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

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

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

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

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 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
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 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Bedford Office <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 4:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Jennifer Josephs
1786 Bryn Mawr Ave. Santa Monica CA
Jennifer Josephs
(801) 201-5909 cell
[email protected]
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
5 David Yakobson
From: Dan Winjum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Please Reject Item 16C

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more?
Sincerely,
Dan Winjum
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
6 David Yakobson
From: Robert Cull <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Robert Cull
2255 Cloverfield Boulevard
Santa Monica , CA
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
7 David Yakobson
From: ALICE ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 1:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Importance: High

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Alice Ellis
Santa Monica Resident
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
8 David Yakobson
From: John Londono <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 1:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16C

EXTERNAL
I am opposed to this item.

I request that the council reject it.
-John Londono
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
9 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels. Please:
1) Work with HCD to correct the zoning error on Ocean Park Blvd.; 2) Ensure that correcting this error won't harm Housing Element compliance; 3) Reject upzoning the parking lots until these issues are resolved. Ocean Park Blvd. was zoned at 32 ft until 2023, when city staff mistakenly upzoned it to 55 ft during the Housing Element process. City Attorney Doug Sloan wrote to HCD requesting guidance on correcting this error, but received no response. Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests. The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park. Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more?
Sincerely,
Kelly Hsiao
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
10 David Yakobson
From: Will von Bernuth <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose

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

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

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

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

We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more?
Sincerely,
Will von Bernuth
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
11 David Yakobson
From: Ann Kummer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Ann Kummer
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
12 David Yakobson
From: Ellen Mark <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Importance: High

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Ellen Mark
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
13 David Yakobson
From: Mindi Shank <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Mindi Shank
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
14 David Yakobson
From: Robert Mickelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Re: Item 16C

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Robert Mickelson
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
15 David Yakobson
From: sitara contreras <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council, I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels. Please: 1) Work with HCD to correct the zoning error on Ocean Park Blvd.; 2) Ensure that correcting this error won't harm Housing Element compliance; 3) Reject upzoning the parking lots until these issues are resolved. Ocean Park Blvd. was zoned at 32 ft until 2023, when city staff mistakenly upzoned it to 55 ft during the Housing Element process. City Attorney Doug Sloan wrote to HCD requesting guidance on correcting this error, but received no response. Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests. The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park. Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely, Sitara Contreras 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
16 David Yakobson
From: May Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Please Reject Item 16C

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
May Lee
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
17 David Yakobson
From: Paula Mazur <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16C

EXTERNAL
To the City Council:

This is not a NIMBY email.

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

Which Item 16C does not.

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

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

All the best,
Paula Mazur
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
18 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: July 29, 2025 - City Council 16C - OPPOSE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More importantly, residents who live near Ocean Park Boulevard and use it daily will be justifiably outraged if the city deliberately upzones to match an acknowledged error. The council should expect Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
19 litigation from affected residents, as this would represent a clear case of negligent planning. The city would be entirely responsible for creating this legal exposure by knowingly perpetuating and expanding upon a documented mistake.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
21 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose

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

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

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Sandy Laderas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Sandra Laderas
90405
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
2 Mitchell Kois
From: Lois Bostwick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Lois Bostwick
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
3 Mitchell Kois
From: Susan Shapiro <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Susan Shapiro
1618 Wellesley Drive
90405
Sent from Outlook
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
4 Mitchell Kois
From: MIB <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Monica Bhardwaj
2404 33rd st
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
5 Mitchell Kois
From: Nathan Tippe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Nathan Tippe
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
6 Mitchell Kois
From: Cydney Kirschbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Cydney and Kenneth Kirschbaum
90405
Cydney Kirschbaum
[email protected]
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
8 Mitchell Kois
From: Allison Greene <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Allison Greene
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
9 Mitchell Kois
From: S AS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Robert Sherick
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
10 Mitchell Kois
From: S AS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Jack Sherick
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
11 Mitchell Kois
From: Stacey AS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Stacey Abrams-Sherick
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
12 Mitchell Kois
From: Sally Johnston <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Sally Johnston
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
13 Mitchell Kois
From: Jerry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Jerry Nodiff
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
14 Mitchell Kois
From: Dominique Chausse <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Dominique Chausse
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
15 Mitchell Kois
From: Jodi Strock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Jodi Strock
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
16 Mitchell Kois
From: Peter Mezza <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Peter Mezza
2504 30th Street
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
17 Mitchell Kois
From: Kelsey Liber <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Kelsey Liber
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
18 Mitchell Kois
From: Sharon Everitt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Fix parking upzoning on Ocean Park Blvd
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Sharon Everitt
1507 Ashland Ave.
90405
Sharon Everitt
|
310.740.0447 | sharoneveritt.com
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
20 Mitchell Kois
From: Ira Dworkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Ira Dworkin
long-time resident of 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
21 Mitchell Kois
From: ADAM JOHNSTON <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Thank you,
Adam Johnston
1349 Oak Street
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
22 Mitchell Kois
From: Holly Silvers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Holly & Dennis Granelli
Condo & SM small business owner
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
23 Mitchell Kois
From: LINDA KNAB <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Linda Reinbold
1333Ashland Ave.
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
24 Mitchell Kois
From: HARRIS SILVER <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Harris Silver
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
25 Mitchell Kois
From: aaronfurlong <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Aaron Furlong
Santa Monica
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
26 Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
27 Mitchell Kois
From: nancykless <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Nancy Kless
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
28 Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
29 Mitchell Kois
From: Lynn Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Lynn Murdock
1209 Pine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
30 Mitchell Kois
From: Robert Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Robert Brown
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
31 Mitchell Kois
From: Hilary Galanoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 16.C -- PLEASE OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Hilary Galanoy
2636 32nd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
32 Mitchell Kois
From: Nancy Pearl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
34 Mitchell Kois
From: Elizabeth Joensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Elizabeth Joensen
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
35 Mitchell Kois
From: tim joensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Tim Joensen
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
36 Mitchell Kois
From: Allyson Dworkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Allyson Dworkin
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
37 Mitchell Kois
From: Alex Purcell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
38 Mitchell Kois
From: Chris Downey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Chris Downey
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
39 Mitchell Kois
From: MARILYN HARRIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

MARILYN HARRIS
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
40 Mitchell Kois
From: Crystal Reed <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Crystal Reed
Born, raised and still live here, since 1971. Our Sunset Park house has been owned by our family since it was built in 1942.
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
41 Mitchell Kois
From: Robin OConnell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Thank you,
Robin O'Connell
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
42 Mitchell Kois
From: Hillary Rollins <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Hillary Rollins
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
43 Mitchell Kois
From: Katherine Reuter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more?
Sincerely,
Katherine Reuter 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
44 Mitchell Kois
From: Darlene Vogel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Darlene Vogel
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
45 Mitchell Kois
From: Deborah Bourget <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Deborah Bourget
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
46 Mitchell Kois
From: Merle Newman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Merle Newman
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
47 Mitchell Kois
From: oesr <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Jane Dempsey
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
48 Mitchell Kois
From: Laura Park <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Laura Park
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
49 Mitchell Kois
From: Heinzle, Janet <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

JANET HEINZLE

LICENSED REAL ESTATE SALESPERSON

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

MY LISTINGS

DISCOVER THE VALUE OF YOUR HOME
FACEBOOK | X | YOUTUBE | INSTAGRAM | LINKEDIN | TIKTOK
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
50 At Douglas Elliman, we won't ask you for your social security number, bank account or other highly confidential information over email. *Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring ANY money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have the authority to bind a third party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication.

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

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

Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
52 Mitchell Kois
From: Roger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Regards,
Roger Hill
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
53 Mitchell Kois
From: Jim Bernstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
James Bernstein
2627 Highland Ave #7
Santa Monica, CA 90405
30 year resident of Santa Monica
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
54 Mitchell Kois
From: Deborah <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

Sincerely,
Deborah Tuckman
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
55 Mitchell Kois
From: Dalila Fuentes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Dalila Fuentes, resident of long standing Sunset Park
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
56 Mitchell Kois
From: John Levy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Santa Monica, CA
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
57 Mitchell Kois
From: Mary <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Mary Hubbell
90405
Sent from my iPad
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
58 Mitchell Kois
From: Paul Costello <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Paul Costello
90405
Sent from my iPad
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
59 Mitchell Kois
From: Phil Harnage <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Phil & Susan Harnage
Sunset Park since 1987
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
60 Mitchell Kois
From: Emily Davidson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Emily Davidson
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
61 Mitchell Kois
From: Kathy Kane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Kathy Cody
Bay Street, 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
62 Mitchell Kois
From: Dicky Eagan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Richard Eagan
2340 Hill
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
63 Mitchell Kois
From: Alex Novakovich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 2:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Alex Novakovich
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
64 Mitchell Kois
From: Stevan Hill <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 1:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Sb1123- no emergency!!!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

This ordinance currently impacts only one property: 1101 Stanford, the property the center of SNACO’s ongoing lawsuit. This is not a legitimate emergency, but a fast-tracked measure designed to benefit an out-of-state corporate developer—not the residents of Santa Monica.

If passed, this ordinance would:

1. Allow up to 20 units on a single-family R1 lot

2. Permit 3-story multifamily buildings in R1 neighborhoods

3. Eliminate affordable housing fees for lot splits in R1 zones

4. Bypass the public process through misuse of “emergency” designation

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

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

Stevan Hill
Business Development for North America
310-880-9200
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
65 Mitchell Kois
From: Alex Novakovich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 1:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16C – Please Oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
66 [Your Name]
Sunset Park Resident
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Rose Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Rose Nelson
90402
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
1 Mitchell Kois
From: David Walther <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 8:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16C
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should by all means remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. There are currently plans for a seven story building to be built within 500 feet of my home. It seems outrageous to me that a building of such size could be built there when there isn’t anything even close to that size within miles. Seriously, does this seem right to you?
Sincerely,
David Walther
90405 (32nd st)
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
2 Mitchell Kois
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 8:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Phyllis Chavez
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
3 Mitchell Kois
From: Caroline Denyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 7:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Caroline Denyer
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
4 Mitchell Kois
From: Gina Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 7:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Gina Garcia
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
5 Mitchell Kois
From: Harper Savage <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 7:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Harper Savage
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
6 Mitchell Kois
From: Tina <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 7:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council, I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels. Please: 1) Work with HCD to correct the zoning error on Ocean Park Blvd.; 2) Ensure that correcting this error won't harm Housing Element compliance; 3) Reject upzoning the parking lots until these issues are resolved. Ocean Park Blvd. was zoned at 32 ft until 2023, when city staff mistakenly upzoned it to 55 ft during the Housing Element process. City Attorney Doug Sloan wrote to HCD requesting guidance on correcting this error, but received no response. Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests. The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park. Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely, (Your name) 90405 Tina Cox
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
7 Mitchell Kois
From: Theresa Forster <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 6:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
(Your nameTheresa Zupi )
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
8 Mitchell Kois
From: afnelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 6:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Allen Nelson
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
9 Sent from my Galaxy
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
10 Mitchell Kois
From: Jenny Blum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 3:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Jennifer Blum
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
11 Mitchell Kois
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 2:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
12 Mitchell Kois
From: Jo Wright <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Jo Wright
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
13 Mitchell Kois
From: Brian Lanich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 11:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Brian Lanich
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
14 Mitchell Kois
From: Brent Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:54 PM
To: Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C: Opposition to Proposed Upzoning of Residential Parking Lots Behind Ocean Park Blvd.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

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

I urge the Council to:

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

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

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

Thank you for considering my perspective.

Sincerely,
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
15 - Brent Cohen, 30-year Santa Monica Resident in 90405 Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
16 Mitchell Kois
From: fabrizio giorgi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
17 Mitchell Kois
From: Kirsten Campisi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Kirsten Campisi
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
18 Mitchell Kois
From: Sandy Wells <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Sandy Wells
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
19 Mitchell Kois
From: Ivana Suvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 10:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Ivana Suvak
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
20 Mitchell Kois
From: Eileen Tunick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 9:33 PM
To: Lana Negrete
Cc: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16 C
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
EILEEN TUNICK (Homeowner since 1979)
1639 Sunset Ave.
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
21 Mitchell Kois
From: Bronwyn Barkan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 9:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests. The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Up-zoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park. Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Bronwyn Barkan
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
22 Mitchell Kois
From: Kathy Knight <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Kathy Knight and Joe Faris
Sunset Park residents
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
23 Mitchell Kois
From: Toby Berlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Toby Berlin
1701 Pier Ave
Santa Monica, CA
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
24 Mitchell Kois
From: Nancy Owens <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
(Nancy Owens)
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
25 Mitchell Kois
From: Clay Savage <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Clay Savage
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
26 Mitchell Kois
From: Linda Mansolillo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Linda Mansolillo
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
27 Mitchell Kois
From: Ose Dalldorf <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16 C Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
LT Santa Monica Resident
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
28 Mitchell Kois
From: Judy Parsons <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 7:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Michael Parsons
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
29 Mitchell Kois
From: Robert Dean <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information contained in this communication (including, without limitation, in any attachment) is confidential and is intended for disclosure only to the addressee(s). If you are not an intended recipient Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
30 or have otherwise received this communication in error, please notify the sender and then delete it, and you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of any of the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited.

Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
31 Mitchell Kois
From: Nancy Hicks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

Nancy & Wes Hicks
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
32 Mitchell Kois
From: KS OG <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Kathleen O'Grady
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
33 Mitchell Kois
From: Traci Wallace <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Traci Wallace
1731 Dewey Street
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
34 Mitchell Kois
From: Pablo De La Rosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Pablo De La Rosa
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
35 Mitchell Kois
From: Lisa Test, OTD, OTR/L <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
36 Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests.

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

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

Lisa A Test

90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
37 Mitchell Kois
From: elena estrin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
elena estrin
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
38 Mitchell Kois
From: steve kandell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
steve kandell
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
39 Mitchell Kois
From: DARKO SUVAK <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - OPPOSE!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Darko Suvak
Anton Suvak
266632nd St
Santa Monica CA 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
40 Mitchell Kois
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? We know why are are doing it - stop it - work for residents not Scott Effing Weiner and Leonara Camner
Sincerely,
Danielle Charney
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
41 Stop selling my town out
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
42 Mitchell Kois
From: Stephen Everitt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park. Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more?
Sincerely,
Stephen Everitt 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
43 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 5:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Megan FitzGerald
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
44 Mitchell Kois
From: Ani S. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Ani Sherman
90405
Sent from my iPad
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
45 Mitchell Kois
From: Karen Comegys-Wortz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 4:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

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

Your constituents don't want Item 16.C. VOTE NO on 16.C Sincerely,
Karen Comegys-Wortz
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Leslee Mickshaw <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Leslee Mickshaw
90405
Leslee Mickshaw
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
1 Mitchell Kois
From: NANCY TYRE <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Nancy Tyre
90402
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
2 our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Heather Thomason
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
3 Mitchell Kois
From: Susan Alinsangan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Susan Alinsangan
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
4 Mitchell Kois
From: Warren Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Warren Allen
1011 Pine St
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
5 Mitchell Kois
From: Aaron Steinberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,

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

Please:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Aaron Steinberg
Santa Monica, 90405

Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
6 Mitchell Kois
From: Kathleen Kelleher McCarthy <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Kathleen Kelleher-McCarthy
and Kevin McCarthy
1206 Grant St.,
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
7 Mitchell Kois
From: Alex Brough <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Alex Brough
16 year resident of Sunset Park
1336 Sunset Ave
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
8 Mitchell Kois
From: Frank Weeks <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
9 Dear City Council,
I am a 30-year resident and urge you to please reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels. I ask you to consider the following:

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more?
Sincerely,
Frank Weeks
Ashland Ave.
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
10 Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
11 Mitchell Kois
From: Cody O'Connell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Cody O'Connell
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
12 Mitchell Kois
From: Tracey Hom <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Barry Snell; Betty Mednick; [email protected]; Esther Hickman; [email protected]; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]; Mindi Shank; Roni Crichton; Karen M. Fisher; Tammy Montanari; Ellis Raskin; Ellen Carpenter
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council, I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels. Please: 1) Work with HCD to correct the zoning error on Ocean Park Blvd.; 2) Ensure that correcting this error won't harm Housing Element compliance; 3) Reject upzoning the parking lots until these issues are resolved. Ocean Park Blvd. was zoned at 32 ft until 2023, when city staff mistakenly upzoned it to 55 ft during the Housing Element process. City Attorney Doug Sloan wrote to HCD requesting guidance on correcting this error, but received no response. Proceeding with upzoning based on erroneous height restrictions virtually guarantees litigation. And, if the error is later corrected to 32 ft, developers may claim vested interests. The Airport's future as exclusively parkland is not yet certain. Upzoning based on that risks overdevelopment, especially given the undeveloped 48-acre Business Park. Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely, (Your name) 90405 Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
13 Mitchell Kois
From: Faustino Garza <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Re: Item 16.C
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more?
Sincerely,
Faustino Garza
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
14 37-Year Homeowner and Resident
Ocean Park 90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
15 Mitchell Kois
From: Danny Guggenheim <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
As a homeowner along Ocean Park in Sunset Park since 2006, raising a family, I urge you to reject the proposed upzoning of parking lots in residential zones behind Ocean Park Blvd. commercial parcels.

Sincerely,
Danny Guggenheim
Sunset Park resident since 2006
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
16 Mitchell Kois
From: Sawyer Savage <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Sawyer Savage
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
17 Mitchell Kois
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:12 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Support 16.C
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Good morning council,
I'd like to encourage your support for item 16.C request being brought by Councilmember Zwick, Councilmember Raskin, and Mayor Pro Tem Torosis. This city, as well as the broader LA area, continue to dedicate a huge percentage of its limited acreage to storage of cars while its people are unable to find housing. This item will explore ways to better utilize that space to benefit current and future Santa Monicans and is a great example of why I voted to elect a pro-housing council majority.

Additionally, the city simply can't afford to continue to subsidize car ownership while facing an ongoing budget crisis. Surface parking lots, even when fully utilized, are a drain on every city resource ranging from stormwater management, emergency response, infrastructure maintenance, and tree canopy, while also failing to realize the tax benefits of a productive land use. The ability to implement housing in these locations will improve the financial state of the city, provide housing for its residents, and decrease the pressure to shrink the future "Great Park".

Thanks
Dustin Shahan
90401
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
18 Mitchell Kois
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:04 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

And since Dan Hall is all about transparency, I urge you to invesƟgate how this “mistake” actually happened. Clearly someone in the Planning Dept made a choice to go rogue and make this change. How are you going to make sure this won’t happen again?
Wouldn’t such an mistake be grounds for dismissal? If not, why? Dan Hall, be transparent with the residents on this.

But most importantly do not upzone the parking lots.

This acƟon in no way helps with the RHNA numbers for affordable housing. This proposal contributes to the dangerous overcrowding of this area. This acƟon contributes to puƫng the current residents in harm’s way, given all the development on Lincoln, Euclid, etc.

You need to think how to protect residents in case of fire, earthquake, flooding. Instead you are creaƟng more gridlock that could lead to horrific tragedy. Why are you doing this? It is wholly unnecessary.

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

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

Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
19 Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing producƟon targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incenƟvize more? Sincerely,
Karen Croner
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
20 Mitchell Kois
From: Jeanne Eisenman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 9:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Jeanne Eisenman
1351 Pacific Street
Santa Monica
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
21 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 9:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Ocean Park Blvd. should remain zoned to allow a maximum of 3 stories. We have already doubled our market-rate housing production targets for this RHNA cycle. Why incentivize more? Sincerely,
Rebecca Harshberger
90405
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
Item 16-C
July 29, 2025
22 Mitchell Kois
From: Barry Friesen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 8:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 16.C - Please oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

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

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

Santa Monica City CouncilJuly 29, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
July 29, 2025