Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, July 29, 2025

1 David Yakobson
From: Lillian Lim <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete
Subject: No on SB1123 and "1230 Ashland"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand the greater goals of adding more housing to bring rents down overall and providing varying levels of entry points for renters and buyers, but there needs to be more care and logic taken. 1230 Ashland does NOT offer low income units nor starter homes. They will be multi-million dollar properties Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
2 marketed to an investor. This helps no one but the developer, and degrades the quality of life for us with more traffic and density on a very small street.

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

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

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

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

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: May Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Please Oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week of Jul 28

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
1 David Yakobson
From: Bedford Office <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 4:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Jennifer Josephs
90405
Jennifer Josephs
1786 Bryn Mawr Ave. Santa Monica CA
(801) 201-5909 cell
[email protected]
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
2 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: y Ama <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 3:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Y. Amaria
90405
Get Outlook for Android
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Nicolas Ospina <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:12 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for Item 12B

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

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

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

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Nicolas Ospina
663 Ocean Ave
Santa Monica CA
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
5 David Yakobson
From: Tim Defuria <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 3:03 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Tim Defuria
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
6 David Yakobson
From: Steen Strand <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
7 I call on Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro-tem Torosis, Councilman Raskin, Councilman Snell, and Councilman Zernitsyaka to reject this unacceptable use of an emergency ordinance, which undermines all other true emergencies, and also will radically change many neighborhoods in Santa Monica.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you,
Steen Strand
Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
8 David Yakobson
From: Dan Winjum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Please Oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week of Jul 28

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

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Dan Winjum
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
9 David Yakobson
From: ALICE ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 1:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Importance: High

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

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

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

Thank you,
Alice Ellis
Santa Monica Resident
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
10 David Yakobson
From: Joe Wicentowich <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 1:37 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684

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,
[Your Name]
[Your Address or Neighborhood (optional)]
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
11 David Yakobson
From: Joe Wicentowich <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 1:37 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684

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,
[Your Name]
[Your Address or Neighborhood (optional)]
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
12 David Yakobson
From: Lillie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 1:21 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684

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,
Lillie Kasim
2306 28th Street, Santa Monica CA 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
13 David Yakobson
From: Andrea Robinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 1:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose

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

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.

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

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

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you,
Andrea Strand
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
14 Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
15 David Yakobson
From: John Londono <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 1:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 12 B

EXTERNAL
I am opposed to this item.

I request that the council reject it.
-John Londono
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
16 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

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

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

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Kelly Hsiao
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
17 David Yakobson
From: Ryan Leff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:36 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684

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 Leff
Best,
Ryan Leff
(818) 620-0865
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
18 David Yakobson
From: Kathleen Murphy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

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

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.

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

Thank you,
Kathleen Murphy
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
19 David Yakobson
From: Ann Kummer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

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

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.

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

Thank you,
Ann Kummer
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
20 David Yakobson
From: Russell Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:33 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Strong Support for housing - PASS 12B

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Russell Thompson
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
21 David Yakobson
From: Ellen Mark <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Importance: High

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

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.

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

Thank you,
Ellen Mark
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
22 David Yakobson
From: Carolyn Hanlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Carolyn Hanlin
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
23 David Yakobson
From: Mindi Shank <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

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

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.

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

Thank you,
Mindi Shank
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
24 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: July 29, 2025 - City Council 12B - Fake Emergency - OPPOSE

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

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

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

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designation. Under the law, an "emergency Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
25 ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency."

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

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

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Sunset Park Resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
26 David Yakobson
From: sitara contreras <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers, Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week. Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency. This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers. If passed, this ordinance would: 1. Allow up to 20 units on vacant single-family R1 lots. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit. 2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation. 5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance. Thank you, Sitara Contreras. 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
27 David Yakobson
From: Dylan Nobel <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:03 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684

Thank you for your leadership.

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

C: (310) 730-9484
1223 Wilshire Blvd., #1570
Santa Monica, CA 90403
www.PacificCoveDevelopment.com
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
28 David Yakobson
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - 16C Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
PS.

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

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

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

Certainly it is time for these numbers to be adjusted.

Sincerely,
Karen Croner
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
29 David Yakobson
From: Karen Frid-Madden <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose

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

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.

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!
Thank you,
Karen Frid-Madden
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
30 Santa Monica resident
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.bikasadesigns.com__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!udmfEOGYPo1HNtuITD5IC5 cH_ov0m-tQlDHvgWjdWQ1qhavTYkcUed9aR12uL2yC-ci_MZPZEOBlQACUcaiX5uY1Ri46itOClbVWJA$ follow me on Pinterest pinterest.com/bikasadesigns and Facebook @ bikasadesigns Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Cydney Kirschbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Cydney and Kenneth Kirschbaum
90405
Cydney Kirschbaum
[email protected]
cell: 310-613-0767
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
2 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
3 Mitchell Kois
From: Allison Greene <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Allison Greene
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
4 Mitchell Kois
From: Ryan Polito <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Sunset Park oppose item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

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

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
5 Mitchell Kois
From: S AS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Robert Sherick
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
6 Mitchell Kois
From: S AS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Jack ShericK
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
7 Mitchell Kois
From: Stacey AS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Stacey Abrams-Sherick
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
8 Mitchell Kois
From: Sally Johnston <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Sally Johnston
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
9 Mitchell Kois
From: Keira Lynch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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
10 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!
Thank you,
Keira Lynch
Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
11 Mitchell Kois
From: Jerry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
[Your Name Here]
Jerry Nodiff
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
12 Mitchell Kois
From: Dominique Chausse <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Dominique Chausse
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
13 Mitchell Kois
From: Jennifer Lynch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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
14 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!
Thank you,
Jennifer Lynch
Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
15 Mitchell Kois
From: Jodi Strock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Jodi Strock
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
16 Mitchell Kois
From: Peter Mezza <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Peter Mezza
2504 30th Street
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
17 Mitchell Kois
From: Kelsey Liber <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
90405
Kelsey Liber
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
18 Mitchell Kois
From: Sharon Everitt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Oppose Item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,
Sharon Everitt
1507 Ashland Ave.
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
19 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
20 Mitchell Kois
From: Ira Dworkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Ira Dworkin
long-time resident in 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
21 Mitchell Kois
From: ADAM JOHNSTON <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Adam Johnston
1349 Oak Street
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
22 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
23 Mitchell Kois
From: Holly Silvers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Holly & Dennis Granelli
Condo & SM business owner
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
24 Mitchell Kois
From: LINDA KNAB <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Linda Reinbold
1333 Ashland Avenue
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
25 Mitchell Kois
From: HARRIS SILVER <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Harris Silver
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
26 Mitchell Kois
From: Kathleen von Schlegell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Opposition to Agenda Items 12B and 16C – Preserve the Character of Sunset Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Kathleen von Schlegell
Sunset Park Resident - 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
27 Mitchell Kois
From: aaronfurlong <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Aaron Furlong
Santa Monica
90405
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
28 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
29 Mitchell Kois
From: nancykless <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you!
Nancy Kless
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
30 Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
31 Mitchell Kois
From: Lynn Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Lynn Murdock
1209 Pine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
32 Mitchell Kois
From: Gail Denney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
[Your Name Here]
90405
Sent from
Gail Denney
Professional Retail Sales Consultant
[email protected]
310 621 7486
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
33 Mitchell Kois
From: Robert Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

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

Thank you,
Robert Brown
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
34 Mitchell Kois
From: Gail Denney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
[Your Name Here]
90405
Sent from
Gail Denney
Professional Retail Sales Consultant
[email protected]
310 621 7486
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
35 Mitchell Kois
From: Nancy Pearl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Nancy Pearl
90405
Nancy Pearl, MA
Living Loving Legacies: Life Story Interview Videos
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
36 Phone: 310-804-4503
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.livinglovinglegacies.com

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
37 Mitchell Kois
From: Elizabeth Joensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Elizabeth Joensen
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
38 Mitchell Kois
From: Hilary Galanoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

Thank you,
Hilary Galanoy
2636 32nd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
39 Mitchell Kois
From: tim joensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Tim Joensen
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
40 Mitchell Kois
From: Allyson Dworkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Allyson Dworkin
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
41 Mitchell Kois
From: Alex Purcell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Alex Purcell
2311 Cloverfield Blvd.

Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
42 Mitchell Kois
From: Chris Downey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Chris Downey
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
43 Mitchell Kois
From: Daniel Funk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Daniel T. Funk, Sunset Park Resident since 1989
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
44 Mitchell Kois
From: MARILYN HARRIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,

MARILYN HARRIS
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
45 Mitchell Kois
From: Crystal Reed <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Crystal Reed
Born, raised and still live here, since 1971. Our Sunset Park house has been owned by our family since it was built in 1942.
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
46 Mitchell Kois
From: Robin OConnell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Robin O'Connell
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
47 Mitchell Kois
From: Hillary Rollins <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Hillary Rollins
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
48 Mitchell Kois
From: Debbie Millar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Please reject item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B. This is not a true "emergency" ordinance. Developers in Santa Monica are already building more housing than other cities in our region. It also completely destroys the work the city planners have done to make our city livable.

Thank you,
Debbie Millar
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
49 Mitchell Kois
From: Katherine Reuter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

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

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS). Since these will be built by developers, why let them off the hook?

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

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

I am not against building additional housing, but unless the priorities include low income housing AND adequate parking (at least one space per unit), it will not meet the increased need to house people who live and/or work in Santa Monica. The fantasy that everyone will bike everywhere is just that - a fantasy. Along with many friends, I am older (78), and won't be biking anywhere. Young families have to take their young kids to school and then get to work Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
50 within a limited time, requiring driving. Families have to buy a week's worth of groceries, which certainly don't fit on a bicycle. In many areas with multiple family dwellings, there is already not enough parking.

Thank you,
Katherine Reuter
1210 Grant Street 90405
P.S. How's that bus route down Lincoln, from Montana STRAIGHT DOWN to Pico going? With all of the development on Lincoln, there is still NO direct NORTH-SOUTH Lincoln bus line!! How can such a major thoroughfare not have a bus all the way along it? Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
51 Mitchell Kois
From: Deborah Bourget <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Deborah Bourget
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
52 Mitchell Kois
From: Merle Newman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
[Your Name Here]
Merle Newman
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
53 Mitchell Kois
From: Hillary Rollins <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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
54 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!
Thank you,
Hillary Rollins
Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
55 Mitchell Kois
From: oesr <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Jane Dempsey
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
56 Mitchell Kois
From: Laura Park <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Laura Park
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
57 Mitchell Kois
From: Jim Bernstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
James Bernstein
2627 Highland Ave #7
Santa Monica, CA 90405
30 year resident of Santa Monica
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
58 Mitchell Kois
From: Dalila Fuentes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Dalila Fuentes, resident Sunset Park
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
59 Mitchell Kois
From: John Levy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency. And calling it such denigrates, and threatens to desensitize people to, true such emergencies.

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
John Levy
2673 33rd St.

Santa Monica
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
60 Mitchell Kois
From: Mary <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

This is excessive, destructIve to neighborhoods, quality of life, and is unnecessary.

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,
Mary Hubbell
90405
Sent from my iPad
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
61 Mitchell Kois
From: Paul Costello <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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.

Paul Costello
90405
Sent from my iPad
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
62 Mitchell Kois
From: Cheryl Downey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,Cheryl Downey
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
63 Mitchell Kois
From: Phil Harnage <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Phil & Susan Harnage
Sunset Park since 1987
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
64 Mitchell Kois
From: Emily Davidson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance!
Thank you,
Emily Davidson
Sunset Park Resident
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
65 Mitchell Kois
From: Kathy Kane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Kathy Cody
Bay Street, 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
66 Mitchell Kois
From: Dicky Eagan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Richard Eagan
2340 Hill
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
67 Mitchell Kois
From: janet rt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Janet Tunick
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
68 Mitchell Kois
From: Alex Novakovich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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 Novakovich
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
69 Mitchell Kois
From: S Ruth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:06 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Stevan Hill
Subject: SAVE OUR R1 LOTS FROM DEVELOPERS – Item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, please preserve our beautiful RI neighborhoods while also thoughtfully expanding affordable housing opportunities in R1 zones.

Rushing through this ordinance only benefits developers! Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an ordinance connected to SB 1123. This ordinance currently impacts only one property:
1101 Stanford, the property at the center of SNACO’s ongoing lawsuit. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units (10 main housing units and 10 ADUS) on any vacant single-family R1 lot. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit

2. Permit 3-story multifamily housing buildings in R1 neighborhoods. There has been no analysis whether increasing the current 2 story height limit is really needed for SB 1123 projects. Nor has there been any study about the impact of three story projects will have on the character of R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for most lot splits in R1 zones, when these same council members loudly claim Santa Monica needs affordable housing

4. Bypass the public process (which includes Planning Commission review and multiple public hearings) through misuse of “emergency” designation

5. Extend the ADU “emergency” ordinance from the usual 60 days to 18 months �� A Broken Process
None of that is happening now. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

We call on the Council to reject this misuse of emergency powers and instead reaffirm their commitment to a transparent, resident-centered process.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you,
Steve Ruth
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
70 1501 Georgina Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
71 Mitchell Kois
From: Steve Rogers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gail Denney; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Save Our R1 Lots From Developers -- Item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am a proud Santa Monica resident. It is not easy but please appropriately balance preserving our Santa Monica R1 neighborhoods while also thoughtfully expanding affordable housing opportunities. Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance SB 1123 is not right. It impacts only one property, 1101 Stanford St., which is a site at the center of an ongoing lawsuit. There is no exigency at all and no reason to label this an emergency. Instead, the bill appears to be a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit an out of state corporation to the detriment of my Santa Monica community. Due process is fundamental to deal with these issues. We need appropriate discussion, public input, and an analysis of community impact. Please reject this dangerous misuse of emergency powers.

Thank you,
Steve Rogers
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
72 Mitchell Kois
From: Lillian Lim <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 1:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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
73 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!
Thank you,
Lillian Lim
Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
74 Mitchell Kois
From: Marc Abraham <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 1:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gail Denney
Subject: Item 12B
Attachments: Dear Council Members.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
The city council must defeat this flawed and unnecessaery Item … 12B (connected to SB 1123)
Sincerely,
Marc Abraham
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, I know most of my
neighbors understand the importance of affordable
housing. However, does rushing an ordinance under the
guise of an emergency; that would in fact allow 20 units to be built in a residential neighborhood where the prices of the homes is not actually easily affordable for everyone.

Does that make sense? Does the council truly believe that the developers are going to sell the units or rent them for significantly less than market value. Really? All the while rushing a process that will destroy the character of a
neighborhood. And make no mistake it will have a
profound negative effect, this replacing of landscaping with concrete, flooding a neighborhood with substantial
elevated traffic and parking.

Why have Councilmembers Zwick and Hall introduced an
"emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123? An
ordinance that currently impacts only one property: 1101 Stanford - the property at the center of SNACO’s ongoing lawsuit. This is not a legitimate emergency. It does not benefit residents of Santa Monica.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units (10 main housing units and 10
ADUS) on any vacant single-family R1 lot. Any R1 lot
can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit

2. Permit 3-story multifamily housing buildings in R1
neighborhoods. There has been no analysis whether
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
increasing the current 2 story height limit is really
needed for SB 1123 projects. Nor has there been any
study about the impact three story projects will have
on the character of R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for most lot splits in R1 zones, when these same council members
loudly claim Santa Monica needs affordable housing

4. Bypass the public process (which includes Planning
Commission review and multiple public hearings)
through misuse of “emergency” designation

5. Extend the ADU “emergency” ordinance from the
usual 60 days to 18 months
�� A Broken Process
None of that is happening now. This rushed ordinance
disregards due process, public input, and community
impact.

We call on the Council to reject this misuse of emergency powers and instead reaffirm their commitment to a
transparent, resident-centered process.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you
Marc Abraham
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
75 Mitchell Kois
From: Robyn Sherman Raskin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 12:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

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
76 Thank you,
Gary and Robyn Raskin
Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
77 Mitchell Kois
From: Adam Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 1:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly nonemergency situations? I’m just deeply concerned. The development is out of hand. Are we selling off our community for developer profits. It sure feels that way. We will certainly fight within our legal rights against this measure. It feels like it’s punishment to the community and we haven’t done anything to deserve this.

Kind regards,
Adam Cohen
Santa Monica resident
Adam Cohen  Super Delicious
6121 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite G
Hollywood, CA 90038
[email protected]
O: (323) 785-2660
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
78 Mitchell Kois
From: Darlene Vogel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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
79 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!
Thank you,
Darlene Vogel
Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
80 Mitchell Kois
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 11:43 AM
To: Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems
Subject: I support item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
As a Santa Monica resident who cares about this city, its communities, and its future, I strongly support item 12B and the implementation of SB1123 and SB 684.

Creating more affordable homeownership opportunities in neighborhoods that have traditionally excluded lower- and middle-income families and communities of color is a crucial step toward making our city more inclusive, accessible, sustainable, and livable.

As a council, your responsibility is to act in the best interest of the community and future generations. I hope you remain focused on this greater good, rather than being distracted by resistance to change or minor complaints rooted in fear.

This is a well-thought-out ordinance that I believe we should be proud to implement, and I urge you to support item 12B.

Thank you,
Caro Vilaiin
90404
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
81 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SAVE OUR R1 LOTS FROM DEVELOPERS -ITEM 12 B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, please preserve our beautiful RI neighborhoods while also thoughtfully expanding affordable housing opportunities in R1 zones. f Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This ordinance currently impacts only one property: 1101 Stanford, the property at the center of SNACO’s ongoing lawsuit. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit an outof-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units (10 main housing units and 10 ADUS) on any vacant single-family R1 lot. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit

2. Permit 3-story multifamily housing buildings in R1 neighborhoods. There has been no analysis whether increasing the current 2 story height limit is really needed for SB 1123 projects. Nor has there been any study about the impact three story projects will have on the character of R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for most lot splits in R1 zones, when these same council members loudly claim Santa Monica needs affordable housing

4. Bypass the public process (which includes Planning Commission review and multiple public hearings) through misuse of “emergency” designation

5. Extend the ADU “emergency” ordinance from the usual 60 days to 18 months 뢏뢐 A Broken Process
None of that is happening now. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

We call on the Council to reject this misuse of emergency powers and instead reaffirm their commitment to a transparent, resident-centered process.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you
Gail Denney
Consultant - Retail/Strategic Sales
[email protected]
310 621 7486
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
82 Mitchell Kois
From: Heinzle, Janet <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 9:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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!
Thank you,
Janet Heinzle
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
83 Santa Monica resident

JANET HEINZLE

LICENSED REAL ESTATE SALESPERSON

DOUGLAS ELLIMAN REAL ESTATE
2025 Ellie Platinum Award, Ranked # 17 Individual Agent in California, Top 7% of Agents Ranked in 2025 RealTrends Verified Top Agents and Teams OFFICE: 424.203.1800
MOBILE: 3108043499
[email protected]
11990 SAN VICENTE BLVD SUITE 100, LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 DRE #: 02080077

MY LISTINGS

DISCOVER THE VALUE OF YOUR HOME
FACEBOOK | X | YOUTUBE | INSTAGRAM | LINKEDIN | TIKTOK
At Douglas Elliman, we won't ask you for your social security number, bank account or other highly confidential information over email. *Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring ANY money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have the authority to bind a third party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication.

This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this email without the author's prior permission. We will never send or ask for sensitive or non-public information via e-mail, including bank account, social security information or wire information. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. The information contained in this communication may be confidential and may be subject to the attorneyclient privilege.If you are the intended recipient and you do not wish to receive similar electronic messages from us in the future then please respond to the sender to this effect. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Company.

Douglas Elliman may engage a third party vendor to answer telephone, email, text, and internet inquiries. This vendor acts as an agent for Douglas Elliman, and keeps all information confidential.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
84 Mitchell Kois
From: Lynne Schlosstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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
85 Thank you,
Lynne Schlosstein
Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
86 Mitchell Kois
From: Dave Childs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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
87 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!
Thank you,
Dave Childs
Santa Monica resident
Dave Childs
3137 Frederick Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
[email protected]
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
88 Mitchell Kois
From: Julie Pearl Slater <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
How is it that things keep getting WORSE in our little community and not better with you all at the helm!!!
As a resident of Santa Monica, I ask you to oppose item 12B on Council's agenda this week.

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of a fake “emergency” designation. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." There is no "emergency." Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
89 5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
This is a Broken Process. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you,
Julie Pearl Slater
Ian Slater
Santa Monica resident
Julie Pearl Slater
310.948.4464
www.curatedcampustours.com
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. image
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
90 Mitchell Kois
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2025 11:52 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for Item 12B – SB 1123 Emergency Zoning Ordinance Extension and Amendments
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
On behalf of Santa Monica Forward, we write in strong support of Item 12B, the Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance that extends and updates Ordinance 2816 to support the implementation of SB 1123 and SB 684.

These updates are essential to ensure that new ownership housing opportunities created by state law can actually work in practice here in Santa Monica. Without these adjustments, projects on vacant single-family parcels may be legally permitted but financially or physically infeasible.

We applaud the City for taking thoughtful action to provide the flexibility needed to make these projects successful, including:
 Allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), which support multigenerational living and increase housing options without counting against SB 1123’s unit cap;  Waiving Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP) fees for small-scale ownership projects (5 units or fewer), helping keep costs manageable for first-time buyers and small developers;  Modernizing development standards—such as increased FAR, reduced setbacks, and eliminating unnecessary stepbacks—to make modest infill construction viable while maintaining neighborhood character;
 Extending ADU eligibility to SB 684 parcels in multifamily zones, enabling a broader range of infill projects across the city.

These are smart, targeted adjustments that reflect real-world development constraints while advancing our shared goals of sustainability, inclusion, and housing opportunity. They help turn the promise of SB 1123 and SB 684 into meaningful results on the ground.

We urge you to adopt this ordinance and continue showing leadership in addressing California’s housing crisis at the local level.

Thank you,
Brad Ewing and Carl Hansen
Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
91 --
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.

SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
92 Mitchell Kois
From: Burt Goldstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 4:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Opposition to Agenda Item (12.B)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

I oppose Agenda Item (12.B.

I take it to be concerning: Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Extending and Amending the Regulations Established by Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2816 (CCS) One emergency that concerns me more is the failure of the City to fund the Police Chief’s request for more officers, and the failure of the out of control over-development in the City to provide adequate policing for the influx of new residents and hotel patrons that the City’s actions is provoking.

Not to mention the abandonment of the former Master Plan’s requirement for a study of ’transit times’ to monitor the increased traffic resulting from issuing variances to our former restrictions on high rises and overbuilding.

Sincerely,
Burt Goldstein
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Dirk van de Bunt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I urge you to oppose Item 12B on this week’s agenda.

This “emergency” ordinance tied to SB 1123 does not meet the legal standard for an emergency: I see no immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare. Instead, it fast-tracks major zoning changes that favor developers, not residents.

If enacted, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on any single-family R1 lot—easily triggered by a demolition permit

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Waive affordable housing fees for 10-unit projects (5 homes + 5 ADUs) in R1 zones

4. Bypass public input and Planning Commission review by abusing the “emergency” label

5. Extend a temporary ADU ordinance from 60 days to 18 months without justification This is a major land use decision masquerading as an emergency. It deserves proper review—not a rush job.

Please vote no on Item 12B.

Thank you,
Dirk van de Bunt
1624 Hill St
Santa Monica 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
2 Mitchell Kois
From: Sandy Laderas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Sandra Laderas
90405
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
3 Mitchell Kois
From: Lois Bostwick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

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

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,
Lois Bostwick
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
4 Mitchell Kois
From: MIB <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

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

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,
Vikram and Monica Bhardwaj
2504 33rd st
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
5 Mitchell Kois
From: Chris Rowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

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

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

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

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

And these larger buildings require MUCH MORE DISRUPTIVE construction than single family houses, which puts an undue burden on the senior citizens who comprise so many of our neighbors.

My parents are 80 and live in Sunset Park, and there is a new house with a basement going in next to them. It's a huge pit, and the noise of this construction site is above and beyond what should be allowed in a quiet neighborhood. Yet that is nothing compared to the depth of foundation and massiveness of structure that would be required for an apartment building with underground parking etc. We live across the 10 freeway from any rail line. Nobody is taking the bus. We don't need massive apartment buildings traumatizing the senior community, most of whom have been in their houses for 40+ years.

Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Christopher Rowe
2442 22nd St
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
6 Mitchell Kois
From: Susan Shapiro <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Susan Shapiro
1618 Wellesley Drive
90405
Sent from Outlook
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Karen Comegys-Wortz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months
PLEASE, respect the the needs of residents, NOT developers! Please reject this rediculous "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Karen Comegys-Wortz
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
2 Mitchell Kois
From: Gail Denney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

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

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,
[Your Name Here]
90405
Sent from
Gail Denney
Professional Retail Sales Consultant
[email protected]
310 621 7486
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
4 Mitchell Kois
From: Rose Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you, Rose Nelson
90402
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
5 Mitchell Kois
From: Paula Mazur <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Robert Mickelson
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

EXTERNAL

DEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS,
WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU OPPOSE ITEM 12.B ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA THIS WEEK.

THIS EMAIL IS NOT A NIMBY RESPONSE TO ITEM 12.B. WE ARE PRO HOUSING.

AND WE WANT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO HANDLE THE NEED FOR HOUSING WITH MORE NUANCE, AND WITH RESPECT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WILL BE AFFECTED.

RIGHT NOW “EMERGENCY” ITEM 12B, WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS ZWICK AND HALL HAVE

INTRODUCED, FEELS LIKE A CAVALIER, KNEE JERK, NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT RESPONSE TO A VERY REAL CRISIS, AND WILL END UP BEING A DEVELOPER’S BONANZA.

THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA WILL HAVE ACTED WITHOUT NUANCED ENOUGH CONSIDERATION, AND

NEIGHBORHOODS WILL SUFFER UNNECESSARILY, WHEN THERE ARE HOUSING SOLUTIONS TO BE HAD, THAT MUST BE HAD.

ITEM 12B IS NOT THAT SOLUTION.

WE ASK THAT YOU REJECT THIS EMERGENCY ORDINANCE.

BEST,

PAULA MAZUR

ROBERT MICKELSON
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 8:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Phyllis Chavez
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
2 Mitchell Kois
From: Caroline Denyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 7:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Caroline Denyer
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
3 Mitchell Kois
From: Gina Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 7:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Gina Garcia
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
4 Mitchell Kois
From: Harper Savage <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 7:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Harper
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
5 Mitchell Kois
From: Theresa Forster <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 6:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
[Your Name Here]
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
6 Mitchell Kois
From: afnelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 6:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Allen Nelson
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
7 Sent from my Galaxy
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
8 Mitchell Kois
From: Bill Josephs <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 5:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
[Your Name Here]
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
9 Mitchell Kois
From: Jenny Blum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 3:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Jennifer Blum
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
10 Mitchell Kois
From: Stevan Hill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:26 AM
To: Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Emergency
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Letter in opposition to (a) the proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance concerning relaxed development standards for projects using SB1123; and (b) the extension of the Emergency Interim Ordinance 2816 permitting ADUs on SB1123 projects.

I write to oppose the proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance concerning relaxed development standards for projects using SB1123, and the extension of the Emergency Interim Ordinance 2816 permitting ADUs on SB1123 projects.

1. THERE IS NO EMERGENCY! Under the City's municipal code, in order to bypass the usual, deliberate rules for adopting or amending a zoning ordinance, there must be an "emergency" that constitutes a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." SMMC

9.46.090(B). Without such a finding, an emergency ordinance is prohibited.

A. The proposed emergency ordinance does not identify what the “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare” is, that justifies the new emergency ordinance. Instead, the preamble to the new ordinance states that “there exists a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare requiring extension of this Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance.” (Emphasis added). The new proposed emergency ordinance does purport to extend the emergency ADU ordinance by an extraordinary 18 months. But there are no reasons given that explain why the relaxed building standards in the new proposed emergency ordinance are justified by “a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare requiring extension of this Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance.” This alone should result in the rejection of the new emergency ordinance on development standards.

B. Perhaps the Clerk and the City Attorney believed the reasons given for extending the ADU emergency ordinance also justified the new development standards emergency ordinance. Or maybe it was just a drafting error. In either case, the new reasons that purport to demonstrate “a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare” do not establish an “emergency,” either for extending the ADU ordinance or adopting the relaxed development standards.

Here are the four reasons given in the proposed emergency ordinance that supposedly show a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare” (1) a statewide and local Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
11 housing crisis; (2) the need to expand housing choices in the City’s 6 areas of highest opportunity; (3) the several applicants seeking to utilize these provisions as soon as the operative date for SB 1123; and (4) staff’s limited ability to bring forward permanent changes to the City’s Municipal Code by the effective date.
(1) A statewide and local housing crisis. The state legislature declared there was a housing crisis, especially in affordable housing, in California many years ago. For example, in 2021, the legislature declared there was a in “ensuring affordable housing.” See Senate Bill 9, §4. In SB684, adopted in 2023, the Legislature declared “California has a statewide housing crisis, represented by a shortage of nearly 3,500,000 homes.” See SB684, §1. In 2024, in section 4 of SB1123, the Legislature declared “that the state faces a severe housing shortage, largely due to the lack of available housing affordable to lower and moderateincome families.” There is nothing identified in the proposed emergency ordinance that makes the housing shortage, especially in affordable housing, a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Indeed, the basis for the proposed emergency ordinance is SB1123, where the Legislature delayed the effective date of the statute for a year, undercutting a claim there is an immediate need to bypass the requirements for approval of an ordinance because of a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Besides, the Council’s certainly hasn’t acted as though there is a crisis. It delayed from September 2024 until now to consider any kind of ordinance to implement SB1123. That SB1123 took effect could not prompt an “emergency.” Nothing prevents a developer from using the state law itself (which already contains many relaxed development standards) to apply for a tentative tract map (the first step in the SB1123 process). (2) The need to expand housing choices in the City’s 6 areas of highest opportunity. There likely is a great need to expand housing choices, especially affordable housing, but this also does not create an “emergency” or a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Expanding housing choices is a laudable goal and should be pursued, but what evidence is that this proposed ordinance is needed right now because of a current and immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare.

Nor is it clear which 6 areas the proposed ordinance targets or why the expansion of housing choices requires the Council to bypass at this time, the deliberate and thoughtful normal process to change local zoning laws.
(3) The several applicants seeking to utilize these provisions as soon as the operative date for SB 1123. The preamble of the proposed emergency ordinance states that "numerous applicants in the City ... would like to avail themselves" of SB1123, which took effect on July 1, 2025. Later the preamble recites that there were "the several applicants" who wanted to use SB1123. When the City responded to a Public Records Act that asked the City to identify the "numerous" or "several applicants" referenced in the preamble emergency ordinance, the City identified no one at all.

That was probably not entirely a truthful response. There is currently one vacant lot in Santa Moncia that could be available now for an SB1123 development, and that lot is owned by Stanford del Mar LLC (“SDM”) at 1101 Stanford Street. Undoubtedly, Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
12 SDM representatives asked about using SB1123 since the proposed SB9 development on that same vacant lot is stalled because the SB9 development does not comply with state law.

The Public Records Act request should have at least identified an SDM inquiry about SB1123.

One inquiry about one available lot doesn’t create an emergency. (There are a couple of other R-1 vacant lots in the northern part of the city, but they likely don’t qualify under SB1123 because they are in a very high fire hazard severity zone). In fact, even if there really were “several” or “numerous” inquiries, that would still not create and emergency or establish a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Even without a local ordinance, emergency or otherwise, a developer can “utilize” SB1123 right now. State law does not require a local ordinance to be used. SB1123 already contains relaxed development standards,and a developer can start the process under SB1123 by submitting a tentative parcel map for ministerial approval to the Planning Department.

Besides, there could not be a real “emergency” since the City Council itself created the predicament. SB1123proposed a new form of housing on vacant land in R-1 zoned districts. It permitted subdividing a vacant R-1 lotinto 10 or less small parcels that had to be at least 1200 square feet. The housing unit on the small parcel also cannot be larger than 1750 square feet maximum the state law allows. Many parcels in R-1 zones at more than four times the size of a potential SB1123 parcel, and the housing unit in an R-1 zone is often larger than 1750 square feet. Still, with careful planning, an SB1123 project could be designed so that the new housing does not materially change the character of an R-1 zoned neighborhood. That is why the Legislature gave local communities extra time to implement SB1123, if they wanted to enact a local ordinance. As a result, our Planning Department and City Council had from September 19, 2024, until July 1, 2025, to plan for implementing SB1123. There was ample time for thoughtful consideration of how these small parcel projects can fit into R-1 vacant land, using the normal procedure outlined in the Municipal Code that, among other things, requires robust public participation.

There is no excuse for the Council’s failure to start the process of implementing SB1123 a year ago. TheCouncil’s delay, when the Legislature gave the Council extra time to implement SB1123, is inexplicable. But the delay, when nothing prevented the Council from acting before July1, does not create an emergency. Without a true “emergency,” the Council cannot adopt an “Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance” for the proposed development standards emergency ordinance.

Nor should the Council be able to extend the first “Emergency Interim Ordinance” concerning ADUs. There was no emergency that supported its adoption on June 10, and there is no “emergency” that requires it be extended an additional 18 months. There is still no evidence of a continuing emergency that proves “a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare."
In addition, the July 4 published public notice is defective. The published notice failed to include a material term, namely how long the Council proposed to extend the ADU “emergency” ordinance.

There is irony here. The President is taking all manner of despicable actions, claiming many different emergencies to justify his actions. Mr. Zwick and Mr. Hall, and the other Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
13 members of the Council who claim there is an “emergency,” are doing exactly the same thing. The Council majority is taking "emergency" actions to justify impactful changes to the City's zoning ordinances, whilebypassing the established and required procedures to consider the zoning changes.

The Council should proceed like it did when implementing the City's SB9 ordinance. The discretionary issues in SB9 were considered by City staff and during a study session before the City Council. There was guidance from the Housing and Community Development Agency, and the issue received thoughtful consideration from the Planning Commission. There were at least two public hearings on the proposed SB9 ordinance. NONE of that happened with the first SB1123 emergency ordinance, or none has happened with the second.

Finally, even if there is anything that qualifies as an ‘emergency,” it is especially disquieting that there is only one possible SB1123 project now, and it is again the property owned by Stanford del Mar LLC. Just like the illegal recent amendments to the SB9 ordinance, severalCity Council members are advancing significant housing policy changes, mostly for their friends who claim to own the Stanford corporation. Again, as we see with the federal government, it is almost never good public policy to make big changes in city (or federal) law, for the obvious benefit of a single corporation.

(4) The staff’s limited ability to bring forward permanent changes to the City’s Municipal Code by the effective date. The inability to direct staff resources to what the Council now claims is an “emergency,” smacks of legislative malpractice. If there really was an “emergency,” you can bet the City Council and Planning Department would have found the resources to analyze the impact of various alternative development standards and propose an ordinance to implement SB1123. The “staff’s limited ability” does not create an emergency, especially in light of the many directions to staff by Council Members to develop truly crazy (and illegal) policies. For example, the staff was directed by Council Members to modify the City’s SB9 ordinance to eliminate mandatory provisions of state law. Rather than directing staff in January to return with an ordinance that violated state law, staff time could have been better spent evaluating and proposing a thoughtful change to the zoning laws that could have implemented SB1123.

The scandal now is that there is absolutely still no analysis of the impact of the proposed emergency ordinance. Indeed, has anyone in City government actually determined whether the proposed “relaxed” development standards will promote projects under SB1123, or if housing can be safely built under the proposed emergency ordinance, with reduced or no setbacks? Has anyone consulted the Fire Department? Has the staff considered how the emergency ordinancewill impact the character of singlefamilyneighborhoods? Surely there are relaxed development standards that both promote affordable and diverse housing, that also do not destroy the single-familyneighborhoods that make Santa Monica so attractive.

It is the staff’s failure now, before an emergency ordinance is effective for perhaps as long as five years, that is a “a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
14 2. THE PROPOSED RELAXED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HAVE NOT BEEN VETTED AND MAY NOT BE NEEDED TO BUILD SB1123 HOUSING CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF AN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.

A. It is easy to claim the opposition to this and the earlier “emergency ordinance” is just NIMBY opposition to housing. That is categorically untrue. I support building more housing and would welcome low- and moderate-income housing in SB1123 projects. I don’t support putting apartments and townhouses on every available green space in the City. SB1123 presents a unique chance for thoughtful implementation of multi-family housing in R-1 zones, in a way that does not destroy the essential character of the neighborhood.

The relaxed development standards proposed in this “Emergency Ordinance” are, for the most part, not required by SB1123. These changes might be useful and might be needed to promote housing choices. But given the mandated minimum size of each parcel and the mandated maximum size of each housing unit, there has been no consideration concerning whether the relaxed standards beyond those in SB1123 itself are needed or even desirable for Santa Monica.

For example, the draft “Emergency Ordinance” expands the floor area ratio (FAR) to 1.5 for all projects, regardless of size. This FAR would result in very intense housing development. SB1123 itself requires a significantly smaller FAR of 1.0 for developments of 3- 7 units, and 1.25 for developments of 8-10 units. What is the justification on an emergency basis for increasing the FAR to 1.5, rather than applying the state mandate of 1.0 or 1.25, when a 1750 sq foot housing unit can readily be designed to fit even on a small parcel?

Another example is the proposed increase in building height. The draft “Emergency Ordinance” proposes toincrease the building height to three stories. SB1123 requires only two stories, which is the current height limit in most R-1 zones. Again, what is the justification on an emergency basis for this increase when a 1750 sq foot building can likely be built in 2 stories?
The draft “Emergency Ordinance” proposes to reduce the front setback to 10-20 feet. SB1123 says nothing about front setbacks. Currently front setbacks are usually 30 feet. Reducing the front setback is not needed to support a maximum 1750 sq. foot building, on even a small parcel.

Both the front setbacks and the height limit are highly desirable features of many R-1 neighborhoods. If the housing objectives of SB1123 can be met without eliminating these zoning rules, what is justification for doing so?

The same is true of the proposal to eliminate interior setbacks and stepbacks. Should they be eliminated, or is a reduction of the setback a more desirable choice? And how will the California Building Code impact fire safety and building standards?

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
15 I am not architect and the brief, informal conversations with architects in the few days since the text of the draft “Emergency Ordinance” was available is no substitute for the rigorous review that is needed for a new kind of housing in a previously restricted housing zone. Zoning by emergency ordinance is zoning exactly backwards. We have great resources in Santa Monica, and they should be used and their suggestions considered before the Council adopts this emergency ordinance. The apparent suggestion that the emergency ordinance be reviewed in 18 months, after SB1123 projects are built is nonsense. Imagine if a threestory project is constructed under the “Emergency Ordinance,” but after a detailed review 18 months later with Planning Commission and community input, the City decides SB1123 projects should conform to the usual R-1 neighborhood height standard. Will the City insist the third story be removed?

If a housing unit is built with only a 10-foot front set back, and after thoughtful consideration 18 months later, the consensus is the neighborhood standard should be preserved, will the City require the building be relocated on the lot? In both cases, the character of the neighborhood was changed by the “Emergency Ordinance,” and practically, there is nothing the City can do to “put Humpty Dumpty back together again.”

B. And what about affordable housing? Santa Monica is on track to build 225% of its objective for market rate housing. It is unlikely to come near its target for affordable housing.

The Council Members who proposed the emergency ordinance decry the lack of affordable housing –the “missing middle”, at every opportunity, and yet the proposed ordinance has no provision for required affordable housing. In fact, the emergency ordinance eliminates funding for affordable housing by eliminating the affordable housing fee required under the Affordable Housing Production Program for most SB1123 housing. That fee funds affordable housing projects in Santa Monica. What is the policy justification for eliminating the affordable housing fees, when we need more, not less affordable housing? Is it sensible to reduce access to affordable housing, especially without any analysis of what the impact will be? Here is a tangible way to help build affordable housing. We should not squander the opportunity to do something tangible about affordable housing in our community.

The Council should reject the extension of the emergency ordinance concerning SB1123 and ADUs and emergency ordinance to eliminate affordable housing fees and relax development standards. Applications for SB1123 projects should be accepted by the City and be required to follow state law, until there has been a thorough vetting of development options that best serve Santa Monica.

Stevan Hill
Business Development for North America
310-880-9200
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
16 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
17 Mitchell Kois
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park.
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
18 Mitchell Kois
From: Stevan Hill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Emergency
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

9.46.090(B). Without such a finding, an emergency ordinance is prohibited.

Here are the four reasons given in the proposed emergency ordinance that supposedly show a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare” (1) a statewide and local housing crisis; (2) the need to expand housing choices in the City’s 6 areas of highest Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
19 opportunity; (3) the several applicants seeking to utilize these provisions as soon as the operative date for SB 1123; and (4) staff’s limited ability to bring forward permanent changes to the City’s Municipal Code by the effective date.
(1) A statewide and local housing crisis. The state legislature declared there was a housing crisis, especially in affordable housing, in California many years ago. For example, in 2021, the legislature declared there was a in “ensuring affordable housing.” See Senate Bill 9, §4. In SB684, adopted in 2023, the Legislature declared “California has a statewide housing crisis, represented by a shortage of nearly 3,500,000 homes.” See SB684, §1. In 2024, in section 4 of SB1123, the Legislature declared “that the state faces a severe housing shortage, largely due to the lack of available housing affordable to lower and moderateincome families.” There is nothing identified in the proposed emergency ordinance that makes the housing shortage, especially in affordable housing, a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Indeed, the basis for the proposed emergency ordinance is SB1123, where the Legislature delayed the effective date of the statute for a year, undercutting a claim there is an immediate need to bypass the requirements for approval of an ordinance because of a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Besides, the Council’s certainly hasn’t acted as though there is a crisis. It delayed from September 2024 until now to consider any kind of ordinance to implement SB1123. That SB1123 took effect could not prompt an “emergency.” Nothing prevents a developer from using the state law itself (which already contains many relaxed development standards) to apply for a tentative tract map (the first step in the SB1123 process). (2) The need to expand housing choices in the City’s 6 areas of highest opportunity. There likely is a great need to expand housing choices, especially affordable housing, but this also does not create an “emergency” or a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Expanding housing choices is a laudable goal and should be pursued, but what evidence is that this proposed ordinance is needed right now because of a current and immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare.

That was probably not entirely a truthful response. There is currently one vacant lot in Santa Moncia that could be available now for an SB1123 development, and that lot is owned by Stanford del Mar LLC (“SDM”) at 1101 Stanford Street. Undoubtedly, SDM representatives asked about using SB1123 since the proposed SB9 development on Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
20 that same vacant lot is stalled because the SB9 development does not comply with state law.

The Public Records Act request should have at least identified an SDM inquiry about SB1123.

There is irony here. The President is taking all manner of despicable actions, claiming many different emergencies to justify his actions. Mr. Zwick and Mr. Hall, and the other members of the Council who claim there is an “emergency,” are doing exactly the same Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
21 thing. The Council majority is taking "emergency" actions to justify impactful changes to the City's zoning ordinances, whilebypassing the established and required procedures to consider the zoning changes.

It is the staff’s failure now, before an emergency ordinance is effective for perhaps as long as five years, that is a “a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
22 2. THE PROPOSED RELAXED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HAVE NOT BEEN VETTED AND MAY NOT BE NEEDED TO BUILD SB1123 HOUSING CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF AN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
23 I am not architect and the brief, informal conversations with architects in the few days since the text of the draft “Emergency Ordinance” was available is no substitute for the rigorous review that is needed for a new kind of housing in a previously restricted housing zone. Zoning by emergency ordinance is zoning exactly backwards. We have great resources in Santa Monica, and they should be used and their suggestions considered before the Council adopts this emergency ordinance. The apparent suggestion that the emergency ordinance be reviewed in 18 months, after SB1123 projects are built is nonsense. Imagine if a threestory project is constructed under the “Emergency Ordinance,” but after a detailed review 18 months later with Planning Commission and community input, the City decides SB1123 projects should conform to the usual R-1 neighborhood height standard. Will the City insist the third story be removed?

B. And what about affordable housing? Santa Monica is on track to build 225% of its objective for market rate housing. It is unlikely to come near its target for affordable housing.

Stevan Hill
Business Development for North America
310-880-9200
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
24 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
25 Mitchell Kois
From: Stevan Hill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Emergency ordinance
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

9.46.090(B). Without such a finding, an emergency ordinance is prohibited.

Here are the four reasons given in the proposed emergency ordinance that supposedly show a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare” (1) a statewide and local housing crisis; (2) the need to expand housing choices in the City’s 6 areas of highest Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
26 opportunity; (3) the several applicants seeking to utilize these provisions as soon as the operative date for SB 1123; and (4) staff’s limited ability to bring forward permanent changes to the City’s Municipal Code by the effective date.
(1) A statewide and local housing crisis. The state legislature declared there was a housing crisis, especially in affordable housing, in California many years ago. For example, in 2021, the legislature declared there was a in “ensuring affordable housing.” See Senate Bill 9, §4. In SB684, adopted in 2023, the Legislature declared “California has a statewide housing crisis, represented by a shortage of nearly 3,500,000 homes.” See SB684, §1. In 2024, in section 4 of SB1123, the Legislature declared “that the state faces a severe housing shortage, largely due to the lack of available housing affordable to lower and moderateincome families.” There is nothing identified in the proposed emergency ordinance that makes the housing shortage, especially in affordable housing, a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Indeed, the basis for the proposed emergency ordinance is SB1123, where the Legislature delayed the effective date of the statute for a year, undercutting a claim there is an immediate need to bypass the requirements for approval of an ordinance because of a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Besides, the Council’s certainly hasn’t acted as though there is a crisis. It delayed from September 2024 until now to consider any kind of ordinance to implement SB1123. That SB1123 took effect could not prompt an “emergency.” Nothing prevents a developer from using the state law itself (which already contains many relaxed development standards) to apply for a tentative tract map (the first step in the SB1123 process). (2) The need to expand housing choices in the City’s 6 areas of highest opportunity. There likely is a great need to expand housing choices, especially affordable housing, but this also does not create an “emergency” or a “current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Expanding housing choices is a laudable goal and should be pursued, but what evidence is that this proposed ordinance is needed right now because of a current and immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare.

That was probably not entirely a truthful response. There is currently one vacant lot in Santa Moncia that could be available now for an SB1123 development, and that lot is owned by Stanford del Mar LLC (“SDM”) at 1101 Stanford Street. Undoubtedly, SDM representatives asked about using SB1123 since the proposed SB9 development on Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
27 that same vacant lot is stalled because the SB9 development does not comply with state law.

The Public Records Act request should have at least identified an SDM inquiry about SB1123.

There is irony here. The President is taking all manner of despicable actions, claiming many different emergencies to justify his actions. Mr. Zwick and Mr. Hall, and the other members of the Council who claim there is an “emergency,” are doing exactly the same Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
28 thing. The Council majority is taking "emergency" actions to justify impactful changes to the City's zoning ordinances, whilebypassing the established and required procedures to consider the zoning changes.

It is the staff’s failure now, before an emergency ordinance is effective for perhaps as long as five years, that is a “a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.” Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
29 2. THE PROPOSED RELAXED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HAVE NOT BEEN VETTED AND MAY NOT BE NEEDED TO BUILD SB1123 HOUSING CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF AN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
30 I am not architect and the brief, informal conversations with architects in the few days since the text of the draft “Emergency Ordinance” was available is no substitute for the rigorous review that is needed for a new kind of housing in a previously restricted housing zone. Zoning by emergency ordinance is zoning exactly backwards. We have great resources in Santa Monica, and they should be used and their suggestions considered before the Council adopts this emergency ordinance. The apparent suggestion that the emergency ordinance be reviewed in 18 months, after SB1123 projects are built is nonsense. Imagine if a threestory project is constructed under the “Emergency Ordinance,” but after a detailed review 18 months later with Planning Commission and community input, the City decides SB1123 projects should conform to the usual R-1 neighborhood height standard. Will the City insist the third story be removed?

B. And what about affordable housing? Santa Monica is on track to build 225% of its objective for market rate housing. It is unlikely to come near its target for affordable housing.

Stevan Hill
Business Development for North America
310-880-9200
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
31 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
32 Mitchell Kois
From: Jo Wright <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

This is a fast-tracked measure that will greatly benefit housing developers, and harm many residents of Santa Monica.

While we desperately need more housing, this is not the way to do it, nor is it at the level of density that will benefit the city long-term.

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story mulƟfamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods - I am not 100% opposed to this, but it must be done carefully, thoughƞully, and in appropriate locaƟons.

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

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

Thank you,
Jo Wright
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
33 Mitchell Kois
From: JOHN PRINDLE <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:54 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

These are pracƟcal, common-sense steps that can help create more diverse housing opƟons while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote yes on Item 12B and conƟnue supporƟng soluƟons that expand access to housing and homeownership in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
John Prindle
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
34 Mitchell Kois
From: Matias Fuchs-Lynch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:00 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
MaƟ Fuchs-Lynch
1068 Yale Street
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
35 Mitchell Kois
From: Brian Lanich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 11:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Brian Lanich
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
36 Mitchell Kois
From: Brent Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Opposition to Agenda Item 12B – Emergency Ordinance Related to SB 1123 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Agenda Item 12B, the proposed emergency ordinance concerning SB 1123.

While I understand the intent to address housing shortages, I am concerned that this ordinance may not meet the criteria for an "emergency" as defined by law. According to the California Office of Administrative Law, emergency regulations are intended to address situations that call for immediate action to avoid serious harm to the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare. The proposed changes appear to fast-track significant zoning alterations without the standard public review process.

Specifically, the ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 10 housing units on vacant single-family (R1) lots, with the possibility of additional accessory dwelling units (ADUs), potentially increasing density beyond what is appropriate for these neighborhoods.

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 zones, altering the character of established singlefamily neighborhoods.

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer units in R1 zones, reducing contributions to essential affordable housing funds.

4. Bypass the usual public zoning process, including Planning Commission review and public hearings, through the emergency designation.

5. Extend the duration of the emergency ordinance related to ADUs from the standard 60 days to 18 months.

These changes could significantly impact the fabric of our neighborhoods and set a precedent for circumventing established planning procedures. I urge the Council to reject this emergency ordinance and instead engage in a comprehensive, transparent process that includes community input and thorough analysis.

Thank you for considering my perspective.

Sincerely,
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
37 - Brent Cohen, 30-year Santa Monica Resident in 90405 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
38 Mitchell Kois
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:51 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: Bruce Leddy
Subject: ITEM 12. B - OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

TO: Mayor Negrete and Council Members
RE: ITEM 12.B, July 29, 2025 – OPPOSE
The Board of NOMA opposes Item 12.B, which would
exercise the Council’s emergency
powers. We oppose this item for two reasons:

First, it would rush, without proper study, deliberation, and public review, a massive
increase in residential density limits and relaxed
development standards for denser
residential development well beyond what is required by state law.

Second, there is no basis to declare an “emergency.”
Senate (SB) 1123 provides for ministerial subdivision of single-family zoned parcels,
offering the potential for greatly increased residential density in our city’s single-family
zoned neighborhoods. While the City must comply with
the explicit requirements of SB
1123, Item 12.B would double the residential density
that is required by SB 1123
and would relax development standards beyond the
relaxed standards that state law
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
39 already requires.

With this item, the Council would declare that “there
exists a current and immediate
threat to public health, safety, and welfare” requiring the extension of the emergency
interim allowance for ADUs in SB 1123 subdivisions and
the relaxing of development
standards for SB 1123 subdivisions. The Council should
instead consider that requiring
ministerial approval of residential density and relaxed development standards, well in
excess of what is required by state law and without
sufficient study, vetting, or public
deliberation, could itself, in fact, create a threat to public health, safety, and welfare.

For example, the development standards that the Council would relax with this item,
such as setbacks, can be protective of health, safety, and welfare, by, for example,
preventing the spread of fire. The entire NOMA
neighborhood was under an evacuation
order or warning during the Palisades Fire this past
January 2025. We encourage you
to consider that ministerial approval of added residential density could more readily
facilitate the spread of fire and challenge safe
evacuations in future disasters.

Ministerial subdivisions are expressly prohibited in
designated Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones by SB 1123. As you are aware, the recently designated Fire Hazard Severity
Zones extend into our neighborhood. Senate Bill 1123
subdivisions are prohibited by state law
from the northern boundary of our city to a couple blocks south. The Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone in our neighborhood transitions into the High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone such that from one property to the next (on the same block and on the same side
of the street) one property could be prohibited from an SB 1123 subdivision, while the
property next door could be susceptible to the massive
added density and relaxation of
development standards under the item you are
considering.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
40 We implore the Council to reject the approval of an
emergency interim ordinance, and
please consider any development allowances above and
beyond what are required by state law
through the normal deliberative process for ordinances, with input of our Planning Commission.

Any less would be a disservice and danger to our beloved community and to our neighbors.

The Board of NOMA
smnoma.org
[email protected]
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
41 Mitchell Kois
From: Holden Savage <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Holden Savage
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
42 Mitchell Kois
From: Wendy Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Wendy Cohen
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
43 Mitchell Kois
From: greg chasen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:34 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Greg Chasen
Mid-City
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
44 Mitchell Kois
From: fabrizio giorgi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Fabrizio Giorgi
90405
Fabrizio Giorgi
Sent from my iPhone.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
45 Mitchell Kois
From: Kirsten Campisi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Kirsten Campisi
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
46 Mitchell Kois
From: Sandy Wells <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Sandy Wells
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
47 Mitchell Kois
From: Ivana Suvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Ivana Suvak
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
48 Mitchell Kois
From: CJ Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 9:54 PM
To: Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete
Subject: Item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to implore you to OPPOSE item 12B.

Charading as an "emergency" this only benefits developers with no concern for residents, neighborhoods or the overall character or health of the City. In any case, there is simply no need to bypass the public zoning process and review by the Planning Commission.

Please reject this so-called "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
C Johnson
90405

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
49 Mitchell Kois
From: Eileen Tunick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 9:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
EILEEN TUNICK homeowner since 1979
1639 Sunset Ave.
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
50 Mitchell Kois
From: Casey Garner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 9:27 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Casey Garner
Downtown Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
51 Mitchell Kois
From: John Lin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 9:23 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
John Lin
500 Broadway
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
52 Mitchell Kois
From: Bronwyn Barkan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 9:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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.

Thank you,
Bronwyn Barkan
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
53 Mitchell Kois
From: Taylor Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: No on Item 12.B for council agenda 7/29/25
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote no on agenda item 12.B at this Tuesday's (7/29/25) council meeting for the following reasons:

1. Rather than 10 modest, affordable homes on small lots, owned by 10 families as SB1123 envisions, rather, this ordinance incentivizes the development of 5, larger lot homes with the additional cost of an ADU, requiring substantially more capital to purchase, in contradiction to the stated intent of the ordinance "WHEREAS, higher home prices have translated to less diversity in who is able to purchase a home"

2. This ordinance will likely NOT incentivize more units to be built than under SB1123 currently. Lot size in Santa Monica basically constrains development to under 10 either way. Analysis should be done

3. 5 larger lots with ADU's are more likely to be retained by a developer or purchased by an investor to rent, rather than 10 smaller lots which would more likely be sold.

4. It is imprudent to pass this ordinance under the provisions of an emergency. Analysis needs to be conducted to ensure it will achieve, rather than hinder, the stated goals of entry level home ownership.

Furthermore, the increased density, additional height allowances, reduction of setbacks, applicability to r1 vs commercial, definition and/or intent of "vacant" are all important provisions to be discussed openly and deliberately by the community rather than hurriedly rushed through.

5. From the staff report: "Based on City Council direction to exempt SB 1123 projects of five or fewer units from the affordable housing fee (SMMC Section 9.64.070(A)), there will be a financial impact due to the loss of funds used to support and develop affordable housing. For example, a condominium project that is 10,000 square feet would pay an affordable housing fee of $513,000 instead of providing an affordable unit. As SB 1123 is a new State law that has not yet been utilized in Santa Monica, the long-term impacts of this policy change are difficult to determine." This should give you pause! I thank you all for your consideration and for your service to Santa Monica, Taylor Scott
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
54 Mitchell Kois
From: db @ EXP <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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
55 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! I will happily join forces with any Santa Monica resident who wishes to pursue legal action against the city for damages should this pass.

Thank you,
David Bruce - Realtor
Santa Monica resident
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
56 Mitchell Kois
From: Tony O'Connell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Anthony O'Connell
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
57 Mitchell Kois
From: Kathy Knight <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Kathy Knight and Joe Faris
Sunset Park residents
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
58 Mitchell Kois
From: Taylor Ferguson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

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

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
59 PLEASE do the right thing.

Thank you,
Taylor Ferguson
Santa Monica Resident
___________________
Taylor Ferguson
ExecuƟve Producer
310-207-7800 LA office
310-801-3994 mobile
LA | SF | NYC
hƩps://urldefense.com/v3/__hƩp://www.bodegastudios.com__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!oTYnhEERWompsP4fWf0lcefNjIC WC_9ODNox-HNN4Ax5EfPrGoZsZy1ZOe5mlR8Dlw3dZLXUxS-38Q89qrwLdHpC3rCZ-30$ Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
60 Mitchell Kois
From: Toby Berlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Toby Berlin
1701 Pier Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90405
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
61 Mitchell Kois
From: Nancy Owens <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
[Nancy Owens]
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
62 Mitchell Kois
From: Sam Shapiro-Kline <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:17 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Sam Shapiro-Kline
90403
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
63 Mitchell Kois
From: Raquel Vallejo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

How will we ever be able to respect the use of emergency ordinances when they are used for clearly nonemergency situations? Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers, and does absolutely nothing to create affordable housing for the less fortunate.

This ordinance could dramatically and forever change the nature of many neighborhoods in Santa Monica, including Sunset Park. We ALREADY have laws in place here now that allow for townhouses.

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
64 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!
Thank you,
Raquel Vallejo
Santa Monica resident/Sunset Park Resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
65 Mitchell Kois
From: Clay Savage <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Clay Savage
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
66 Mitchell Kois
From: Stu Selonick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:49 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Stu Selonick
6th street, Santa Monica
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
67 Mitchell Kois
From: Linda Mansolillo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Linda Mansolillo
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
68 Mitchell Kois
From: Eli Gill <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:27 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Eli Gill
90403
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
69 Mitchell Kois
From: Susan Savage <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Susan Savage
Thank you,
[Your Name Here]
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
70 Mitchell Kois
From: restlesstraveler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Tiiu Lukk and Mark Litwak
1211 Ashland Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
71 Mitchell Kois
From: Ose Dalldorf <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; David White
Subject: Item 12 B ... Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
I am against these extreme, manipulative measures, especially under the guise of being pro - residents.

Your long time SM resident
Ose
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
72 Mitchell Kois
From: Judy Parsons <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Michael Parsons
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
73 Mitchell Kois
From: Jamie Levy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: SM Item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I urge you to oppose item 12B.

This proposed "emergency" ordinance, connected to SB 1123, does not meet the legal definition of an emergency, which requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." Its designation as such is a misuse of the process.

This fast-tracked measure will not benefit residents; its sole beneficiaries will be developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

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

3. Bypass the public zoning process, including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings, through the abuse of the "emergency" designation.

Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Jamie Levy
Thank you,
Jamie Levy
2425 32nd St, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
74 Mitchell Kois
From: Robert Dean <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Robert Dean
90405

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information contained in this communication (including, without limitation, in any attachment) is confidential and is intended for disclosure only to the addressee(s). If you are not an intended recipient or have otherwise received this communication in error, please notify the sender and then delete it, and Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
75 you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of any of the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
76 Mitchell Kois
From: NANCY TYRE <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Nancy Tyre
90402
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
77 Mitchell Kois
From: Connor Webb <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 12B- Support SB 1123 implementation and missing-middle housing Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I strongly support Item 12B to extend the emergency IZO allowing the inclusion of ADUs in SB 1123 projects, with the proposed amendments to eliminate AHPP fees for small projects and allow a FAR of

1.5, height of 3 stories, reduced front setback, and eliminate stepbacks.

This is an essential step for promoting the production of missing-middle housing in Santa Monica, which is a crucial bridge between large multifamily developments and out-of-reach exclusive single family homes. These projects are perfect for retaining one of the most important demographics for a healthy, close-knit community and strong economy -- Young families who are otherwise priced out of Santa Monica as their family grows and housing needs change.

As someone who will likely be starting a family soon, I often worry about the financial feasibility of staying in this city-- a community that I truly love and hope to witness thrive over the many coming decades. SB 1123 projects will help build the housing necessary to allow me that future, but only if we make them feasible. The proposed changes to the IZO are crucial for that feasibility.

Thank you,
Connor Webb
90404
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
78 Mitchell Kois
From: Margery Kratz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency. This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

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

Thank you,
Margery Kratz
1205 Grant Street
Santa Monica, CA. 90405
———————————
Margery Kratz
310.463.4129 Cell
310.450.5461 Home
[email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
79 Mitchell Kois
From: KS OG <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Kathleen O'Grady
90405

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
80 Mitchell Kois
From: Nancy Hicks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:

We oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week. There is no emergency. This is a fasttracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica, but will only benefit developers.

It is an outrage that consideration is being given to allow this type of over development.

Nancy & Wes Hicks
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
81 Mitchell Kois
From: Estelle Mednick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,BeƩy Mednick
2622 29th Street
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
82 Mitchell Kois
From: Leslee Mickshaw <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Leslee Mickshaw
90405
Leslee Mickshaw
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
83 Mitchell Kois
From: Traci Wallace <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Traci Wallace
1731 Dewey Street
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
84 Mitchell Kois
From: ANDREW DENYER <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Opposition to item 12B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to ask that you vote to oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

This measure appears to be fast-tracked, and I ask that you each carefully consider if ultimately it is in the long-term benefit of the residents of Santa Monica, who must be your priority.

Please also consider the considerable investment and mortgages those who have purchased homes in R1 neighborhoods have made.

Purchasing any home is for many the most significant investment and financial decision any potential homeowner makes in their lifetime.

Look at any real estate agent’s listing, and the residential rating of a neighborhood is of paramount importance to any purchase decision.

Residents of Sunset Park and Santa Monica as a whole made a considerable investment to purchase homes based in no small part on the Zoning restrictions in place when doing so.

To refresh your memory regarding R1 zoning:

Purpose:
 R1 zoning maintains a specific character for neighborhoods, often prioritizing singlefamily homes and promoting low-density development.  Restrictions:

It usually includes regulations on lot size, building height, and lot coverage to ensure the suburban feel of the area.

We all know the world develops, and we cannot always hold onto traditions of the past and we need new and fresh ideas to solve today's problems. However, we cannot and must Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
85 always resist fundamentally changing neighborhoods. There are too many examples in our county of this being done and neighborhoods destroyed.

I urge each of you to find ways for our city to embrace the changes needed without fundamentally changing the neighborhoods that make Santa Monica, Santa Monica.

Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Andrew Denyer
90405
+1 310-795-3084
[email protected]
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
86 Mitchell Kois
From: Pablo De La Rosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Pablo De La Rosa
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
87 Mitchell Kois
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Fwd: Item 12.B - OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 5:17 PM
Subject: Item 12.B - OPPOSE
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: lana.negrete <[email protected]>, Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week.

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Danielle Charney
Stop the sellout of our City
Dan and Jesse you aren't even from here - you come here to get $$ from developers for your careers - shame on your existance 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
89 Mitchell Kois
From: elena estrin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
elena estrin
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
90 Mitchell Kois
From: steve kandell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
steve kandell
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
91 Mitchell Kois
From: Darko Suvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B OPPOSE!!!!!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Darko Suvak
Anton Suvak
266632nd St
Santa Monica CA 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
92 Mitchell Kois
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Danielle Charney
Stop the sellout of our City
Dan and Jesse you aren't even from here - you come here to get $$ from developers for your careers - shame on your existance Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
93 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
94 Mitchell Kois
From: Stephen Everitt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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.

Thank you,
Stephen Everitt] 90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
95 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Megan FitzGerald
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
96 Mitchell Kois
From: Mary De La Rosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Mary De La Rosa
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
97 Mitchell Kois
From: Ani S. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Ani Sherman
90405
Sent from my iPad
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Stevan Hill <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Over building in R1 lots

EXTERNAL
I am attaching an image of what potential over development could look like in our beautiful R1 neighborhoods.

If you have any questions
Stevan Hill
Business Development for North America
310-880-9200
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
1 Mitchell Kois
From: violet walther <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 8:26 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 12B

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Councilmembers,
As a concerned resident of Sunset Park, I urge you to oppose Item 12B which proposes an "emergency" ordinance tied to SB 1123.

By definition, an emergency ordinance must address a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare. There is no such emergency present here. This designation is being used to bypass standard procedures and public input—a misuse of the law and a threat to democratic planning.

This rushed measure would undermine the character of Sunset Park and other R1 neighborhoods across Santa Monica. It does not reflect the interests of residents, but rather serves developers seeking to exploit our zoning laws.

If adopted, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3 story multifamily buildings in our R1 neighborhoods, dramatically altering the scale and character of our community.

3. Bypass public input in the zoning process including review by the Planning Commission and input through public hearings, by misusing the “emergency” designation.

Sunset Park is a stable, well-functioning neighborhood. Drastic zoning changes like these deserve a full, transparent public process- not emergency shortcuts. We deserve the chance to weigh in on changes that will directly affect our homes, streets, and quality of life.

I respectfully ask you to reject Item 12B and preserve the integrity of both our planning process and our neighborhoods.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Resident, Sunset Park – Santa Monica
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
2 Mitchell Kois
From: Veronica Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 8:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12B – Please Oppose

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

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!
Thank you,
Veronica Garcia
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
3 Santa Monica resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
4 Mitchell Kois
From: David Walther <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 8:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 12B

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please oppose item 12B.

This would be an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency and is a misuse of the process.

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

I live on 32nd st, and the thought that a developer could buy my neighbors house and build a whopping condominium next door (via this ridiculous “emergency” loophole) is unfathomable. It would simply ruin our neighborhood.

Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
David Walther
90405

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
5 Mitchell Kois
From: Tina <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 7:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose

Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods 3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for projects with 10 or fewer housing units in R1 zones (5 basic housing units and 5 ADUS) 4. Bypass the public zoning process (including review by the Planning Commission and several public hearings) through misuse of the “emergency” designation. 5. Extend “emergency” ordinance for ADUs which expires on August 9, 2025, from the usual 60 days to 18 months Please reject this "emergency" ordinance. Thank you, [Your Name Here] 90405
Tina Cox
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
1 Mitchell Kois
From: M. Keon Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:57 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Morgan Smith
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
2 Mitchell Kois
From: Mark Borenstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:53 AM
To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office; councilmtgitems Cc: Jesse Zwick
Subject: Objections to proposed emergency ordinance concerning SB1123 -- Item 12B Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Council Members, I urge you to reject the proposed emergency ordinance, Item 12-B on the Agenda for July 29, 2025.

1. The Council should be reminded that the adoption of the proposed emergency ordinance requires five council members to approve it. City Charter, ARTICLE VI, section 615.Surely there are three council members who can see the emergency ordinance is bad policy and should not be adopted. There is no emergency that presents an immediate threat to the health, safety and welfare. The extension of the emergency ordinance concerning ADUs on SB1123 projects and the new emergency ordinance concerning development standards and affordable housing should follow the procedure described in the Municipal Code, namely a full staff evaluation of the proposed zoning ordinances, referral to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation, before City Council consideration. See SMMC

9.46.050 and 9.46.060.

2. The published public notice concerning the extension of the earlier emergency ordinance, EIZO 2816, is defective. SMMC 9.46.090 requires public notice of the proposed emergency action. However, the public notice concerning extension of the ADU emergency notice failed to specify the duration of the extension, which could be as little as one day and as long as five years. The proposed duration is a material term of the proposed extension of the emergency ordinance and the failure to specify the proposed term, should render the public notice ineffective. Without proper public notice, the Council cannot act on the proposed emergency extension of the ADU ordinance.

3. It is not clear whether there is one or two proposed emergency ordinances. The public notice could be read as two separate proposed emergency ordinances, one to extend the prior EIZO concerning ADUs for 18 months, and a new proposed emergency ordinance to eliminate affordable housing fees and to adopt new development standards for SB1123, which would be effective for only 60 days.

Or it could be read as an attempted amendment of the expiring ADU emergency ordinance to now include far more subjects that are materially different from the ADU emergency ordinance. There is no provision in the Municipal Code that allows amendments to an emergency ordinance. Allowing unrelated amendments to a prior emergency ordinance would circumvent the very limited circumstances for approval of an emergency ordinance and its duration. If the proposed emergency ordinance is an attempted amendment of the prior emergency ordinance, it would be unauthorized and void.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
3 4. There has been no evaluation of either the need for, or the impact of the proposed new development standards. Although these standards are packaged as being proposed by the Planning Department, they were not developed by the Department. Instead, the proposed development standards were developed by several members of the City Council, attempting to completely bypass any review by the Planning Commission or the Planning Department. Material zoning changes should not be adopted simply because a few Council Members announced them at a meeting and directed the City Attorney to develop a draft emergency ordinance. That is especially true when the "emergency" is non-existent and SB1123 itself has a ministerial process and development standards that do not require any City Council action at all. The state law itself can be used right now, without any "emergency" ordinance at all.

5. Why should Affordable Housing fees--the only tool the City has to actually encourage much needed affordable housing, be eliminated for many SB1123 projects? That provision from the "emergency" ordinance should itself be eliminated.

The Council should reject both the extension of the "emergency" ADU ordinance and reject either an amendment of the ADU ordinance or a new "emergency" ordinance concerning AHPP fees and proposed development standards for S1123 project..

Mark Borenstein
Stanford Street
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
4 Mitchell Kois
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
In addiƟon to opposing item 12 B, I urge you to do two things:

1.Again in response to Dan Hall’s call for transparency, I urge you to immediately start an invesƟgaƟon into how the RHNA numbers went from 5,000 to 9,000 for required affordable units. I remember when the city council protested, the lobbyist threatened the city saying that if the city didn’t accept the 9,000, she could force the city to have to accept over 14,000 new affordable units. This decision has resulted in a glut of market rate units. And as Mayor Negrete has pointed out, this has not lowered the rents. Mayor Negrete has lived in SM all of her life, most of the rest of the council are newcomers and seem to have less experience with how supply and demand does not play out as expected in a beach town like SM. It’s a simple fact. When 1/3 of the new market rate units remain empty, isn’t it Ɵme to take a hard look at the goal of affordable housing and consider whether or not your strategy is working.

What is the scorecard now that we’ve built 300 percent of market rate housing? The public needs and deserves to know as Dan Hall has repeatedly said.

2. Immediately provide to the tax paying residents exact numbers for units built, units projected to be built given the approval of developments up to July 29th.

Where are we on the 9,000 exactly? What is the city plan for 90,000 new units, necessary to get 9,000 affordable, a seeming impossibility to this resident.

It is common knowledge that 4,000 units are siƫng unrented at this very moment. If the city truly cares about affordable housing, then take immediate acƟon to register those units and consider vacancy fees or taxes. Also everyone knows many many units are used secretly as illegal vacaƟon rentals.

Several years ago 2 people were hired at a salary of $150,000 apiece to track and fine those units. What exactly are their findings? And if no such numbers or fines exist, why are those salaries being paid?

3. Present the residents with a specific city plan. How will the city look in 5 years? In 10 years? Show us models, graphics, visuals. Does someone have an actual vision “penciled out,” or are we operaƟng piecemeal with no unified vision for this city the residents call home. What an opportunity someone has to create something spectacular here. The bar is high.

Rise up to it!
thank you.

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

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
5 Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." This is not an emergency.

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

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

Thank you,
Karen Croner
90405
Karen Croner
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
6 Mitchell Kois
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." We are not in an emergency, by that definition. This is a fast-tracked measure that will not benefit the residents of Santa Monica. It will only benefit developers.

I do think that emergency rules have their place. But ruling by "emergency" has a distinctively Trumpian quality to it in a case like this, when passing the ordinance would not immediately relieve a threat to health, safety or welfare. It is bypassing the system in order to get what you want. When a precedent is set to use "emergency" law for things that are not true emergencies, what stops this kind of legislation from being used for things that YOU don't want in the future? I fear for the Democratic party in California, and elsewhere, if elected officials in it continue to legislate in a way that is as willing to throw out our carefully constructed democratic and constitutional traditions as Trump is.

Then there is of course the fact that the end result of passing this rule will do absolutely nothing to alleviate the cost of housing for anyone in Santa Monica. Market rate luxury housing (which anything using this ordinance will be) only increases the cost of land, as developers compete to buy it, scrape everything on it, and build more and more luxury units. It actually makes it harder for truly affordable housing to be built, because it becomes more expensive for the city to subsidize it as the cost of land goes up. Why are we building more and more housing for more and more rich people? In Santa Monica, the high price of homes has everything to do with the income of people moving to this desirable coastal city, it will not come down by building more and more luxury units.

Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Heather Thomason
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
7 Mitchell Kois
From: Andrew Almendras <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:51 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Strong Support of 12B - More Housing Needed!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

Therefore, building more housing in SM should be available and accessible to accommodate the next generation of homeowners.

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.

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
8 --
Andrew Almendras
818.439.9741
[email protected]
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
9 Mitchell Kois
From: Susan Alinsangan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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,
Susan Alinsangan
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
10 Mitchell Kois
From: Warren Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 12.B - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

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

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

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

Thank you,
Warren Allen, MD
1011 Pine St
90405
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
11 Mitchell Kois
From: Tim Tareco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:46 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Tim Tareco
201 Ocean Avenue 1503B
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Christodora CreaƟve

NY & LA
Ɵmtareco.com
917.576.7791
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
12 Mitchell Kois
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:43 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: SMCC 2025-07-29 Item 12-B - Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Attachments: Santa Monica 6th Cycle Progress as of 07-28-2025 City Chart.png; California Residential Construction Starts - First Tuesday 04-14-2025 Chart 1.png Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
To Santa Monica Councilmembers and Mayor Negrete,
I am writing in emphatic opposition to agenda item 12-B - Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance. On its face, this proposal is an exercise in gratuitous pandering to development and investment interests at the expense of the city’s residents that will not advance the City’s progress against any relevant RHNA target shortfalls. By allowing such unmitigated densification, it will further strain City finances with additional demands s for services without any revenue upsides.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on many single-family R1 lots, and 10+ units on most R1 lots

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

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for lot splits in R1 zones

4. Bypass the public process through misuse of “emergency” designation

5. Extend “emergency” status from the standard 60 days to 18 months Implementation of this ordinance will not in any way contribute towards the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA deficit since that deficit is EXCLUSIVELY comprised of shortfalls in the below market rate (BMR) unit categories, which this ordinance does not address. Total BMR achievement of the 6th Cycle RHNA targets stands at 23%. This shortfall is a function of a lack of subsidies and the absurdly low rate (down to 10%) of affordable inclusion in market rate projects that the State law allows, and that developers are using, in Santa Monica.

This ordinance is exclusively about unleashing market rate development in single family areas. The city is less than 50% into the 6th Cycle RHNA and it has already exceeded its ENTIRE 6th Cycle market rate target by 127%! The City’s published status as of yesterday is summarized as follows:

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
13 In relatively expensive R1 (Single Family) residential areas, the economics do not support affordable unit projects. Upzoning will only attract luxury market rate developments. And even if there are included affordable units in those projects, they would likely be a token 1 affordable unit for every 9 luxury market rate units, not moving the needle at all in meeting the RHNA targets.

That means upzoning R1 areas is an entirely gratuitous and opportunistic developer profiteering exercise at the cost of destroying our neighborhoods for no gain. That is why this should not be allowed to go forward.

As the Council is well aware, the RHNA targets are themselves arbitrary and capricious, as the shameless 2019 lobbying by Abundant Housing LA clearly demonstrated.

As the 6th Cycle Midpoint approaches, it is highly likely that 95% of cities will not meet their midpoint milestone targets. This is because RHNA is completely devoid of any economic logic other than, of course, providing developers free rein to opportunistically profiteer at the expense of communities (as Santa Monica’s market rate performance amply demonstrates). Because of this disconnect, RHNA has entirely failed to move the development needle in California:

Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
14 When policy outcomes so comprehensively fail to meet policy objectives for such an overwhelming majority of participants, a failure rate of this magnitude indicates fundamental systemic State RHNA issues. When faced with such a high rate of city failure, the focus must shift to a comprehensive review of the RHNA policy’s design, implementation strategies. In this, the City should be actively pursuing a two pronged strategy of identifying new and expanded sources of BMR subsidies and building alliances with the vast multitude of cities that are facing the exact same issues.

As our elected representatives, doubling down on the failed RHNA process by decimating single family areas in Santa Monica is entirely irresponsible, unacceptable and enters the realm of legislative malfeasance.

Marc L. Verville
Sunset Park
Former Chair, Santa Monica Audit Subcommittee
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
15 Mitchell Kois
From: Sharon Carothers <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:42 AM
To: Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete
Subject: PLEASE OPPOSE Item 12.B on this week's agenda
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to ask that you oppose item 12B on the Council's agenda this week. I understand Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. Under the law, an "emergency ordinance" requires a "current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare." What is the emergency? As a homeowner in 90405 for almost 20 years, I understand this is not an emergency and implore you to prioritize the residents of Santa Monica and what is beneficial to them and NOT developers.

If passed, this ordinance would:

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

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

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

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

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

How this ordinance benefit residents?
Please reject this "emergency" ordinance.

Thank you,
Sharon Carothers
634 Navy Street
Santa Monica, 90405
202-285-4992
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
16 Mitchell Kois
From: Richard Milanesi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SAVE OUR LOT FROM DEVELOPERS -ITEM 12 B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
City Council Members
Why are you waiving the Owner Occupancy Requirement and ignoring SB9? This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input and community impact. What’s really driving this?
Why aren’t you standing up for R-1 homeowners?
Is this really about a housing shortage — or are you using that as cover for something else? “More housing” is your go-to slogan. But more of what? Market-rate units that don't solve affordability? Units that benefit out of state developers, not residents? You're opening the door to unchecked density and loss of local control — all while refusing to defend the character of single-family neighborhoods.

Stop hiding behind the state. Stop pretending you're forced into this.

We elected you to protect our community — not to roll over.

Do the right thing protect our R1 neighborhoods!

RICHARD MILANESI -SANTA MONICA RESIDENT
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
17 Mitchell Kois
From: Christine Donald <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Save Our R1 Lots From Developers-Item 12B
Attachments: SNACO COMMENTS MB 2.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica, please preserve our beautiful RI neighborhoods while also thoughtfully expanding affordable housing opportunities in R1 zones. f Rushing through this "emergency" ordinance only benefits developers! Councilmembers Zwick and Hall have introduced an "emergency" ordinance connected to SB 1123. This ordinance currently impacts only one property: 1101 Stanford, the property at the center of SNACO’s ongoing lawsuit. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units (10 main housing units and 10 ADUS) on any vacant single-family R1 lot. Any R1 lot can be made vacant with a simple demolition permit

2. Permit 3-story multifamily housing buildings in R1 neighborhoods. There has been no analysis whether increasing the current 2 story height limit is really needed for SB 1123 projects. Nor has there been any study about the impact three story projects will have on the character of R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for most lot splits in R1 zones, when these same council members loudly claim Santa Monica needs affordable housing

4. Bypass the public process (which includes Planning Commission review and multiple public hearings) through misuse of “emergency” designation

5. Extend the ADU “emergency” ordinance from the usual 60 days to 18 months
A Broken Process
None of that is happening now. This rushed ordinance disregards due process, public input, and community impact.

We call on the Council to reject this misuse of emergency powers and instead reaffirm their commitment to a transparent, resident-centered process.

Please do the right thing and save our neighborhoods!
Thank you
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
18 Mitchell Kois
From: Danielle Kim <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:37 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Item 12B – Housing Flexibility for SB 1123 and SB 684 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Danielle Kim
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
19 Mitchell Kois
From: Eve Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Public Safety: Items 12B and 16C - Please Oppose Attachments: Public Comment re Agenda Items 12B and 16C.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Attached please find my written public comment regarding agenda items 12B and 16C.

Thank you.

Eve Lopez
Santa Monica Resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
July 29, 2025
Re: Agenda Items 12B and 16C
Dear Mayor Negrete and Honorable Councilmembers,
I write to express my deep and urgent concern regarding Agenda Items 12B and 16C, both of which propose to further facilitate development in our city without first addressing critical public safety requirements mandated by state law.

A recent Los Angeles Times article, published on July 25, 2025 (https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-07-25/l-a-fire-evacuation-plans-remainuntested), highlighted the troubling trend among Southern California cities of promoting development while ignoring their primary legal obligation to plan for emergency evacuation. Santa Monica is not exempt from this criticism.

On several occasions, including on February 11, 2025, I submitted both oral and written public comments to this Council raising precisely this issue: that in its rush to incentivize development, the City has neglected to comply with key statutory mandates related to public safety. California Government Code §§ 65302(g)(1) and 65302.15 clearly require local governments to conduct evacuation capacity assessments and to ensure, at a minimum, that emergency routes are viable, accessible, and capable of accommodating the population under a range of emergency scenarios.

Despite these concerns, the Council has taken no visible steps to address these deficiencies.

When this Council adopted an updated Safety Element on February 11, 2025, it failed to include the analyses required by:
• GC §65302.15, which mandates cities assess the capacity, safety, and viability of evacuation routes under varying emergency conditions;
• GC §65302(g)(5), which requires the identification of residential developments in hazard areas lacking at least two evacuation routes; and
• GC §65584.04(e)(2)(E), which requires consideration of evacuation constraints in allocating RHNA housing targets.

Following the Council’s adoption of the Safety Element, I submitted a public records request (R033450-022025) seeking the emergency evacuation capacity analysis that should have underpinned the adopted plan. Shockingly, no such analysis has been conducted. Furthermore, the public records request revealed that:
• Internal staff communications documented the City’s Chief Resilience Officer admission that she “forgot to ask” about the process for updating evacuation routes; • The staff member responsible for the Safety Element believed the City’s consultant was merely relying on outdated evacuation routes from prior plans, potentially dating back to 1995.
• No Local Hazard Mitigation Plan has yet been presented even though the Office of Emergency Management has, for years, been “actively coordinating the City’s process for Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
LHMP (Local Hazard Mitigation Plan) updates and mitigation planning efforts in sync with the Safety Element planning team”.

As the LA Times noted, conducting a proper evacuation assessment costs about the same as installing a single streetlight. The City’s failure to prioritize this analysis when the cost is so modest and the stakes so high, is not just an administrative oversight. It is a failure to plan for how residents, workers, and visitors will safely evacuate in the event of a wildfire, tsunami, earthquake or other disaster. It represents a violation of state law and, more fundamentally, a breach of public trust.

Given these deficiencies, it would be irresponsible and arguably criminally negligent for this Council to proceed with ordinances that further ease development standards without first ensuring compliance with the City’s most basic legal duty: protecting public safety.

I respectfully urge this Council not to adopt Agenda Items 12B or 16C or any further measures that promote additional development or densification and to instead consider the following suggestions to demonstrate the Council’s genuine commitment to increasing public safety:

1. Conduct a Comprehensive Emergency Evacuation Capacity Study Direct City staff to immediately conduct and publicly release a data-informed evacuation route capacity analysis to be incorporated into the Safety Element as required by Government Code §65302.15(a). This study must evaluate the capacity, safety, and viability of all evacuation routes under various emergency scenarios including wildfires, tsunamis, earthquakes, flooding and other disasters.

2. Identify At-Risk Residential Developments
Require staff to systematically identify all residential developments in designated hazard zones, such as tsunami, wildfire, liquification and earthquake areas that lack at least two viable emergency evacuation routes, per Government Code §65302(g)(5). This information should be made available to the public and used to prioritize infrastructure and policy improvements.

3. Fulfill Staff’s February 11, 2025 Commitments
Implement the oral commitments made by City staff at the February 11, 2025, Council meeting, including installing tsunami sirens at critical locations.

4. Create a Standing Agenda Item on Public Safety
Amend City Council's procedural rules to include a standing agenda item for public safety items at every regular Council meeting, ensuring that safety-related matters are heard prior to other, less urgent business. This would signal to residents that safety is a top priority and ensure regular updates and accountability.

5. Accelerate the Adoption of a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) Direct the Office of Emergency Management to prioritize finalizing and publicly presenting the longoverdue Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). This plan should align with the updated Safety Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Element and be available for public review prior to Council adoption, as required under FEMA and CalOES guidelines.

Prioritizing public safety is not only sound policy, as our elected officials, it is your collective legal priority.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Eve Lopez
Santa Monica Resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
LOS ANGELES TIMES ARTICLE – JULY 25, 2025
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-07-25/l-a-fire-evacuation-plans-remain-untested Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Just before sunrise on Nov. 8, 2018, a power line fell from a wind-worn Pacific Gas & Electric transmission tower and whipped into the structure nestled in the Sierra foothills. An electric arc sent molten metal into the dry vegetation below. It ignited.

Five minutes later, a PG&E employee spotted the fire while driving on a nearby Why is L.A.'s fire-evacuation plan still untested? - Los Angeles Times 1 of 7
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-07-25/l-a-fireevacuation-plans-remain-untested Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
highway and reported it. Within two hours of the sighting, the town of Paradise, seven miles away, sent its first evacuation order, but it was already too late. Within two minutes, flames were reported at the town’s edge. Landing embers quickly ignited dozens of spot fires in town. With only four major roads out of town, the streets quickly gridlocked. Paradise burned.

Sixty-four people died in Paradise during the agonizing seven-hour evacuation. Six of them were found in or next to their cars as they tried to evacuate.

Marc Levine, a state legislator at the time, listened over radio to the horrific scenes of people, stuck in traffic, abandoning their cars to flee on foot. “It made me think of the people falling from the World Trade Centers on 9/11,” he said. “They were going to be incinerated or they were going to jump. … They knew they would die either way.”
So, Levine wrote legislation requiring California cities and counties to analyze whether their roads could support a quick evacuation during emergencies such as fires, floods and tsunamis. Assembly Bill 747 passed in 2019. Yet, to date, the city of Los Angeles has failed to publicly report such an analysis, while fire safety advocates say L.A. County’s evacuation analysis fails to meet the law’s requirements.

The Times reached out to nearly a dozen city, county and state agencies involved with evacuation planning. All either did not respond to requests for comment, could not to point to an evacuation analysis in line with the state’s guidelines for AB 747 or indicated the responsibility for doing the work lies with other agencies. “The fact that local government leaders would not do as much as they can to protect human life and safety is just shocking to me,” Levine said.

In January, the streets of Pacific Palisades mirrored the scene that distressed Levine in 2018. Traffic was at a standstill on Sunset Boulevard and Palisades Drive — two of the only routes out of the burning landscape. When a spot fire exploded next to the route, police ran down the street, shouting at evacuees to run for their lives.

Every year, dozens of evacuations are ordered in California, organized and completed without any casualties — or even a news story. In these cases, public safety officials have all the lead time that they need to organize a safe and orderly evacuation before a fire reaches a community.

But it’s the much more dire evacuation scenarios — when the lead time is shorter than the time it takes to evacuate, like in the Palisades — where emergency planning is both most important and often ignored.
“There’s no incentive to ever present an evacuation plan that isn’t very positive,” said Thomas Cova, a professor at the University of Utah who studies wildfire evacuation analysis. “Why would an emergency planner — say some young upstart in an emergency operation center — ever want to present a plan to their colleagues that involves some people burning?”
The chaos of these worst-case scenario evacuations often looks nothing like the Why is L.A.'s fire-evacuation plan still untested? - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-07-25/l-a-fire-evacuat... 2 of 7
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
orderly phased evacuations cities often focus on. Unlike in “blue sky” evacuations, smoke can hinder visibility and cause crashes. Often whole towns must leave at once. Power outages can prevent public safety officials from communicating with residents.

It’s why Marylee Guinon — president of the State Alliance for Firesafe Road Regulations, an advocacy group aimed at protecting and expanding the state’s community fire safety requirements — suspects AB 747 is facing pushback from local governments. “They don’t want data that would tell them that it’s going to be a ninehour evacuation,” she said.

All the while, the risk of fast-moving fires is growing.

In a 2024 study, researchers from the University of Colorado in Boulder analyzed more than 60,000 fires documented by NASA satellites in the first two decades of the 21st century. By 2020, fires in California were growing, on average, four times faster than they were in 2001.

AB 747 requires local governments to include their evacuation analyses in the safety element of their general plan — the long-term blueprint for future development of a city or county.

The city of L.A.’s current safety element provides no such analysis. Instead, it simply lists evacuation planning as “ongoing.”
In a statement to The Times, the city’s Planning Department, responsible for writing and revising the general plan, said details of evacuation routes are not made publicly available since “large urban cities such as the City of Los Angeles are high profile targets for terrorist attacks.”
The city did not immediately clarify what legal authority it has to keep the analysis private as California law generally requires safety elements to be public. “It is a mystery how hiding evacuation route capacity and viability can save lives when community members are fleeing a natural disaster,” Levine said in an email to The Times. “It is a dubious claim that terrorists could possibly be well positioned to take advantage of such a catastrophic situation.”
Meanwhile, the county said it complied through an analysis it included in its 2025 safety element. However, fire safety advocates criticized the county’s analysis as simplistic and failing to adequately determine whether quick and safe evacuations are feasible.

The Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, which provides guidance on state planning laws, recommended that local governments use traffic software to simulate different evacuations to estimate how long they might take. Instead, the county grabbed a list of all roads in unincorporated areas within its borders and listed them as “evacuation routes” so long as they were paved, public and not a dead end.

Why is L.A.'s fire-evacuation plan still untested? - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-07-25/l-a-fire-evacuat... 3 of 7
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
The intent of the law is “not ‘just list the roads you have,’” Levine said. “So I’m super disappointed that L.A. County is dismissive in this way. You would expect, particularly post this year’s fires, Palisades and Eaton, they would take this far more seriously.”
When pressed on their deviations from the state’s guidance, both the city and county planning departments deferred to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, which indicated in assessments that the two departments’ safety elements were compliant.

Cal Fire, however, said that its assessments were nonbinding and that complying with the law falls on the city and county.

Yet, none of the local or state agencies directly responded to an inquiry from The Times asking them to explain the discrepancy between the guidance and the safety elements.

The city and county both have detailed evacuation plans that coordinate how public safety officials in the emergency operations and police and fire departments would orchestrate a mass exodus. However, the analysis of roadway networks to estimate how long those evacuations — even if perfectly orchestrated — may take, is different. “Historically, fire agencies put forth evacuation plans that are operationally driven,” said retired Fire Battalion Chief Doug Flaherty. “They talk about communications.

They talk about unified command. … What is missing is an actual detailed, road-byroadway capacity analysis of the time that it’s going to take for people to safely evacuate the area.”
For Guinon, the lack of follow-through from cities and counties across the state is indicative of a common trend in wildfire legislation.
“Virtually every piece of legislation that I dig into, I find out it was the result of a tragic catastrophe,” she said. “This legislation comes out with really, really clear intent over and over, and then it gets forgotten.”
Despite the complexity of simulating cars on a computerized network of roads to understand evacuation times, the scientific prowess exists — and the software to do it is widely accessible.

When Flaherty, a Tahoe Basin resident, became frustrated with his area’s lack of movement on the issue, he commissioned an evacuation study through his nonprofit, TahoeCleanAir.org. The retired fire battalion chief, with 50 years of emergency response planning experience under his belt, partnered with Leo Zlimen, fresh out of UC Berkeley and co-founder of the emergency management software startup Ladris. “We fell into this wildfire space because everywhere we looked, people were [asking] ‘draw a circle on the map and tell me how long it takes to get those people out,’” Why is L.A.'s fire-evacuation plan still untested? - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-07-25/l-a-fire-evacuat... 4 of 7
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Zlimen said. “And it turns out, that’s actually a really complicated problem.” Ladris’ software simulates realistic fire evacuations. It starts by taking a map of roads in a community and plopping little purple dots at virtually every home. Each one represents a vehicle.

A fire starts on the map. It spreads. The purple dots get orders to flee, and the evacuation starts.

The computer can play out a multihour evacuation in mere seconds, and it can account for an excruciating amount of detail. A roadblock, representing a falling tree or car crash, can stop purple dots from using a portion of the road. Some purple dots, not realizing how dire the situation is, wait an extra few minutes — or hours — to evacuate. The dots even wait their turn at stop signs, crosswalks and traffic lights.

Ladris’ program almost looks like a video game. Officials can test evacuation scenarios far in advance or in real time during an emergency. The company is also working to use artificial intelligence to help quickly configure scenarios so users can almost literally “draw a circle on the map” and get an evacuation time.

Flaherty said his detailed Tahoe Basin study, a comprehensive analysis based on Ladris’ simulations, had a price tag just shy of $100,000 — roughly equivalent to the cost of installing one traffic light in town.
“In the scheme of things, it’s very cost effective and reasonably priced,” he said.

Another piece of software from Old Dominion University — simpler than Ladris’ — is available to the public for free. It takes less than half an hour to set up a simulation in the program, called FLEET (for “Fast Local Emergency Evacuation Times”).

Consequently, it’s been used not only by local governments making fire evacuation plans, but also by Scouting America troops interested in flood hazards and sporting Why is L.A.'s fire-evacuation plan still untested? - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-07-25/l-a-fire-evacuat... 5 of 7
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
event planners wondering how bad the postgame traffic may be.

Among those using FLEET simulations for evacuation planning: the town of Paradise.

After the Camp fire, Paradise became an inadvertent experiment in how towns can better prepare for evacuations. After the disaster, it won a $199-million federal grant for infrastructure projects designed to rebuild Paradise into a more fire-safe town.

Before the fire, the town’s entire yearly budget was around $12 million.

After the Camp fire, Paradise hired a traffic consulting firm that used FLEET. It found an evacuation would take over five hours under perfect conditions while utilizing all traffic lanes. It then used the modeling to understand what could be done to alter traffic flow to reduce that time.

For Paradise — as is the case for many towns — a big problem is traffic bottlenecks:

To evacuate, virtually the entire town has to use one of four main roads.

The seemingly most straightforward solution? Build more roads. However, these projects get complicated fast, said Marc Mattox, Paradise’s public works director and town engineer.

Often the roads that a municipality needs to improve evacuation would have to go through private property — a nonstarter for residents in the proposed path.

Or, it’s simply too costly. Although Paradise has received funds to widen two evacuation routes and connect three dead ends with the rest of town, a new evacuation route out of town would be prohibitively expensive. Mattox estimated such a route, navigating Paradise’s steep ridges and canyons, would cost in excess of half a billion dollars.

So, Paradise has also invested in a much cheaper, yet still effective tool to speed up evacuations: clear communication.

Paradise installed signs all over town that proclaim when residents enter and exit different evacuation zones. The town is also looking into using a different color sign for private or dead-end roads that warn drivers to avoid them, as well as digital signs above key roadways that can display real-time evacuation information.

In Southern California, Malibu — which completed an evacuation analysis after it suffered the Woolsey fire the same day as the Camp fire — has similar plans.

Malibu is adding reflective markers to roadways to reduce the chances of crashes amid thick smoke. For neighborhoods with few evacuation routes and individuals with limited mobility, the city encourages evacuating whenever the National Weather Service warns of dangerous fire weather — well before a possible ignition.

Los Angeles is much bigger than Malibu and Paradise — L.A. has a population of 3.9 million; Paradise’s is just over 9,100. But evacuation experts said it’s no excuse for Why is L.A.'s fire-evacuation plan still untested? - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-07-25/l-a-fire-evacuat... 6 of 7
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Noah Haggerty is an environment, health and science reporter at the Los Angeles Times. With a background in physics, he has conducted research on spacecraft propulsion, fusion energy and plasma — the stuff that makes up lightning and the sun. He joined The Times in 2024 as an AAAS Mass Media Fellow. letting California’s rural towns take the lead on evacuation planning.

Asked whether the sprawling labyrinth of L.A. roads would make doing these analyses more difficult, Zlimen smiled.
“Not really — no,” he said, noting Ladris has completed analyses in the San Francisco Bay Area. “It’s totally possible.”
Guinon hopes the results of evacuation analyses can also help — or force — cities to make more responsible residential development plans in the first place. “It’s not rocket science,” she said. “Let’s just take on protection of our existing communities and let the chips fall where they may with new development: If it’s unsafe, don’t build it.”
Why is L.A.'s fire-evacuation plan still untested? - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-07-25/l-a-fire-evacuat... 7 of 7
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025

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

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
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
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.

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,

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

Thank you for your leadership.

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

Thank you for your leadership.

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

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
44 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
57 Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
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.

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
59 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!
Thank you,
Christopher H. Knauf
Santa Monica and Sunset Park resident
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
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
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
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
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.

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

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!
Thank you,
Karen Frid-Madden
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
Item 12-B
July 29, 2025
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

Santa Monica City CouncilJuly 29, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
July 29, 2025