Agenda packet, first session — Santa Monica City Council, July 29, 2025 (part 5 of 5)

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1320 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816)

SANTA MONICA EVACUATION ROUTES
(PER FEBRUARY 11, 2025 SAFETY ELEMENT)
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/Document%20Library/Project/Safety%20Element/Adopted%20Safety %20Element%20-%20February%202025.pdf
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1321 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. 1322 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 20 Mitchell Kois
From: Tamra <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:28 AM
To: Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete
Subject: Fwd: 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,
Tamra Raven
Santa Monica, 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1323 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 21 Mitchell Kois
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:18 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi
Subject: City Council Mtg. - 7/29/2025 - Agenda Item 12B -- Wilmont Board OPPOSES Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Mayor Negrete and City Council Members,
The Board of the Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) strongly opposes Agenda Item 12B, Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance on tonight's City Council agenda and strongly supports the letter by Friends of Sunset Park (FOSP) opposing Agenda Item 12B, Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance (see below).

Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition Board (Wilmont) has voted and strongly supports the following letter from Friends of Sunset Park (FOSP):

Dear Council Members,
The FOSP Board urges 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.

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 to impose zoning changes not required by SB 1123, but using SB 1123 as a cover, skips due process for the benefit of developers! It could dramatically and forever change the nature of Sunset Park.

We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses. 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 the Sunset Park 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, 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 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. 1324 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 22 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.

We call on the Council to 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!

We 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 has the potential to radically change Sunset Park, as well as many other neighborhoods.

Thank you,
The Board of Friends of Sunset Park
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1325 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 23 Mitchell Kois
From: Aaron Steinberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:16 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,

Aaron Steinberg
Santa Monica, 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1326 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 24 Mitchell Kois
From: Riju Malakar <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:14 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

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,
Riju Malakar
Lower Santa Monica Canyon
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1327 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 25 Mitchell Kois
From: VJ Muradyan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:11 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,
Varuzh Muradyan
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1328 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 26 Mitchell Kois
From: steve pacificcovedevelopment.com <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:10 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

Thank you for your leadership.

Respecƞully from a Santa Monica resident,
Steven A. Lappin, CGBP
Pacific Cove Development
President
3685 Motor Ave., #210
Los Angeles, CA 90034
O: (310) 899-1914
C: (310) 430-1240
hƩps://urldefense.com/v3/__hƩp://www.pacificcovedevelopment.com__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!oJy-J6W8u_viwRt_anIabL0X8fUS5vGphPZvnENWx38aeN-QUmc9GszGtnrQXSXUsKbGUThoIkDyisW0lHNgYimPOkezyB57e4mg$ Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1329 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 27 Mitchell Kois
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: Support Agenda items 12B & 16C Zoning Update
Attachments: 2025-07 Support Agenda items 12B and 16C SaMoSSA Zoning Updates .pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

Please find attached our letter expressing support as residents and community leaders and on behalf of Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance for Agenda Items 16C and 12B zoning updates.

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

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1330 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) July 28, 2025
RE: Support Agenda items 12B & 16C
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and Santa Monica City Council Members:

We are pleased to write to you today to express our support, as climate-sensitive housing advocates, residents and community leaders and on behalf of Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance, for Agenda Items 16C and 12B to adopt Staff’s recommendation that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance in sync with State Law by:

• Adopting 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) • Adopting 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.

We thank the Council for their clear leadership in what will no doubt be critical discretionary policy changes to support the streamlining for all housing projects regardless of the project site’s land area and make the creation of housing, like ADUs, possible with subdivisions, particularly as we are moving toward implementing these new laws – game changing – making missing middle housing possible in Santa Monica. We cannot authentically deny that we are in a housing shortage and affordability crisis. It is critical that we move expeditiously to update local policy and ordinances to align with new state regulation and laws to increase housing availability and implement amendments that modify specific requirements and development standards to ensure the feasibility of SB 1123 projects and expand the allowance for ADUs in all projects.

Vibrant, diverse neighborhoods and communities represent progress and must prioritize equity regarding all housing types as we maximize desperately needed housing at all affordability levels – specifically allowing lot subdivisions and ADUs to align with new state law and increased density along major transit corridors. We applaud Council's leadership in moving Santa Monica toward more equitable access to housing as we work to undo past harms of exclusionary zoning and neighborhoods We welcome the opportunities to update the LUCE and the development of standards that may be needed in order to incentivize housing projects along transit corridors and projects near a future Great Park. Specifically, as proposed, additional incentives may include new zoning/ development standards for housing projects on surface parking lots associated with commercial corridors that match the zoning/ development standards of the commercial corridors they abut and removal of the requirement that new housing projects replace code-required parking at 50%.

We support the adoption of policy updates like these to address the housing crisis in concert with the measures set forth in our Climate Action and Adaptation Plan for new housing at all levels to be practical and available to welcome current and future generations of Santa Monica residents to remain or to become a part of our community.

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

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1331 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 28 Mitchell Kois
From: Sean Leary <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:02 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

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Sean Leary
Get Outlook for iOS
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1332 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 29 Mitchell Kois
From: Alexander <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:56 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

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Alex AnƟpov
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1333 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 30 Mitchell Kois
From: Michael Dumas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:55 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

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Michael Dumas
938 4th St
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1334 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 31 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

MICHAEL DUMAS
p. 310.944.5280
e. [email protected]
Actors Access | IMDb
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1335 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 32 Mitchell Kois
From: Kathleen Kelleher McCarthy <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya
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 Kelleher-McCarthy and
Kevin McCarthy
1206 Grant St.

Santa Monica, CA
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1336 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 33 Mitchell Kois
From: Nick Marino <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:51 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

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Nick Marino
848 Lincoln Blvd, Apt A, Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1337 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 34 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:51 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

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Grant Gustafson
Ocean Park
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1338 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 35 Mitchell Kois
From: Alex Brough <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:51 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 Council Members,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

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.

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 Brough
16 year resident of Sunset Park
1336 Sunset Ave
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1339 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 36 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Armine Chaparyan Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: City Council 7/29 item 12-B -- Emergency Zoning Ordinance -- OPPOSE! Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
July 29, 2025

To: Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 7/29/25 agenda item 12-B -- Emergency Zoning Ordinance -- OPPOSE! The FOSP Board urges you to oppose item 12-B on Council's agenda this week.

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.

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.

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

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1340 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 37 We call on the Council to 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!

We 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.

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

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1341 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 38 Mitchell Kois
From: Ryan Metzler <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:45 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for Item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Ryan Metzler
3223 Wilshire Blvd
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1342 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 39 Mitchell Kois
From: Alicia Drake <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:43 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

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address or Neighborhood (opƟonal)]
Please excuse the brevity. Your message is being sent from my iPhone Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1343 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 40 Mitchell Kois
From: Cody O'Connell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:39 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,
Cody O'Connell
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1344 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 41 Mitchell Kois
From: Lea Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:38 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
I’m Dear Mayor Negrete and Council members,
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.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Lea Anderson
Santa Monica Business Owner & longƟme worker for businesses in Santa Monica Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1345 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 42 Mitchell Kois
From: Frank Weeks <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems; 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
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1346 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 43 Dear Councilmembers,
I am a 30-year resident of Santa Monica and would urge you to please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week for the following reasons.

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,
Frank Weeks
Ashland Ave.
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1347 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 44 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1348 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 45 Mitchell Kois
From: Allan-Michael Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:35 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

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Allan Brown
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood
Santa Monica
Inviato da iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1349 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 46 Mitchell Kois
From: Ryan Olson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:31 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; 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.

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.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Ryan Olson
Sunset Park Resident
1021 Pine St.

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

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1350 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 47 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:30 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.

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,
Karen M Fisher
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1351 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 48 Mitchell Kois
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Please OPPOSE City Council Meeting 7/29/2025 Item 12-B Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please oppose Item 12-B on the Council's agenda this week.

This item introduces an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This is not a legiƟmate emergency, but a fasttracked measure designed to benefit primarily developers—not the residents of Santa Monica.

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! It will dramaƟcally and forever change the nature of our residenƟal neighborhoods.

We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses. 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 our residenƟal neighborhoods.

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 mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for lot splits in R1 zones 4. Bypass the public process through misuse of “emergency” designaƟon 5. Extend “emergency” status from the standard 60 days to 18 months
This is a Broken Process. None of that is happening now. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

I call on the Council to 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 situaƟons?
Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1352 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 49 Mitchell Kois
From: Tracey Hom <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; Natalya Zernitskaya; Betty Mednick; Esther Hickman; Teri B.; [email protected]; Roni Crichton; Barry Snell; Dan Hall
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Does councilman Zwick want 20 units built on each adjacent lot next to his new house. Of course not. Does it make sense of course not. Is this an emercency. NO! 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, [Your Name Here] 90405
The residents of Santa Monica bought their homes in a quiet residential community, not lower Manhattan. Do not vote yes on this measure. Our city cannot afford a plethora of lawsuits.

Tracey Hom and Lenny Hom
2638 29th Street
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1353 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 50 Mitchell Kois
From: Robert Muradyan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:20 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

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Robert Muradyan
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1354 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 51 Mitchell Kois
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: City Council 7/29 Item 12.B - Please oppose Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 7:56 PM
Subject: City Council 7/29 Item 12.B - Please oppose
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

FYI:

To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Sent: 7/28/2025 6:24:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Dear Councilmembers,

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

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.

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

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1355 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 52 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.

Best,
Katharine Dreyfuss
621 25th Street
Santa Monica
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1356 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 53 Mitchell Kois
From: Sawyer Savage <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:15 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.

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.

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,
Sawyer Savage
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1357 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 54 Mitchell Kois
From: Faustino Garza <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:14 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.

How about standing up for the interests of us residents for a change? Rather than catering to the interests of people who don't even live here yet.

What is the "emergency" that requires the proposed ordinance under consideration? This is nothing more than an outrageous scam to expand your powers so you may to do as you wish. Zwick and other councilmembers who support this ordinance should be ashamed of yourselves. .

We already are one of the highest density cities in the country. Too much traffic for our overcrowded streets. Too much noise and too much stress. Who's going to pay for the city services (police, fire, water) that will be required by all the new development you are promoting? Enough Already!! We've gone way too far already with development. Help us to preserve the beach character of our city. Respect the wishes and concerns of those of us who already live here..

You will be called out for abuse of power if you approve this ordinance.

Faustino Garza
37-Year Homeowner and Resident
Ocean Park 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1358 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 55 Mitchell Kois
From: Danny Guggenheim <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:12 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, which will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Danny Guggenheim
Sunset Park resident since 2006
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1359 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 56 Mitchell Kois
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 9:54 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,
Emergency??? For whom??? Your determinaƟon to add market rate housing without considering traffic circulaƟon, safety issues of the surrounding communiƟes, feels that a true threat to public health.

What if there is an earthquake? A fire? We already don’t have enough emergency personnel. Why are you not considering the safety of current residents??? That is truly alarming. This proposal of yours is a threat to public healthy, safety and welfare.” You have already built over 300,000 of required market rate housing. Exactly how many units of affordable have you built as of today? That is a quesƟon that must be answered for you to proceed responsibly. How many units are siƫng empty right now? That is an answer you can find without waiƟng a year for a tech soluƟon.

Truly, your negligence here is truly alarming.

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

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.

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

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1360 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 57 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1361 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 58 Mitchell Kois
From: Chris Knauf <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 9:51 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 sets a dangerously inappropriate precedent, and largely favors developers.

This ordinance could serve as precedent to dramatically and forever change the nature of many neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park. We ALREADY have laws in place 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)

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. 1362 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 59 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,
Christopher H. Knauf
Santa Monica and Sunset Park resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1363 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 60 Mitchell Kois
From: Paul Deason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 9:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Save our R1 lots!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
To all:

Please do what you can to save our single-family homes as single-family homes. Santa Monica should remain a family oriented town and not New York City town where kids are forced to play in the streets.

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

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1364 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 61 Mitchell Kois
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 9:43 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 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. In addition to the ongoing housing emergency, I feel this is especially important if a substantial amount of housing isn't pursued at the airport.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Dustin Shahan
90401
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1365 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 62 Mitchell Kois
From: Jeanne Eisenman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 9:42 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,
Jeanne Eisenman
1351 Pacific Street
Santa Monica
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1366 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 63 Mitchell Kois
From: Jill Foley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 9:16 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.

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.

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. 1367 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 64 Thank you,
Jill Vasquez Foley
Santa Monica resident
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1368 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 65 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 9:07 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,
Rebecca Harshberger
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1369 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 66 Mitchell Kois
From: Barbara Hodgin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 8:52 AM
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, [Your Name Here] 90405
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1370 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 67 Mitchell Kois
From: Barry Friesen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 8:40 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.

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.

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,
Barry Friesen
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1371 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 1 Mitchell Kois
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

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. 1372 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 2 Mitchell Kois
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 Ɵme 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 conƟnue 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 Ɵmes our market target by the Ɵme we get to our affordable target.

Certainly it is Ɵme 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. 1373 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 3 Mitchell Kois
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.

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.

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. 1374 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) 4 Santa Monica resident
hƩps://urldefense.com/v3/__hƩp://www.bikasadesigns.com__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!udmfEOGYPo1HNtuITD5IC5cH_ov 0m-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. 1375 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7136 : Extension and Amendment of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 29, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, City Clerk 16 Items
Subject: Recommendation to accept Charles G. Whitaker's resignation from the Building & Fire-Life Safety Commission and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy
Prepared By: David Yakobson, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Resignation Email

16.A
Packet Pg. 1376
From: Chuck Whitaker
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 12:36 PM
To: Alicia Casilli <[email protected]>
Subject: Santa Monica Building and Safety Commision Sept 10, 2025 Quorum Mtg

EXTERNAL
Alicia,
Per recent discussions, I have thoroughly enjoyed being involved with Santa Monica Building and Safety Commission for many years, especially working with you.

However, time has arrived to allow another applicant to have the opportunity to join the Santa Monica Building and Safety Commision on a volunteer basis.

As discussed, am available to assist you and commission to find a prospective replacement applicant to join the Santa Monica Building and Safety Commision. If needed, am willing to stay involved until a replacement is selected.

Please do not hesitate to request assistance finding a replacement for the commission.

Chuck Whitaker

16.A.a
Packet Pg. 1377 Attachment: Resignation Email (7223 : 16.A. Recommendation to accept Charles G. Whitaker's resignation ( 5 Min)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 29, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya that the City Council authorize the use of her travel funds to attend the YIMBYtown 2025 conference in New Haven, Connecticut taking place September 14-16, 2025.

YIMBYtown is the premier nationwide pro-homes conference for advocates, organizers, and policymakers, offering trainings, panels, tours, speeches and networking with others around the country
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comments

16.B
Packet Pg. 1378
1 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 16.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
If you are going to claim that taxpayer money should not be spent on 501c4s like the neighborhood groups, you should absolutely reject this request by Councilperson Zernitskaya to use taxpayer dollars to attend a YIMBY conference.

I hope this is a joke.

Sincerely,
Heather Thomason
90405
Item 16-B
July 29, 2025
Item 16-B
July 29, 2025

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1379 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7229 : Travel Funds for YIMBYtown 2025) 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:18 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Item 16.B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Good morning council,
I'm writing to support item 16.B for Councilmember Zernitskaya to attend the YIMBYtown 2025 conference in September. Housing affordability continues to be a major issue and Santa Monica is facing a series of huge projects that could help alleviate it. The Councilmember's attendance should help identify creative solutions on how other cities and regions are attacking the issue and how they might be implemented here. This could have enormous benefits, both financial and otherwise, for the city and is well worth investing the travel funds.

Thanks
Dustin Shahan
90401
Item 16-B
July 29, 2025
Item 16-B
July 29, 2025
Item 16-B
July 29, 2025
Item 16-B
July 29, 2025

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1380 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7229 : Travel Funds for YIMBYtown 2025) 2 Mitchell Kois
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 9:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Mtg 7/29/2025. ITEM 16 B OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
B. Request of Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya that the City Council authorize the use of her travel funds to attend the YIMBYtown 2025 conference in New Haven, Connecticut taking place September 14- 16, 2025. YIMBYtown is the premier nationwide pro-homes conference for advocates, organizers, and policymakers, offering trainings, panels, tours, speeches and networking with others around the country
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.New Item Received 7/24/2025

WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SPENDING TAX DOLLARS FOR
ON THIS? LET HER DEVELOPER FRIENDS AND JUDY ABDO
ENEMY OF THIS CITY PAY FOR THIS..

MY GOD ARE WE THE STUPIDEST EVER TO EXIST?

HOW DARE ANYONE ON THIS SOLD OUT COUNCIL EVEN ASK

FOR THIS AND WHINE AND REFUSE TO FUND COMMUNITY
GROUPS
FOR BIAS? NO GREATER BIAS EXISTS THAN YIMBY

NO GREATER DAMAGE DONE TO THIS CITY
AND STATE THAN BY YIMBY AND DEVELOPER $$$

STOP THIS NOW

DANIELLE CHARNEY
Item 16-B
July 29, 2025
Item 16-B
July 29, 2025
Item 16-B
July 29, 2025
Item 16-B
July 29, 2025

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1381 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7229 : Travel Funds for YIMBYtown 2025) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 29, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Councilmember Zwick, Councilmember Raskin, and Mayor Pro Tem Torosis that the City Council direct the City Manager to return with options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element Program 1.C. Despite prior best efforts, our City continues to see underutilized parking lots remain vacant on commercial corridors. Updates to development standards may be needed in order to incentivize housing projects along transit corridors and near a future “Great Park.” Specifically, additional incentives may include new zoning/ development standards for housing projects on surface parking lots associated with commercial corridors that match the zoning/ development standards of the commercial corridors they abut and removal of the requirement that new housing projects replace code-required parking at 50%
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comments

16.C
Packet Pg. 1382
1 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Cc: Oliver Chi; [email protected]
Subject: Support Agenda items 12B & 16C Zoning Update
Attachments: 2025-07 Support Agenda items 12B and 16C SaMoSSA Zoning Updates .pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

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

Please find attached our letter expressing support as residents and community leaders and on behalf of Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance for Agenda Items 16C and 12B zoning updates.

Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1383 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element

July 28, 2025
RE: Support Agenda items 12B & 16C
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and Santa Monica City Council Members:

Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance SaMoSafeStreets.org
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1384 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 1 David Yakobson
From: Bedford Office <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 4:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Jennifer Josephs
1786 Bryn Mawr Ave. Santa Monica CA
Jennifer Josephs
(801) 201-5909 cell
[email protected]
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1385 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 5 David Yakobson
From: Dan Winjum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Please Reject Item 16C

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Keep Ocean Park special and a community! I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1386 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 6 David Yakobson
From: Robert Cull <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Robert Cull
2255 Cloverfield Boulevard
Santa Monica , CA
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1387 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 7 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 16.C - Please oppose
Importance: High

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1388 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 8 David Yakobson
From: John Londono <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 1:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16C

EXTERNAL
I am opposed to this item.

I request that the council reject it.
-John Londono
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1389 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 9 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels. Please:
1) Work with HCD to correct the zoning error on Ocean Park Blvd.; 2) Ensure that correcting this error won't harm Housing Element compliance; 3) Reject upzoning the parking lots until these issues are resolved. Ocean Park Blvd. was zoned at 32 ft until 2023, when city staff mistakenly upzoned it to 55 ft during the Housing Element process. City Attorney Doug Sloan wrote to HCD requesting guidance on correcting this error, but received no response. Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests. The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park. Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more?
Sincerely,
Kelly Hsiao
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1390 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 10 David Yakobson
From: Will von Bernuth <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Please:
1) Work with HCD to correct the zoning error on Ocean Park Blvd. 2) Ensure that correcting this error won't harm Housing Element compliance 3) Reject upzoning the parking lots until these issues are resolved.

Ocean Park Blvd. was zoned at 32 ft until 2023, when city staff mistakenly upzoned it to 55 ft during the Housing Element process. City Attorney Doug Sloan wrote to HCD requesting guidance on correcting this error, but received no response. Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

Further, the Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park. Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories.

We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more?
Sincerely,
Will von Bernuth
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1391 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 11 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 16.C - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1392 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 12 David Yakobson
From: Ellen Mark <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Importance: High

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1393 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 13 David Yakobson
From: Mindi Shank <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Sincerely,
Mindi Shank
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1394 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 14 David Yakobson
From: Robert Mickelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Re: Item 16C

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Ocean Park Blvd. was zoned at 32 ft until 2023, when city staff MISTAKENLY up-zoned it to 55 ft during the Housing Element process.

Do not compound this error by re-zoning the parking lots.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. Santa Monica is already greatly increasing housing production and additional local incentives are ill-advised.

Sincerely,
Robert Mickelson
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1395 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 15 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 16.C - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council, I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels. Please: 1) Work with HCD to correct the zoning error on Ocean Park Blvd.; 2) Ensure that correcting this error won't harm Housing Element compliance; 3) Reject upzoning the parking lots until these issues are resolved. Ocean Park Blvd. was zoned at 32 ft until 2023, when city staff mistakenly upzoned it to 55 ft during the Housing Element process. City Attorney Doug Sloan wrote to HCD requesting guidance on correcting this error, but received no response. Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests. The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park. Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely, Sitara Contreras 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1396 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 16 David Yakobson
From: May Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Please Reject Item 16C

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1397 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 17 David Yakobson
From: Paula Mazur <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16C

EXTERNAL
To the City Council:

This is not a NIMBY email.

This is an email supporting new housing, but with regard to the nearby neighborhoods and how to best integrate new housing into them.

Which Item 16C does not.

So I implore you to please reject the proposed Ocean Park Blvd upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind commercial parcels at tonight’s meeting.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories.

All the best,
Paula Mazur
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1398 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 18 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: July 29, 2025 - City Council 16C - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Council Members and Mayor Negrete,
I urge you to reconsider upzoning the parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Boulevard commercial parcels to match the height restrictions of the NC zoned buildings on OPB. This action would be premature for several critical reasons:

1. The Current 55-Foot Height Limit is Based on an Acknowledged Error Ocean Park Boulevard was appropriately zoned at 32 feet until 2023, when city staff mistakenly upzoned the entire boulevard to 55 feet during the housing element process. This error was then certified by HCD.

Also in 2023, City Attorney Doug Sloan and others wrote to HCD requesting guidance on correcting this mistake, to ensure that doing so wouldn’t jeopardize our housing element compliance and trigger Builder’s Remedy. In that request, the City stated that the rest of the upzoning adopted in the Housing Element, “ensure[s] that for the City as a whole, new housing is feasible and incentivized over commercial development and new housing choices and more affordability in high opportunity areas are accommodated.” We have received no response to this official inquiry.

Allowing upwards of seven-story buildings (easily achievable with height bonuses of 23’ for “affordable” units given a 55’ base) and almost doubling the FAR/density using those same “affordable” bonuses on our tiny, narrow Ocean Park Boulevard would be massively inappropriate for such a small-scale street. These towering structures would loom oppressively over what is currently a charming, human-scale neighborhood commercial boulevard with just one to two lanes on each side.

Anything more than 3-4 stories would completely overwhelm the intimate character of this beloved street, creating a canyon-like environment that would destroy the walkable, community-oriented atmosphere that makes this area so special.

Before upzoning the residential lots to match Ocean Park Boulevard’s current zoning, we must first obtain clarity from HCD on correcting the original 55-foot error and returning to the appropriate 32- foot limit. Otherwise, we are compounding the mistake rather than fixing it.

2. Legal and Planning Risks
Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions creates significant risks. If developers begin planning based on these incorrect limits and the error is later corrected to 32 feet, they may claim vested interests, creating legal complications for the city.

More importantly, residents who live near Ocean Park Boulevard and use it daily will be justifiably outraged if the city deliberately upzones to match an acknowledged error. The council should expect Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1399 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 19 litigation from affected residents, as this would represent a clear case of negligent planning. The city would be entirely responsible for creating this legal exposure by knowingly perpetuating and expanding upon a documented mistake.

3. Spot-Zoning to Benefit Developers?
We also question the urgency of this rezoning and ask: who benefits from rushing this process? The timing appears to favor landowners and developers rather than community interests. Coincidentally, the developers who appear to benefit from this rezoning, at least in Sunset Park, are those who have already tried before to upzone these same lots and failed.

4. The “Great Park” Justification is Premature
While council will be studying a Great Park among other uses, the airport’s closure and exclusive use as parkland is far from certain. Great Park Coalition members acknowledge significant hurdles remain, and this council has noted that housing discussions for the airport land are ongoing.

Upzoning surrounding areas based on assumptions about the airport’s future use risks overdevelopment if housing is ultimately included in the airport redevelopment plans. This is especially true given the city has yet to commence a public process regarding the development of 48- acre Business Park between the Airport and Ocean Park Boulevard (i.e., closer to a Great Park), which is likely to include housing. Ignoring these uncertainties could result in seven-story, hundredunit buildings (easily achievable with density bonuses for “affordable” units) that would represent irreversible change to Santa Monica made years before we have the necessary clarity.

5. Strategic Concerns About Our Housing Element
We already have a certified housing element for this RHNA cycle. Furthermore, while we are halfway through the cycle, neither council nor staff has commenced a study of the progress made so far, what has worked or not, and what other cities have been doing that is more successful. What we do know from the information on the city website (that is only current through May 1, 2025), is that we have more than doubled our market-rate housing production targets. Why incentivize additional marketrate building now that won’t count toward our next RHNA requirements? We should preserve upzoning capacity for future mandates rather than exhausting it prematurely.

My Request
Ocean Park Boulevard should remain zoned in a way that would, even with density bonuses, create a maximum height of three stories. We don't see a need to upzone these parking lots. But if the current parking lots are ever to change zoning at all, they should also not be higher than three stories. I ask the council to:

1. Work with HCD to correct the acknowledged zoning error on Ocean Park Boulevard;

2. Ensure that correcting this error will not harm the city’s housing element compliance; and

3. Postpone any upzoning of the parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Boulevard commercial parcels until these fundamental issues are resolved Taking these steps would demonstrate responsiveness to residents’ concerns while ensuring sound, legally defensible planning decisions.

Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1400 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 21 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests. You're setting yourselves up to have the city sued again.

Ocean Park Blvd as a lowrise Neighborhood Commercial zone is the heart of Sunset Park. Upzoning these parking lots to match the erroneous (that the city has made attempts to revert) upzoning to 55' would be compounding a terrible error.

This is a small, narrow street! People move to Sunset Park BECAUSE of Ocean Park Blvd and how charming it is. How locally owned. How diverse the ownership is of the stores. You're begging to have this street become a soulless blvd in Santa Monica if you do this.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1401 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Sandy Laderas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Sandra Laderas
90405
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1402 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 2 Mitchell Kois
From: Lois Bostwick <[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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Please:
1) Work with HCD to correct the zoning error on Ocean Park Blvd.; 2) Ensure that correcƟng this error won't harm Housing Element compliance; 3) Reject upzoning the parking lots unƟl these issues are resolved.

Ocean Park Blvd. was zoned at 32 Ō unƟl 2023, when city staff mistakenly upzoned it to 55 Ō during the Housing Element process. City AƩorney Doug Sloan wrote to HCD requesƟng guidance on correcƟng this error, but received no response.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Lois Bostwick
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1403 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 3 Mitchell Kois
From: Susan Shapiro <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Susan Shapiro
1618 Wellesley Drive
90405
Sent from Outlook
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1404 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 4 Mitchell Kois
From: MIB <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Monica Bhardwaj
2404 33rd st
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1405 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 5 Mitchell Kois
From: Nathan Tippe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories.

Sincerely,
Nathan Tippe
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1406 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 6 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Cydney and Kenneth Kirschbaum
90405
Cydney Kirschbaum
[email protected]
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1407 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 8 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Allison Greene
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1408 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 9 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Robert Sherick
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1409 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 10 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Jack Sherick
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1410 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 11 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Stacey Abrams-Sherick
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1411 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 12 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Sally Johnston
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1412 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 13 Mitchell Kois
From: Jerry <[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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Jerry Nodiff
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1413 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 14 Mitchell Kois
From: Dominique Chausse <[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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Dominique Chausse
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1414 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 15 Mitchell Kois
From: Jodi Strock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Jodi Strock
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1415 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 16 Mitchell Kois
From: Peter Mezza <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Peter Mezza
2504 30th Street
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1416 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 17 Mitchell Kois
From: Kelsey Liber <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Kelsey Liber
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1417 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 18 Mitchell Kois
From: Sharon Everitt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Fix parking upzoning on Ocean Park Blvd
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
As a 20 year resident of Sunset Park, I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels. (item 16c)
I request that you:
1) Work with HCD to correct the zoning error on Ocean Park Blvd.; 2) Ensure that correcting this error won't harm Housing Element compliance; 3) Reject upzoning the parking lots until these issues are resolved.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle.

Sincerely,
Sharon Everitt
1507 Ashland Ave.
90405
Sharon Everitt
|
310.740.0447 | sharoneveritt.com
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1418 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Ira Dworkin
long-time resident of 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1419 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Thank you,
Adam Johnston
1349 Oak Street
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1420 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 22 Mitchell Kois
From: Holly Silvers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Holly & Dennis Granelli
Condo & SM small business owner
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1421 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 23 Mitchell Kois
From: LINDA KNAB <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Linda Reinbold
1333Ashland Ave.
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1422 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 24 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Harris Silver
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1423 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 25 Mitchell Kois
From: aaronfurlong <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Aaron Furlong
Santa Monica
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1424 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 26 Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1425 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 27 Mitchell Kois
From: nancykless <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Nancy Kless
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1426 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 28 Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1427 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 29 Mitchell Kois
From: Lynn Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Lynn Murdock
1209 Pine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1428 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 30 Mitchell Kois
From: Robert Brown <[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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I respecƞully urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Robert Brown
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1429 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 31 Mitchell Kois
From: Hilary Galanoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 16.C -- PLEASE OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Please:
1) Work with HCD to correct the zoning error on Ocean Park Blvd. 2) Ensure that correcting this error won't harm Housing Element compliance. 3) Reject upzoning the parking lots until these issues are resolved.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Hilary Galanoy
2636 32nd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1430 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 32 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Nancy Pearl
90405
Nancy Pearl, MA
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1431 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 33 Living Loving Legacies: Life Story Interview Videos
Phone: 310-804-4503
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.livinglovinglegacies.com

Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1432 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 34 Mitchell Kois
From: Elizabeth Joensen <[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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Elizabeth Joensen
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1433 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 35 Mitchell Kois
From: tim joensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Tim Joensen
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1434 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 36 Mitchell Kois
From: Allyson Dworkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Allyson Dworkin
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1435 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 37 Mitchell Kois
From: Alex Purcell <[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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1436 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 38 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Chris Downey
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1437 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 39 Mitchell Kois
From: MARILYN HARRIS <[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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,

MARILYN HARRIS
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1438 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 40 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
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 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1439 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 41 Mitchell Kois
From: Robin OConnell <[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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Thank you,
Robin O'Connell
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1440 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 42 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Hillary Rollins
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1441 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 43 Mitchell Kois
From: Katherine Reuter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation.

And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests. The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park. Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories.

We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more?
Sincerely,
Katherine Reuter 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1442 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 44 Mitchell Kois
From: Darlene Vogel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Darlene Vogel
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1443 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 45 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Deborah Bourget
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1444 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 46 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Merle Newman
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1445 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 47 Mitchell Kois
From: oesr <[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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1446 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 48 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Laura Park
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1447 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 49 Mitchell Kois
From: Heinzle, Janet <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

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

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1448 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 50 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 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1449 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 52 Mitchell Kois
From: Roger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Members of the City Council
I have been informed by my aƩorney that the Council itself cannot on an unsubstanƟated pretense declare an “emergency” without a wriƩen legal opinion for the City District AƩorney detailing each and every exisƟng or clearly threatening situaƟon or immune event as the basis for the declaraƟon.

Lacking a detailed and documented jusƟficaƟon, the proposed council acƟon is simply a pretense for a personal poliƟcal agenda.

I am hereby requesƟng that the City AƩorney post a detailed leƩer on the City’s website and at tomorrow night’s meeƟng outlining the legal basis for the “emergency” declaraƟon.

Regards,
Roger Hill
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1450 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 53 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
James Bernstein
2627 Highland Ave #7
Santa Monica, CA 90405
30 year resident of Santa Monica
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1451 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 54 Mitchell Kois
From: Deborah <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Please:
1) Work with HCD to correct the zoning error on Ocean Park Blvd.; 2) Ensure that correcting this error won't harm Housing Element compliance; 3) Reject upzoning the parking lots until these issues are resolved. Ocean Park Blvd. was zoned at 32 ft until 2023, when city staff mistakenly upzoned it to 55 ft during the Housing Element process. City Attorney Doug Sloan wrote to HCD requesting guidance on correcting this error, but received no response. Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests. The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park. Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more?

Sincerely,
Deborah Tuckman
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1452 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 55 Mitchell Kois
From: Dalila Fuentes <[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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Dalila Fuentes, resident of long standing Sunset Park
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1453 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 56 Mitchell Kois
From: John Levy <[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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Santa Monica, CA
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1454 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 57 Mitchell Kois
From: Mary <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Mary Hubbell
90405
Sent from my iPad
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1455 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 58 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Paul Costello
90405
Sent from my iPad
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1456 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 59 Mitchell Kois
From: Phil Harnage <[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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Phil & Susan Harnage
Sunset Park since 1987
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1457 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 60 Mitchell Kois
From: Emily Davidson <[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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Emily Davidson
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1458 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 61 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Kathy Cody
Bay Street, 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1459 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 62 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Richard Eagan
2340 Hill
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1460 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 63 Mitchell Kois
From: Alex Novakovich <[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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Alex Novakovich
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1461 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 64 Mitchell Kois
From: Stevan Hill <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 1:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Sb1123- no emergency!!!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

This ordinance currently impacts only one property: 1101 Stanford, the property 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 on a single-family R1 lot

2. Permit 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 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.

Stevan Hill
Business Development for North America
310-880-9200
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1462 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 65 Mitchell Kois
From: Alex Novakovich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 1:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16C – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am wriƟng to urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Boulevard commercial parcels. This acƟon is premature for several criƟcal reasons:

The 55-Foot Height Limit is Based on an Acknowledged Error - Ocean Park Boulevard was appropriately zoned at 32 feet unƟl 2023, when city staff mistakenly upzoned it to 55 feet during the housing element process. City AƩorney Doug Sloan wrote to HCD in 2023 requesƟng guidance on correcƟng this error, but we have received no response. Seven-story buildings would be completely inappropriate for our inƟmate, human-scale boulevard and would destroy the walkable character that makes this area special.

Legal and Planning Risks -
Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons creates significant legal risks and virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. Residents will be jusƟfiably outraged if the city deliberately upzones to match an acknowledged error - the council should expect legal challenges from affected residents. This would represent a clear case of negligent planning, with the city enƟrely responsible for creaƟng this legal exposure by knowingly perpetuaƟng a documented mistake.

AddiƟonally, if the error is later corrected to 32 feet, developers may claim vested interests, creaƟng further complicaƟons.

Premature Great Park JusƟficaƟon -
I am thrilled about the Great Park proposal and deeply grateful for your recent support of this transformaƟve vision for our community. However, while we all strongly support creaƟng this incredible community asset, the airport's closure as exclusive parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on assumpƟons about the airport's future risks overdevelopment, especially given ongoing housing discussions and the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park nearby.

My Request - Please:
- Work with HCD to correct the acknowledged zoning error on Ocean Park Boulevard; - Ensure correcƟng this error won't harm housing element compliance; - Reject upzoning the parking lots unƟl these issues are resolved.

Ocean Park Boulevard should remain zoned to allow a maximum of three stories, even with density bonuses. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle - why incenƟvize addiƟonal development that won't count toward future requirements? Thank you for protecƟng our neighborhood's character and ensuring sound planning decisions.

Sincerely,
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1463 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 66 [Your Name]
Sunset Park Resident
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1464 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Rose Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Rose Nelson
90402
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1465 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 1 Mitchell Kois
From: David Walther <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 8:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16C
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels. I live on 32nd st and such upzoning would have an adverse effect on the quality of life my family and I currently have.

Ocean Park Blvd. was zoned at 32 ft until 2023, when city staff up-zoned it to 55 ft during the Housing Element process.

Please do not compound this error by re-zoning the parking lots.

Ocean Park Blvd. should by all means remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. There are currently plans for a seven story building to be built within 500 feet of my home. It seems outrageous to me that a building of such size could be built there when there isn’t anything even close to that size within miles. Seriously, does this seem right to you?
Sincerely,
David Walther
90405 (32nd st)
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1466 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 2 Mitchell Kois
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 8:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Phyllis Chavez
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1467 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 3 Mitchell Kois
From: Caroline Denyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 7:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Caroline Denyer
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1468 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 4 Mitchell Kois
From: Gina Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 7:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Gina Garcia
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1469 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 5 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Harper Savage
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1470 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 6 Mitchell Kois
From: Tina <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 7:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council, I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels. Please: 1) Work with HCD to correct the zoning error on Ocean Park Blvd.; 2) Ensure that correcting this error won't harm Housing Element compliance; 3) Reject upzoning the parking lots until these issues are resolved. Ocean Park Blvd. was zoned at 32 ft until 2023, when city staff mistakenly upzoned it to 55 ft during the Housing Element process. City Attorney Doug Sloan wrote to HCD requesting guidance on correcting this error, but received no response. Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests. The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park. Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely, (Your name) 90405 Tina Cox
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1471 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 7 Mitchell Kois
From: Theresa Forster <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 6:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
(Your nameTheresa Zupi )
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1472 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 8 Mitchell Kois
From: afnelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 6:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Allen Nelson
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1473 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 9 Sent from my Galaxy
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1474 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 10 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Jennifer Blum
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1475 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 11 Mitchell Kois
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1476 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 12 Mitchell Kois
From: Jo Wright <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Jo Wright
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1477 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 13 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Brian Lanich
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1478 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 14 Mitchell Kois
From: Brent Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:54 PM
To: Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C: Opposition to Proposed Upzoning of Residential Parking Lots Behind Ocean Park Blvd.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed upzoning of parking lots located in residential zones behind commercial parcels on Ocean Park Boulevard.

This proposal appears to be based on a zoning error that occurred during the 2023 Housing Element update, where the height limit for Ocean Park Boulevard was mistakenly increased from 32 feet to 55 feet. City Attorney Doug Sloan reportedly sought guidance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to correct this error but has not received a response.

Proceeding with upzoning based on this unresolved error could lead to significant legal challenges. If the height limit is later corrected back to 32 feet, developers may claim vested rights, complicating efforts to maintain the character of our neighborhoods.

Furthermore, the future of the Santa Monica Airport as exclusively parkland remains uncertain. Upzoning based on assumptions about its closure risks overdevelopment, especially considering the existing 48- acre Business Park that remains undeveloped.

It's also important to note that Santa Monica has already exceeded its market-rate housing production targets for the current Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) cycle. Incentivizing additional market-rate development at this time seems unnecessary and could strain local infrastructure.

I urge the Council to:

1. Collaborate with HCD to correct the zoning error on Ocean Park Boulevard.

2. Ensure that correcting this error does not jeopardize the City's compliance with the Housing Element.

3. Reject any upzoning of the residential parking lots until these issues are fully resolved.

Thank you for considering my perspective.

Sincerely,
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1479 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 15 - Brent Cohen, 30-year Santa Monica Resident in 90405 Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1480 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 16 Mitchell Kois
From: fabrizio giorgi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1481 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 17 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Kirsten Campisi
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1482 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 18 Mitchell Kois
From: Sandy Wells <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Sandy Wells
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1483 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 19 Mitchell Kois
From: Ivana Suvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Ivana Suvak
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1484 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 20 Mitchell Kois
From: Eileen Tunick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 9:33 PM
To: Lana Negrete
Cc: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16 C
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
EILEEN TUNICK (Homeowner since 1979)
1639 Sunset Ave.
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1485 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 21 Mitchell Kois
From: Bronwyn Barkan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 9:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council, I urge you to reject the proposed up-zoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels. Please: 1) Work with HCD to correct the zoning error on Ocean Park Blvd.; 2) Ensure that correcting this error won't harm Housing Element compliance; 3) Reject up-zoning the parking lots until these issues are resolved. Ocean Park Blvd. was zoned at 32 ft until 2023, when city staff mistakenly up-zoned it to 55 ft during the Housing Element process. City Attorney Doug Sloan wrote to HCD requesting guidance on correcting this error, but received no response. Proceeding with up-zoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation.

And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests. The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Up-zoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park. Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Bronwyn Barkan
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1486 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 22 Mitchell Kois
From: Kathy Knight <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Kathy Knight and Joe Faris
Sunset Park residents
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1487 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 23 Mitchell Kois
From: Toby Berlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Toby Berlin
1701 Pier Ave
Santa Monica, CA
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1488 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 24 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
(Nancy Owens)
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1489 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 25 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Clay Savage
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1490 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 26 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Linda Mansolillo
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1491 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 27 Mitchell Kois
From: Ose Dalldorf <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16 C Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Item 16.C
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
LT Santa Monica Resident
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1492 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 28 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Michael Parsons
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1493 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 29 Mitchell Kois
From: Robert Dean <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

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 Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1494 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 30 or have otherwise received this communication in error, please notify the sender and then delete it, and you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of any of the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited.

Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1495 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 31 Mitchell Kois
From: Nancy Hicks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
We reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories.

Nancy & Wes Hicks
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1496 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 32 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Kathleen O'Grady
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1497 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 33 Mitchell Kois
From: Traci Wallace <[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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Traci Wallace
1731 Dewey Street
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1498 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 34 Mitchell Kois
From: Pablo De La Rosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Pablo De La Rosa
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1499 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 35 Mitchell Kois
From: Lisa Test, OTD, OTR/L <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1500 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 36 Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our marketrate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,

Lisa A Test

90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1501 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 37 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
elena estrin
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1502 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 38 Mitchell Kois
From: steve kandell <[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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
steve kandell
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1503 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 39 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 16.C - OPPOSE!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Darko Suvak
Anton Suvak
266632nd St
Santa Monica CA 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1504 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 40 Mitchell Kois
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? We know why are are doing it - stop it - work for residents not Scott Effing Weiner and Leonara Camner
Sincerely,
Danielle Charney
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1505 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 41 Stop selling my town out
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1506 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 42 Mitchell Kois
From: Stephen Everitt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests. The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain.

Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park. Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more?
Sincerely,
Stephen Everitt 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1507 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 43 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Megan FitzGerald
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1508 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 44 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Ani Sherman
90405
Sent from my iPad
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1509 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 45 Mitchell Kois
From: Karen Comegys-Wortz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to REJECT the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle.

Your constituents don't want Item 16.C. VOTE NO on 16.C Sincerely,
Karen Comegys-Wortz
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1510 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Leslee Mickshaw <[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 16.C - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Leslee Mickshaw
90405
Leslee Mickshaw
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1511 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 1 Mitchell Kois
From: NANCY TYRE <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Nancy Tyre
90402
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1512 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1513 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 2 our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Heather Thomason
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1514 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 3 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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Susan Alinsangan
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1515 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 4 Mitchell Kois
From: Warren Allen <[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 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Warren Allen
1011 Pine St
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1516 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 5 Mitchell Kois
From: Aaron Steinberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,

I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Please:

1) Work with HCD to correct the zoning error on Ocean Park Blvd.;

2) Ensure that correcƟng this error won't harm Housing Element compliance;

3) Reject upzoning the parking lots unƟl these issues are resolved.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more?

Sincerely,

Aaron Steinberg
Santa Monica, 90405

Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1517 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 6 Mitchell Kois
From: Kathleen Kelleher McCarthy <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Kathleen Kelleher-McCarthy
and Kevin McCarthy
1206 Grant St.,
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1518 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 7 Mitchell Kois
From: Alex Brough <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Alex Brough
16 year resident of Sunset Park
1336 Sunset Ave
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1519 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 8 Mitchell Kois
From: Frank Weeks <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1520 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 9 Dear City Council,
I am a 30-year resident and urge you to please reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels. I ask you to consider the following:

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more?
Sincerely,
Frank Weeks
Ashland Ave.
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1521 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 10 Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1522 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 11 Mitchell Kois
From: Cody O'Connell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Cody O'Connell
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1523 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 12 Mitchell Kois
From: Tracey Hom <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Barry Snell; Betty Mednick; [email protected]; Esther Hickman; [email protected]; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]; Mindi Shank; Roni Crichton; Karen M. Fisher; Tammy Montanari; Ellis Raskin; Ellen Carpenter
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council, I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels. Please: 1) Work with HCD to correct the zoning error on Ocean Park Blvd.; 2) Ensure that correcting this error won't harm Housing Element compliance; 3) Reject upzoning the parking lots until these issues are resolved. Ocean Park Blvd. was zoned at 32 ft until 2023, when city staff mistakenly upzoned it to 55 ft during the Housing Element process. City Attorney Doug Sloan wrote to HCD requesting guidance on correcting this error, but received no response. Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests. The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park. Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely, (Your name) 90405 Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1524 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 13 Mitchell Kois
From: Faustino Garza <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Re: Item 16.C
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
To All City Council Members,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more?
Sincerely,
Faustino Garza
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1525 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 14 37-Year Homeowner and Resident
Ocean Park 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1526 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 15 Mitchell Kois
From: Danny Guggenheim <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
As a homeowner along Ocean Park in Sunset Park since 2006, raising a family, I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Sincerely,
Danny Guggenheim
Sunset Park resident since 2006
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1527 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 16 Mitchell Kois
From: Sawyer Savage <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Sawyer Savage
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1528 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 17 Mitchell Kois
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:12 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Support 16.C
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Good morning council,
I'd like to encourage your support for item 16.C request being brought by Councilmember Zwick, Councilmember Raskin, and Mayor Pro Tem Torosis. This city, as well as the broader LA area, continue to dedicate a huge percentage of its limited acreage to storage of cars while its people are unable to find housing. This item will explore ways to better utilize that space to benefit current and future Santa Monicans and is a great example of why I voted to elect a pro-housing council majority.

Additionally, the city simply can't afford to continue to subsidize car ownership while facing an ongoing budget crisis. Surface parking lots, even when fully utilized, are a drain on every city resource ranging from stormwater management, emergency response, infrastructure maintenance, and tree canopy, while also failing to realize the tax benefits of a productive land use. The ability to implement housing in these locations will improve the financial state of the city, provide housing for its residents, and decrease the pressure to shrink the future "Great Park".

Thanks
Dustin Shahan
90401
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1529 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 18 Mitchell Kois
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:04 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

And since Dan Hall is all about transparency, I urge you to invesƟgate how this “mistake” actually happened. Clearly someone in the Planning Dept made a choice to go rogue and make this change. How are you going to make sure this won’t happen again?
Wouldn’t such an mistake be grounds for dismissal? If not, why? Dan Hall, be transparent with the residents on this.

But most importantly do not upzone the parking lots.

This acƟon in no way helps with the RHNA numbers for affordable housing. This proposal contributes to the dangerous overcrowding of this area. This acƟon contributes to puƫng the current residents in harm’s way, given all the development on Lincoln, Euclid, etc.

You need to think how to protect residents in case of fire, earthquake, flooding. Instead you are creaƟng more gridlock that could lead to horrific tragedy. Why are you doing this? It is wholly unnecessary.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1530 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 19 Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Karen Croner
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1531 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 20 Mitchell Kois
From: Jeanne Eisenman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 9:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Jeanne Eisenman
1351 Pacific Street
Santa Monica
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1532 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 21 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 9:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Rebecca Harshberger
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1533 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element 22 Mitchell Kois
From: Barry Friesen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 8:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residenƟal zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restricƟons virtually guarantees liƟgaƟon. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 Ō, developers may claim vested interests.

The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park.

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Barry Friesen
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1534 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7230 : Options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 29, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.D
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Mayor Negrete that the City Council approve waiving City fees not to exceed $15,000 for the Butterfly Brawl, a boxing, charity and entertainment event on the Santa Monica Pier on August 16, 2025. Butterfly Brawl’s mission is to combine high-level boxing, entertainment, and philanthropy in support of cancer-related causes. This year, fundraising efforts will focus on the Santa Monica Police Activities League (PAL) and the American Cancer Society that supports those affected by cancer
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council

16.D
Packet Pg. 1535

Santa Monica City CouncilJuly 29, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
July 29, 2025