But evacuation experts said it’s no excuse for Why is L.A.'s fire-evacuation plan still untested? - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-07-25/l-a-fire-evacuat... 6 of 7
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1319 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) Noah Haggerty is an environment, health and science reporter at the Los Angeles Times. With a background in physics, he has conducted research on spacecraft propulsion, fusion energy and plasma — the stuff that makes up lightning and the sun. He joined The Times in 2024 as an AAAS Mass Media Fellow. letting California’s rural towns take the lead on evacuation planning.

Asked whether the sprawling labyrinth of L.A. roads would make doing these analyses more difficult, Zlimen smiled.
“Not really — no,” he said, noting Ladris has completed analyses in the San Francisco Bay Area. “It’s totally possible.”
Guinon hopes the results of evacuation analyses can also help — or force — cities to make more responsible residential development plans in the first place. “It’s not rocket science,” she said. “Let’s just take on protection of our existing communities and let the chips fall where they may with new development: If it’s unsafe, don’t build it.”
Why is L.A.'s fire-evacuation plan still untested? - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-07-25/l-a-fire-evacuat... 7 of 7
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025