Santa Monica City Council
September 30, 2025

Again, I urge you
(a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and
(b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Michael Choe
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3387 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 1 David Yakobson
From: cathykarolc <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 6:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: oppose upzoning

EXTERNAL
Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely
cathy Karol-Crowther
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: cathykarolc <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 at 06:50:33 AM PDT
Subject: 9/30/25 Agenda Item 11-B - Continue Support for Neighborhood Organizations Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers, As a member of Friends of Sunset Park (FOSP), I urge you to continue the current Neighborhood Organization Grant Program. FOSP uses the annual $7,000 grant for mailing an annual membership appeal letter to all 7,800 residences in our neighborhood. (Before the 2020 restructuring, the City used to mail the letters. The $7,000 grant replaced that service.) Membership forms include a section for members to list their concerns which help determine priorities for the FOSP Board. At monthly FOSP Zoom meetings, everyone is encouraged to share comments and questions. Our Beat 2 NRO and Crime Prevention Coordinator participate in every meeting. Informative weekly FOSP emails include city announcements, a calendar of meetings and other events, and a list of articles in local newspapers from the previous week. Community events this year have included an FOSP general membership meeting at Clover Park, the FOSP Beach Towel Drill Team marching in the 4th of July Parade on Main Street, FOSP tabling at National Night Out, and FOSP co-sponsoring with local businesses “A Sunset Park Block Party: Art in the Alley” behind Bob’s Market. Again, I urge you to continue the current Neighborhood Organization Grant Program. Sincerely, [Your Name] 90405 Cathy Karol-Crowther
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3388 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2025 3:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: FOSP: City Council 9/30/25 item 12-A -- Request to pull item -- PRA response delay until October 6

EXTERNAL
September 26, 2025
To: City Manager Oliver Chi
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 9/30/25 item 12-A: Resolution to re-zone 2644 30th Street -- Request to pull the agenda item
Dear City Manager Chi,
The FOSP Board requests that you pull item 12-A, the 2644 30th Street agenda item, from the September 30th City Council agenda because we are still waiting for the city’s response to a PRA related to the property.

The PRA was submitted on September 12, 2025, but staff has indicated that the requested information will not be available until October 6, 2025. (see below).

Since the current leases apparently last until 2027, there seems to be no particular need to rush ahead with this agenda item.

Additional background for the request:
1) On July 5, 2025, FOSP Board member Nikki Kolhoff submitted a public information request for “All communications (including without limitation, email, text, mail) between any member of the city staff on the one hand and the owner of 2644 30th Street, or any agent or counsel of the owner, on the other hand, from May 7, 2025 through May 13, 2025.” (This was one week before the City Council meeting.)
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3389 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 2 Staff changed the request to a keyword search for “2644 30th” which narrowed it to HLKK’s formal comment and forwarding of that comment to Council member Caroline Torosis, and closed the request, deeming it complete.
2) On September 12, 2025, Nikki Kolhoff submitted a public records request, which was given the reference number R037159-091225. Ms. Kolhoff requested “All records that reflect communications between any representative of the City, including without limitation, city council members, planning commissioners and employees of the City of Santa Monica, with any representative, attorney (including the Harding Larmore law firm), contractor or alleged owner of 2644 SM Partners (including without limitation any member of the Sternberg family) concerning the zoning and uses of 2644 30th Street, including without limitation the 2025 public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.” 3) On September 22, 2025, Ms. Kolhoff received this response from city staff:
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Santa Monica Public Records <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2025 at 11:09:03 AM PDT
Subject: [Records Center] Public Records Request :: R037159-091225 --- Please respond above this line ---
RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of September 12, 2025, Reference # R037159-091225-- 14-Day Extension.

Dear Nikki Kolhoff:

The City of Santa Monica (the “City”) received your Public Records Act request on September 12, 2025. As allowed pursuant to Government Code section 6253, subdivision (c), we require an additional 14 days to respond to your request due to the following circumstance(s):

The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, among two or more components of the City having substantial subject matter interest therein.

In the case of electronic records, the need to compile data or to construct a computer report to extract data.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3390 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 3 The city anticipates that it will respond to your public records request on or before October 06, 2025. We appreciate your patience.

Sincerely,
City of Santa Monica
To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the Public Records Center

********************************************************* 9/30/25 City Council agenda:

12. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Adoption of a Resolution to Amend the Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Map and the Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Official Districting Map for a Portion of the Parcel Located at 2644 30th Street
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding that the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and Official Districting Map are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, consistent with the findings set forth in the “Environmental Review” section of this Report;

2. Adopt a Resolution Amending the Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Map for a Portion of the Parcel Located at 2644 30th Street; and

3. Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance Amending the Official Districting Map for a Portion of the Parcel Located at 2644 30th Street.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3391 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 1 David Yakobson
From: Steve Atamian <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2025 9:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Barry Snell
Cc: Ross Fehrman; Rachel Kwok; Jing Yeo; Oliver Chi
Subject: Re: Item 12.A 2644 30th Street Commercial Building Re-Zone Support

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
We are writing as Santa Monica residents living on the same street as the office building. We want to voice our support for the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and Official Districting Map for 2644 30th Street.

From our perspective, this action represents a reasonable good-faith compromise. The property has long been used as a commercial office building since its development in 1956, and the current “legal non-conforming” status only exists because of what appears to have been an inadvertent clerical mistake during the 2010 LUCE update and 2015 Zoning Ordinance.

Correcting that error will provide clarity for leasing, financing, and maintaining the building — without opening the door to large-scale redevelopment, since the adjacent parking lot remains zoned R1. Not doing so increases the risk of a large-scale development if the property owner has to sell due to hardships of not having the proper zoning.

We also want to commend the property owner for voluntarily offering a 10-year covenant not to redevelop into housing projects, which provides additional assurances to neighbors while preserving flexibility to revisit the issue during the next LUCE update.

Unfortunately, we have also witnessed troubling misinformation circulating in the community, including false “renderings” depicting massive high-rise developments supposedly planned for this site. These materials are not grounded in fact and only serve to stoke fear and division. We believe our city deserves a decision based on accurate information and the actual record before Council.

For these reasons, we urge you to approve the staff recommendation and adopt the proposed map amendments. Doing so will not only correct a longstanding error but also balance the needs of the property owner, surrounding neighbors, and the broader community.

Ultimately, it's a fair compromise.

Thank you for your service and consideration.

Respectfully,
Steve Atamian and Vanessa Lopez
2830 Pearl Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3392 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 3 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2025 11:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FOSP: 9/30/25 item 12-A -- Request to pull item due to PRA response delay to October 6 EXTERNAL
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Sent: 9/28/2025 11:51:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Subject: FOSP: Request to pull 9/30 item re 2644 30th St. due to PRA response delay to October 6
September 27, 2025
To: City Manager Oliver Chi
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 2644 30th Street hearing on 9/30/25 -- Agenda item 12-A

Dear City Manager Chi,
The FOSP Board requests that you pull the 2644 30th Street agenda item 12-A from the September 30th City Council agenda because we are still waiting for the city’s response to a PRA related to the property, submitted on September 12, 2025, which staff has indicated will not be available until October 6, 2025. (see below).

Since the current leases apparently last until 2027, there seems to be no particular need to rush ahead with this agenda item.

Additional background for the request:

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3393 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 4 1) On July 5, 2025, FOSP Board member Nikki Kolhoff submitted a public information request for “All communications (including without limitation, email, text, mail) between any member of the city staff on the one hand and the owner of 2644 30th Street, or any agent or counsel of the owner, on the other hand, from May 7, 2025 through May 13, 2025.” (This was one week before the City Council meeting.) Staff changed the request to a keyword search for “2644 30th” which narrowed it to HLKK’s formal comment and forwarding of that comment to Council member Caroline Torosis, and closed the request, deeming it complete.
2) On September 12, 2025, Nikki Kolhoff submitted a public records request, which was given the reference number R037159-091225. Ms. Kolhoff requested “All records that reflect communications between any representative of the City, including without limitation, city council members, planning commissioners and employees of the City of Santa Monica, with any representative, attorney (including the Harding Larmore law firm), contractor or alleged owner of 2644 SM Partners (including without limitation any member of the Sternberg family) concerning the zoning and uses of 2644 30th Street, including without limitation the 2025 public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.”
3) On September 22, 2025, Ms. Kolhoff received this response from city staff:
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Santa Monica Public Records <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2025 at 11:09:03 AM PDT
Subject: [Records Center] Public Records Request :: R037159-091225 --- Please respond above this line ---
RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of September 12, 2025, Reference # R037159- 091225--14-Day Extension.

Dear Nikki Kolhoff:

The City of Santa Monica (the “City”) received your Public Records Act request on September 12, 2025. As allowed pursuant to Government Code section 6253, subdivision (c), we require an additional 14 days to respond to your request due to the following circumstance(s):

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3394 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 5 The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, among two or more components of the City having substantial subject matter interest therein.

In the case of electronic records, the need to compile data or to construct a computer report to extract data.

The city anticipates that it will respond to your public records request on or before October 06, 2025. We appreciate your patience.

Sincerely,
City of Santa Monica
To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the Public Records Center Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3395 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 6 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2025 8:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Friends of Sunset Park; Oliver Chi
Subject: September 30, 2025 City Council Meeting – Item 12A Upzoning of 2644 30th Street - OPPOSE
Attachments: 2025-05-12 Comment Opposing Upzoning of 2644 30th St.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council –
My first comment opposing this item is resubmitting our comment from the May 13, 2025 City Council meeting, which staff appears either not to have read or is willfully ignoring, because it refuted nearly all of the false and misleading statements being made by staff again in the current staff report. We deserve better, both from staff and from you.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Sunset Park Voter and Santa Monica Resident
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
To: Councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]> Cc: Friendsofsunsetpark Info <[email protected]>; Dan Kolhoff <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 at 08:27:35 PM PDT
Subject: May 13, 2025 City Council Meeting – Item 12A, Nos. 6 & 7 Upzoning of 2644 30th Street - OPPOSE Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council –
Please see the attached comment in opposition of the illegal spot upzoning of 2644 30th Street. Please vote NO on both the Resolution to Amend the LUCE Map and the Resolution to Amend the Zoning Map.

Regards,
Nikki and Dan Kolhoff
Sunset Park Residents and Santa Monica Voters
Attachment
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3396 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 1 May 12, 2025
Via Email
To: Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers
From: Nikki and Dan Kolhoff
Re: May 13, 2025 City Council Meeting – Item 12A, Nos. 6 & 7 Upzoning of 2644 30th Street - OPPOSE
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council –
We object to the change of land use and rezoning of 2644 30th Street. It is an illegal spot-zoning misrepresented in the staff report as a clerical error. It would upzone the parcel in a manner and result in a MASSIVE windfall for the owner, and negative impacts on the residential neighbors.

Nowhere else in the city is the Neighborhood Commercial designation applied to an interior parcel to bring commercial use into the residential neighborhood beyond the depth of the other Neighborhood Commercial parcels on the boulevards. This would be the ONLY one in the entire city, and is further evidence of spot zoning.

According to staff, this change was requested by owner’s counsel in September 2024. However, there has been no outreach to the neighborhood by the owner or city staff. Furthermore, city staff appear to have adopted the owner’s false statements without investigation, even though they are not supported by the public record or the law. The staff report contains numerous inaccurate and misleading statements, and the upzoning presents issues not addressed in the staff report.

A. INACCURATE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT 2644 30th Street is a single tax parcel that has existed since 1956, almost 70 years, as a 2-story office building (the “Office Building”) on one portion and a surface parking lot (the “Parking Lot”) on the other portion. It has been owned by the same Beverly Hills family since 1987, almost 38 years. (See images of the parcel attached.)
Below are the inaccurate statements that form the basis of the staff report and staff’s recommendation for the upzoning.

1. The LUCE designation was an error. False. Staff repeats many times in the staff report and resolutions that both the 2010 LUCE designation and 2015 Zoning were “mapping errors” that were “inadvertent”. This is false. The Parking Lot has always been R1 and the Office Building was originally C2. When the LUCE was updated in 2010, it expressly stated that commercial activity should be on the boulevards, while preserving the residential neighborhoods. Because this parcel is not on a boulevard, it was designated Single Family Residential.

The LUCE described Sunset Park as follows: “Sunset Park maintains its semi-suburban character and continues to provide distinct single and multi-family housing opportunities. New or rehabilitated development, particularly on the adjacent boulevards is sensitive to the scale and mass of existing structures and with the surrounding neighborhood context. Character-defining features, like mature street trees, are preserved to perpetuate the quality of Sunset Park’s outdoor environment. Traffic congestion and parking issues— especially as they relate to Santa Monica College—are mitigated by a mixture of transportation and parking demand management programs to reduce the impact of cut-through traffic and parking shortages. The mixture of Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3397 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 2 neighborhood-serving amenities near residential areas along Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards features a range of retail, dining and entertainment options and is easily accessible by foot, bicycle or car.” (LUCE-Page 2.2-29)
The LUCE created NEW land use designations to conform to the stated intentions of the LUCE, and that is why Neighborhood Commercial is on the boulevards and Residential is interior. 2644 30th is NOT on the boulevard so it was entirely consistent with the goals of the LUCE and the existing R1 zoning, to assign it a LUCE designation of Single Family Residential. This wasn’t a mistake or a mismatch. No other parcel was assigned Neighborhood Commercial that extended beyond the strip of parcels along the boulevards in the entire city.

These additional LUCE provisions further confirm that commercial development is supposed to be on the boulevards and not in the residential neighborhood:
• “The highest priority of the community was the preservation of the existing character and scale of Santa Monica’s neighborhoods.” (LUCE-Page 3) • “The [2010] LUCE is different from the policy direction of the 1984 LUCE: It is a conservation plan that provides for an overall reduction in building height.” (LUCEPage 5) • Land Use 2.2 -- NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION -- "Renters and homeowners alike advocate for neighborhood conservation so that future generations may enjoy the same benefits and experiences." (LUCE-Page 2.2-3)
Because Neighborhood Commercial was intended to be on the boulevards, the LUCE doesn’t even speak to interior parcels. A review of the City’s GIS maps shows that nowhere else in the city is the NC designation applied to an interior parcel to bring commercial use into the residential neighborhood beyond the depth of the other NC parcels on the boulevards. This would be the ONLY one in the entire city, and is further evidence of spot zoning.

2. The Zoning Designation was an Error. False. Counsel and staff contend that the LUCE designation was carried through to the zoning in error. As stated above, the LUCE designation of Single Family Residential was purposeful and the zoning of R1 was consistent with the LUCE. Furthermore, Friends of Sunset Park commented about this parcel on the record at both city council meetings, as well as a meeting with the City Manager, during the 2015 Zoning Ordinance Update to confirm the residential designation and zoning of this parcel.

The Parking Lot has always been R1 and the Office Building was formerly C2. After the purposeful designation of Residential in the LUCE, the zoning of R1 was consistent. As a result, there was no mismatch between the LUCE and the Zoning.

This is a completely different situation from the baskets of inconsistencies referenced in multiple staff reports in 2015, which included the A-Lot scandal where staff upzoned residential parcels adjacent to the boulevards to commercial in an effort to increase the size of lots for commercial development along the boulevards.

Ten years later, owner’s counsel and city staff are now mischaracterizing what was reviewed in 2014-15 by claiming that staff failed to catch a difference between the use and the “new” LUCE and zone. What was actually reviewed in 2014-15 were lots that had a prior zoning designation of residential, which staff changed to commercial in the LUCE, and then wanted to change the Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3398 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 3 zone to “conform” to the erroneous LUCE designation, otherwise known as the A-Lot Scandal.

Staff disingenuously characterized this as clerical at the time, but residents pushed back and demonstrated that the LUCE designation of commercial was inappropriate and must be reverted.

The resolution at the May 5, 2015 City Council meeting confirmed the residents were correct. It stated:
“WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance Update process has provided an opportunity to reassess the appropriateness of the land use designation changes that were approved as part of the LUCE; and
WHEREAS, staff has compared the LUCE Map with the existing Official Districting Map for all 23,500 parcels in the City, to generate a listing of inconsistent parcels; and WHEREAS, the City has a long history of creating and maintaining buffers between commercial and residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, participants in the LUCE adoption process identified neighborhood preservation as the highest priority of the planning process; and
WHEREAS, a key goal of the LUCE includes maintaining an appropriate town-scale and balanced growth while encouraging certain types of development; and WHEREAS, this goal focuses on the retention of neighborhood character, development that is well-designed and consistent with the desired neighborhood scale, preservation of older buildings, and adaptive reuse of historic properties; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate that the vast majority of the parcels that were designated commercial be restored to a residential designation since such modification would be consistent with the overarching LUCE policy of preserving and protecting existing neighborhoods against the potential impacts related to development: traffic, noise, air quality, and encroachment of commercial activities; and WHEREAS, by retaining the residential zoning and land use designations, these parcels can redevelop, but the development potential for these parcels will be limited to what the residential districts permit;”
In other words, staff had unilaterally upzoned 115 parcels and almost all of them were reverted to residential. 2644 30th Street was correctly designated Residential and R1, consistent with the LUCE, so there was no inconsistency to correct.

Friends of Sunset Park included this property in its comments to City Council to confirm it was all Residential and R1 to avoid any confusion or reneging by staff in the future. FOSP’s comments included a chart with the information below for 2644 30th Street.

Address APN ArcGIS Draft LUCE
Land Use
Designations
Draft
Districting
Map
Action Required
2644 30th (the
original Google
building and large
parking lot,
behind the retail
center on OPB)
4270-
016-
084
R1 Single-Unit
Residential
R1 This lot appears to be all one APN.

However it is R1 with a
commercial building on part of it
and a parking lot on the rest.

Requested action: Please confirm
this is all single family LUCE
Designation and R1 Districting.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3399 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 4 They had to have a second City Council meeting in June 2015 to incorporate resident comments because staff revealed their maps to residents with inadequate review time for the May City Council meeting. That means there was another MONTH of engagement between residents, staff and City Council on these maps. FOSP’s comments were reiterated regarding inappropriate upzoning at the June 23, 2015 City Council meeting where the status of 2644 30th Street was also clarified. The comment said, “I raise again the LUCE map discrepancies that were brought to your attention by FOSP and remain unresolved by staff, Planning Commission or City Council.

These discrepancies fall into four categories. 1. MUBL in Sunset Park. … 2. Conversion of residential to commercial, similar to the A-lot issue … 3. Spot Zoning … 4. Maintaining commercial designations on lots that continue to be residential use … We would also appreciate clarification that 2644 30th (the original Google building and large parking lot, behind the retail center on OPB) is R1. This lot appears to be all one APN. However it is R1 with a commercial building on part of it and a parking lot on the rest. Please confirm this is all single family LUCE Designation and R1 Districting.” (See email dated May 12, 2015 and June 23, 2015 attached.)

3. The upzoning only applies to the Office Building. False. Owner’s counsel and staff claim that the upzoning only applies to the Office Building, but the resolutions apply to the entire parcel, which is very concerning and also calls into question the legality of the vote taken by the Planning Commission in support of the resolutions.

At the Planning Commission hearing in March 2025, both the staff report and the resolutions referred to upzoning the entire parcel to Neighborhood Commercial for both LUCE and Zoning purposes. However, in the Planning Commission meeting, both owner’s counsel and city staff made the false verbal assurance to the Commissioners that the upzoning applied only to the Office Building. However the resolutions were not amended and applied to the entire parcel.

Now, two months later at City Council, the staff report misleadingly states, “The subject portion of the parcel is currently designated as Single Family Housing and zoned R1 (Single-Unit Residential), but since 1956 has been developed as a commercial office building.” However, both resolutions again reference the entire parcel, which includes the Parking Lot as well as the Office Building. The staff report materially misrepresents what City Council is being asked to approve and calls into question the legality of the vote taken by the Planning Commission in support of the resolutions.

4. The nonconforming use is preventing the owner from re-tenanting. False. Staff claims in an email that the owner can’t lease to a new tenant. This is not true, so long as the use (office building) doesn’t change, because Santa Monica has a legal nonconforming use ordinance that protects the owner so it can continue existing uses.

The owner’s counsel claims that it is limited in its ability to re-tenant the property and that is false. The owner can lease it to any office tenant it wants. As long as the building has been there, tenants have come and gone and it is always occupied.

Chapter 9.27 of the Santa Monica Code is called “Nonconforming Uses and Structures” and its purpose is to “provide for the continuation of uses, continued occupancy and maintenance of structures, and development of parcels that were lawfully established but do not now comply with all of the standards and requirements of this Ordinance so long as the uses, continued occupancy, and maintenance meet the provisions of this Chapter.” Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3400 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 5 Section 9.27.020 of the Santa Monica Code states that a “lawful nonconforming use” as “an occupancy or activity that was established in compliance with the standards and requirements in effect at the time it is commenced and has not been abandoned withing the same structure or on the same parcel since that date but does not comply with all of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance including, but not limited to, permitted use, location, intensity, operational characteristics, performance standards or hours of operation.” The Office Building and Parking Lot are both legal nonconforming uses. They are under no threat because it remains in an R1 zone. It is no different from any other legal nonconforming use in the city.

It’s disturbing that staff is perpetuating a false limitation. In an email staff said, “This was brought to our attention by the property owner when they were exploring re-tenanting of office space that had become vacant for more than a year and discovered that no commercial uses would be allowed.” A plain reading of the code shows this is not the case. Staff should have read the code and advised the owner accordingly. Instead, the staff has embarked on unnecessarily changing the LUCE and the zoning at the behest of Harding Larmore to “fix” a problem that doesn’t exist. If staff’s position here is to be taken seriously, then every multi-tenant building would face abandonment when a single space isn’t filled and that can hardly be the legal result. I asked staff what specific use is being prevented, or what specific plans are being thwarted, by the current zoning of the parcel and staff did not respond.

The owner’s counsel claims it is limited in change of use, and while that is true, it is true for every owner of a nonconforming use in the city of Santa Monica. This property is no different and deserves no special treatment. Not only is this NOT the purview of staff to change zoning for an owner to do something they shouldn’t, but it is evidence of spot-zoning to benefit this owner or a developer. (See Code Section 9.27 attached.)

5. The nonconforming use is preventing the owner from renovating. False. The staff report claims, “This has created a nonconforming condition and impediments to future development … for the current structure.” This is not true because Santa Monica has a legal nonconforming use ordinance that protects the owner so it can remodel or renovate without “abandoning” existing uses.

As stated above, the Office Building and Parking lot are lawful nonconforming uses. Section

9.27.050.3 of the Santa Monica Code states, “Cessation of use due to remodeling shall not be considered abandonment so long as building permits are active in accordance with Chapter 8.08 of the Municipal Code. However, if the building permit expires before the use resumes, the oneyear period under subsection (B)(1) shall relate back and commence with the cessation of use.” So the owner is able to renovate this property as it currently exists as a legal nonconforming use and staff should know this. The owner just can’t redevelop the property into a massive commercial development that is inappropriate for the neighborhood. This is the same policy that applies to any other legal nonconforming use in the city. Clearly they want to go big and just aren't saying that. And it should go without saying that nobody is spending money to hire Harding Larmore to upzone their property unless they are trying to do something different/bigger with it or sell it with the new, extremely valuable entitlements. (See Code Section 9.27 attached.)

6. The nonconforming use is preventing the owner from getting financing. False. The staff report claims, “This has created a nonconforming condition and impediments to financing for the current structure.” This is not true because the owner most recently financed the property in 2019 under the current LUCE and zoning designations.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3401 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 6 In 2019, the owner granted two Deeds of Trust to First Republic, one for $6,227,000 and another for $2,000,000, for a total of $8,227,000 in financing. At the time of that financing, a commercial lender would have performed due diligence to confirm that the zoning and use supported the appraised value on which the loan was based. Those deeds of trust were assigned to JPMorgan Chase in 2024 and continue to encumber the property. So the owner clearly is able to finance this property as it currently exists as a legal nonconforming use. It should not be able to obtain financing for a massive commercial development that is inappropriate for the neighborhood and violations our zoning.

B. ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS WITH THIS SPOT UPZONING
In addition to the false statements in the staff report described above, this upzoning raises the following additional issues:

1. There are no development standards for interior Neighborhood Commercial parcels in the Santa Monica Code, so a new category would have to be created and that is not before you on the agenda.

Because the Neighborhood Commercial Zone was never intended to include interior parcels, there are no development standards for Neighborhood Commercial anywhere but the boulevards, and the standards that exist for each boulevard were created based on the character of such boulevard.

Here is what the Code says about Neighborhood Commercial. Clearly, it's supposed to be Ocean Park Blvd. and NOT the residential streets:

"NC Neighborhood Commercial. This Zoning District is intended to maintain and enhance small-scale neighborhood shopping districts that provide daily goods and services easily accessible from surrounding residential neighborhoods while also serving a sub-regional role.

This District provides for a scale and character of development that is pedestrian-oriented and which tends to attract and promote a walk-in clientele. Development within this District should maximize human-scaled elements while providing a sensitive transition between these uses and neighboring residential areas. Ground floor uses include active, local-serving retail and service commercial uses such as small restaurants, laundromats, dry cleaners, beauty/barber shops, and clothing and grocery stores. Uses above the ground floor include residential, commercial, and local-serving office uses. This District is comprised of 4 geographic areas:

Main Street. Main Street is a neighborhood commercial street that is home to many boutiques, restaurants, and neighborhood-serving businesses. Main Street has both local and regional appeal, providing an eclectic mix of activities that is unique to Southern California.

Ocean Park Boulevard. Ocean Park Boulevard is a local-serving boulevard with 2 vibrant, neighborhood-serving commercial areas. The boulevard is a complete street for pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and autos, with an enhanced streetscape and dining, retail, and service needs within walking distance of the Sunset Park and Pico neighborhoods.

Pico Boulevard. Pico Boulevard is a local-serving, commercial boulevard that provides an enhanced environment for pedestrians and includes a wider choice of local-serving retail, Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3402 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 7 expanded mobility, and shared parking.

Montana Avenue. Montana Avenue serves as a local, commercial, and entertainment street that also draws regional visitors who enjoy its many cafés and boutique stores.

(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; Amended by Ord. No. 2742CCS § 2, adopted April 11, 2023)"

In addition, this code section speaks to the purpose of commercial designations on the boulevards:

"Provide appropriate buffers and transition standards between commercial and residential uses to preserve both commercial and mixed-use feasibility and residential quality and provide a sensitive transition between the commercial uses and neighboring residences." As a reminder the height for Neighborhood Commercial on Ocean Park Boulevard was “mistakenly” increased by staff to 55 feet in connection with our Housing Element. This is taller than Pico’s Neighborhood Commercial zone and the same height as Lincoln’s General Commercial Zone. Residents are still waiting for the city to correct this error. It would be completely inappropriate to apply a boulevard height to an interior parcel, especially one that is erroneous to start with. In order to change the zoning of this parcel, city council would have to create an entirely new development standard for interior parcels and that is not on the agenda.

2. This is one parcel, and there is no legal opinion on whether it can be zoned in part.

In fact staff is taking the opposite position as their justification for recommendations 4 and 5 relating to 1331 Wilshire.

This is the legal description for 2644 30th Street:
“LOTS 77, 78, 83 AND 84 OF TRACT NO. 1980, IN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 21 PAGE 152 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THE SOUTHEASTERLY 60 FEET OF LOTS 78 AND 83.

APN: 4270-016-084”
Ironically, staff is claiming that parcels cannot have two different zones in order to justify upzoning the Wilshire parcel, also on the agenda. Staff is trying to turn that parking lot from R2 to commercial by claiming, “Additionally, the subject split zoning presents a constraint on potential redevelopment of the parcel as two incongruous sets of land use regulations and development standards would be applied to the parcel.” So what is the city’s position on split zoning or does it depend on what the developer is asking for?

3. The LUCE update took 6 years and the Zoning Ordinance Update took almost 2 years. Residents participated while the owner did not, and is not entitled to special treatment for a do-over because it failed to participate.

This parcel has been owned by 2644 SM Partners since 1987. The partnership appears to be owned by Rita Sternberg and Scott Sternberg of Beverly Hills, and Scott Sternberg has signed Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3403 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 8 documents as the general partner of the partnership.

The Parking Lot was already a legal nonconforming use when they bought the property in 1987.

The 2010 LUCE update process spanned 6 years and there were many public meetings. The Sternbergs did not comment at the time the property was confirmed as Single Family Housing, with the Office Building becoming a legal nonconforming use.

The 2015 Zoning Ordinance Update process spanned several more years and over 33 public meetings. The Sternbergs also did not participate in or comment when the property was confirmed to be R1, with the Office Building a legal nonconforming use.

Residents spent hundreds of hours over the multi-year process, as evidenced by the many meetings, written comments, and oral comments at both Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Not once did the Beverly Hills owner or their counsel engage or comment. It is inappropriate for the owner and their counsel (or perhaps counsel for a developer looking to buy the property) to claim that they are entitled to be given a different zoning now because they failed to participate in the appropriate public processes at the time.

4. Upzoning would a windfall to the owner because they purchased the Office Building and Parking Lot when they were zoned R1 and C2, respectively, with a maximum height of thirty feet.

The Parking Lot has always been R1 so it was already a legal nonconforming use when the owner bought the property in 1987. The owner has held the property for passive income based on the current uses for 38 years. When the zoning was confirmed R1 in 2015, the height of Neighborhood Commercial on Ocean Park Blvd was also still 30 feet. It is only because of the erroneous upzoning of Neighborhood Commercial on Ocean Park Blvd. that the height on the boulevard is now 55 feet, or 85 feet with state bonuses. It is absurd to believe that the owner of 38 years reasonably expected, or is entitled to, develop this interior parcel beyond the 2-story office building and parking lot they purchased. It is entirely feasible that Harding Larmore also represents a developer looking to purchase this property for redevelopment. Converting it to Neighborhood Commercial confers a massive windfall to both the owner and a potential developer overnight, while harming the neighbors.

5. Residential owners and renters who purchased their homes or moved to the neighborhood in reliance on current zoning will be harmed.

It’s not ok to force residents to suffer commercial encroachment into their residential neighborhood just so a developer can make more money. If this is zoned Neighborhood Commercial and combined with the boulevard parcel, the resulting development could be 85 feet tall and extend one and a half football fields into the residential neighborhood. This is precisely what the LUCE is supposed to protect us against.

CONCLUSION
The upzoning of 2644 30th Street is an illegal spot-zoning based on inaccurate and misleading statements in the staff report that appear to have come from owner’s counsel. It would result in a MASSIVE windfall for the owner, and negative impacts on the residential neighbors. Nowhere Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3404 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 9 else in the city of Santa Monica is the Neighborhood Commercial designation applied to an interior parcel to bring commercial use into the residential neighborhood beyond the depth of the other Neighborhood Commercial parcels on the boulevards. This would be the ONLY one in the entire city, and is further evidence of spot zoning.

Furthermore, there has been no outreach to the neighborhood by the owner or city staff.

Furthermore, city staff appear to have adopted the owner’s false statements without investigation, even though they are not supported by the public record or the law. The staff report contains numerous inaccurate and misleading statements, and the upzoning presents issues not addressed in the staff report.

Please vote NO on Staff Recommendations 6 and 7.

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,
Nikki and Dan Kolhoff
Sunset Park Residents and Santa Monica Voters
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3405 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 10 The parcel is dark red. Light red is existing NC. Green is residential.

View of Office Building from Parking Lot.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3406 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 11 29th Street home to the north.

Homes across the street on 29th Street.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3407 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 12 Homes across the street on 29th Street.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3408 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 13 View through Parkinig Lot facing south.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3409 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 14 29th Street facing north.
29th Street facing south.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3410 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 15 Homes across the streetHomes on 30th Street.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3411 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 16 Homes across the street on 30th Street.

Homes to the north of property on 30th Street.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3412 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 17 View of property from 30th Street.

View through Parking Lot to 30th Street.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3413 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 18 30th Street facing north.
30th Street facing south.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3414 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 19 Picnic bench in Parking Lot.

Patios for tenants of the Office Building.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3415 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) CHAPTER 9.27

NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES
§ 9.27.010. Purpose.

This Chapter's standards have been developed in recognition of the City's policies related to historic preservation, adaptive reuse, and sustainability and provide for the continuation of uses, continued occupancy and maintenance of structures, and development of parcels that were lawfully established but do not now comply with all of the standards and requirements of this Ordinance so long as the uses, continued occupancy, and maintenance meet the provisions of this Chapter.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015) § 9.27.020. Definitions.

Any lawfully established use or structure that is in existence on the effective date of this Ordinance but does not comply with all of the standards and requirements of this Ordinance or subsequent amendment including, but not limited to, the lack of an approved permit or other required authorization shall be considered nonconforming. Unless otherwise specified, the term "nonconforming" as used in this Ordinance shall mean "lawful nonconforming" as defined herein.

Lawful nonconforming use. An occupancy or activity that was established in compliance with the standards and requirements in effect at the time it commenced and has not been abandoned within the same structure or on the same parcel since that date but does not comply with all of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance including, but not limited to, permitted use, location, intensity, operational characteristics, performance standards or hours of operation.

Lawful nonconforming structure. A building or structure that was erected in compliance with the standards and requirements in effect when it was constructed but does not comply with all of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance including, but not limited to, density, floor area, height, setback, usable open space, and other development standards.

Nonconforming parking or loading. An existing use of land or structure shall not be determined to be nonconforming solely because of a lack of on-site parking and/or loading facilities required by this Chapter, provided that facilities used for on-site parking and/or loading as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance are not reduced in number to less than what this Ordinance requires.

The parking provided by City-Designated Historic Resources shall be considered conforming if it is the amount of parking provided as of July 6, 2010. See also Section 9.28.180(B). (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015) § 9.27.030. Legal Nonconforming Structures.

A nonconforming structure may be maintained as follows:

A. Repairs, Alterations, and Improvements. Subject to Chapter 9.25 and subsection (B) of this Section, repairs, alterations, or improvements may be made to nonconforming buildings.

B. Additions and Enlargements. An addition to or enlargement of a nonconforming building shall be permitted if the addition or enlargement is made to conform to all the development standards and use regulations of the District in which it is located.

City of Santa Monica, CA
§ 9.27.010 § 9.27.030
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SA5008 on 2025-04-14 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3416 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) C. Replacing Nonconforming Features or Portions of Buildings. Nonconforming features or portions of buildings that are removed shall not be replaced unless they conform to the provisions of this Chapter. Notwithstanding this requirement, nonconforming architectural features which have been removed from any existing building which is designated as a Historic Resource or listed on the Historic Resources Inventory may be replaced if the Landmarks Commission determines that such feature contributes to the building's historic architectural integrity and that the reconstruction conforms to the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Landmarks Commission review of such reconstruction shall be processed generally in accordance with the procedures for processing applications for Certificates of Appropriateness contained in Chapter 9.56. Any project subject to Landmarks Commission review under this Section shall not require additional review by the Architectural Review Board. The determination of the Landmarks Commission under this Section shall be appealable to the City Council.

D. Moving. No nonconforming building shall be moved in whole or in part to any other location on the parcel unless every portion of the building is made to conform to all of the regulations of the District in which it is located. A relocated building shall be considered a new structure.

However, if the building is a City-Designated Historic Resource, the Landmarks Commission may approve nonconforming setbacks through the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.

E. Damaged or Destroyed. A nonconforming building which is damaged or destroyed may be restored or replaced in accordance with Section 9.27.040.

F. Demolition. An existing nonconforming building that is demolished shall lose any legal nonconforming status and may only be replaced or rebuilt if the entire structure is made to comply with all currently applicable zoning ordinance requirements unless:

1. The existing building is a Historic Resource or is listed on the City's Historic Resources Inventory, provided the alteration or addition conforms with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.

2. The existing building is commercial or industrial and is altered in accordance with all of the following criteria:
a. The alterations only involve the replacement of the footings, cripple walls, stem walls, or similar structural components between the structure's footings and the finished floor of the first story as defined in Chapter 8.12 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code;
b. The alterations are only undertaken to the minimum extent necessary to maintain a safe structure;
c. The existing exterior wall elements or principal support structure remain in place at all times and provide necessary structural support to the building upon completion of the alterations; and
d. No new floor area is added.

City of Santa Monica, CA
§ 9.27.030 § 9.27.030
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SA5008 on 2025-04-14 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3417 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015) § 9.27.040. Restoration of a Damaged Nonconforming Structure.

An existing nonconforming structure that is damaged or destroyed by a nonvoluntary fire or explosion, earthquake, or other natural disaster may be restored or replaced to its density (including square footage and number of rooms or dwelling units, as applicable), parking, building footprint and envelope, and height that existed prior to the destruction subject to the following:

3. The existing building is residential and is altered or added to in accordance with all of the following criteria:
a. The alterations or additions to the existing residential building include the replacement of the footings, cripple walls, stem walls, or similar structural components between the structure's footings and the finished floor of the first story as defined in Chapter 8.12 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code; and b. The existing first story exterior wall elements remain in place at all times and provide necessary structural support to the building upon completion of the alteration or addition.

4. The building was demolished as a result of a nonvoluntary fire or explosion, earthquake, or other natural disaster and it is restored or replaced in accordance with Section

9.27.040.

G. Termination. A nonconforming building need not be discontinued and removed or altered so long as the nonconforming building is maintained in accordance with this Section.

A. Damaged Structure Restoration Application.

1. Application. To request a permit to restore a damaged structure, the applicant must submit a complete application on a form provided by the Director in addition to any other material, reports, dimensioned plans, or other information required to take action on the application. Each application shall also include:
a. Two estimates of the cost of repair or reconstruction from properly licensed contractors. The estimates must contain sufficient detail to ascertain the scope of the proposed work and include the contractor's profit, overhead and insurance cost. b. For structures that have been posted with either a no entry notice (Red-tagged) or limited entry notice (Yellow-tagged), a written structural analysis of the structure prepared by a licensed engineer in accordance with the standards provided by the Building and Safety Division.
c. Two sources of documentation of the pre-destruction condition of the property or structure sufficient to enable the City to determine whether the project involves inkind repair or reconstruction. Documentation may include:
i. Approved building permits;
ii. Approved construction drawings;
City of Santa Monica, CA
§ 9.27.030 § 9.27.040
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SA5008 on 2025-04-14 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3418 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) iii. Surveys from licensed surveyors;
iv. County assessor information;
v. Certified property appraisals;
vi. Sanborn maps;
vii. Reports or drawings prepared by an insurance company to support damage claims;
viii. Photographs;
ix. City planning records; or
x. Any other verifiable information.

2. Review Process. Each application to restore a damaged structure shall require plan check approval as the final review prior to issuance of the applicable permit. In addition, the following procedures shall apply:
a. Where the cost of repair is less than 50 percent of the replacement value of the structure, or where less than 50 percent of the exterior walls are removed to the foundation (regardless of cost of repair), the following review or reviews will be required:
i. If there is not a significant design change from the original design, Administrative Approval and plan check is required.
ii. If there is a significant design change, Architectural Review Board review is required. Single-Unit homes are not subject to Architectural Review Board pursuant to this subsection.
b. Where the cost of repair equals or exceeds 50 percent of the replacement value of the structure, and 50 percent or more of the exterior walls are removed to the foundation, but the development on the parcel is below the development review threshold for the district in which it is located, Administrative Approval and Architectural Review Board approval shall be required.
c. Where the cost of repair equals or exceeds 50 percent of the replacement value of the structure, and 50 percent or more of the exterior walls are removed to the foundation, and the development on the parcel is above the development review threshold for the District in which it is located, a Development Review Permit is required prior to plan check. Architectural Review Board approval shall also be required.
d. Notwithstanding the above, any restoration of a damaged structure that is a CityDesignated Historic Resource shall be subject to the review of the Landmarks Commission.

3. Standards for Review. The following standards shall govern the review of an application for damaged structure restoration:

City of Santa Monica, CA
§ 9.27.040 § 9.27.040
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SA5008 on 2025-04-14 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3419 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015) a. Administrative Review. Administrative approval shall be granted if the project plans reflect in-kind repair or reconstruction.
b. ARB/Landmarks Review. The Architectural Review Board, or for City-Designated Historic Resources the Landmarks Commission, or Planning Commission/City Council on appeal, shall grant approval if both of the following findings can be made:
i. The structure's architectural design is substantially similar to the pre-damage design; or, if a significant design change is involved, the structure's architectural design is compatible with the general area in which it is located. ii. If the structure is a City-Designated Historic Resource and being repaired, the repair will meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and will not compromise the architectural or historical integrity of the structure or potential district; or, if being reconstructed, the reconstruction is required, based upon an estimate from a professional experienced in rehabilitation of historic structures, demonstrating it is not economically feasible to repair the structure. The Landmarks Commission may request 2 alternative evaluations and detailed estimates to support the determination of economic infeasibility. c. Development Review Permit. The Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, shall grant approval if all of the following findings can be made:
i. The structure's architectural design is substantially similar to the pre-damage design; or, if a significant design change is involved, the structure's architectural design is compatible with the general area in which it is located; ii. The plan for the proposed building or structure is expressive of good design and in general contributes to the image of Santa Monica as a place of beauty, creativity and individuality;
iii. The proposed building or structure is not of inferior quality such as to cause the nature of the local neighborhood or environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value; and
iv. If the structure is a Historic Resource, the repair will meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and will not compromise the architectural or historical integrity of the structure or potential district; or, if reconstruction is involved, based upon an estimate from a professional experienced in rehabilitation of historic structures, it is not economically feasible to repair the structure. d. Any reconstruction, repair, or restoration undertaken pursuant to this Section shall conform to all applicable Technical Code requirements, and a building permit must be obtained within 2 years, or 3 years if a Development Review Permit is required, after the date of the damage or destruction. The Director may approve an extension if the owner has applied for and diligently pursued approval of the building permit.

City of Santa Monica, CA
§ 9.27.040 § 9.27.050
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SA5008 on 2025-04-14 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3420 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) § 9.27.050. Legal Nonconforming Uses.

A legal, nonconforming use may be maintained subject to the following provisions:

A. Change of Ownership. A change of ownership, tenancy, or management of a nonconforming use shall not affect its status as a legal, nonconforming use.

B. Abandonment. If a nonconforming use of a building, structure, or parcel ceases for a continuous period of one year or more, the use shall be considered abandoned, and the building, structure, or parcel shall thereafter be used only in accordance with the regulations for the District in which it is located except as provided below. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide evidence demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Director that the use was legally established and has not been abandoned. Notwithstanding the above, no nonconforming residential use shall be considered abandoned regardless of the length of time of non-use unless the Director determines the building is dangerous, unsafe, a health and safety hazard, and/or uninhabitable, and these conditions cannot be remedied.

1. The one-year period to determine that a nonconforming use has been abandoned shall commence when the use ceases and any one of the following occurs:
a. The business license lapses;
b. The site is vacated;
c. The lease is terminated;
d. Utilities are terminated; or
e. A conforming use that meets the applicable requirements of this Ordinance is lawfully established in the space previously occupied by the nonconforming use.

2. Once the one-year period has commenced under subsection (B)(1) that period shall only be terminated if the nonconforming use is fully licensed, permitted, and operational for 60 continuous days. Operational shall mean that the nonconforming use is open for business to the public and provides services typically associated with the nonconforming use during the hours and days that are customary for that nonconforming use.

3. Cessation of use due to remodeling shall not be considered abandonment so long as building permits are active in accordance with Chapter 8.08 of the Municipal Code.

However, if the building permit expires before the use resumes, the one-year period under subsection (B)(1) shall relate back and commence with the cessation of use.

4. Except as provided in subsection (B)(5), no nonconforming use may be resumed, reestablished, or reopened once it has been determined to have been abandoned for one year.

5. If the nonconforming use of a building, structure, or parcel occurred in a Citydesignated Historic Resource, the nonconforming use may be resumed, reestablished, or reopened even if that nonconforming use has been abandoned for more than one year and other uses have occurred since that abandonment if a Conditional Use Permit is City of Santa Monica, CA
§ 9.27.050 § 9.27.050
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SA5008 on 2025-04-14 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3421 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) obtained based on the following findings:
a. The City-designated Historic Resource was not in residential use as of December 16, 2014;
b. The proposed use is compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the District and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located; c. The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on the subject parcel if the land uses are to remain;
d. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood;
e. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed; and
f. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare.

6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, or anything to the contrary in this Ordinance, the following legal, nonconforming uses may be resumed, reestablished, or reopened, even if that nonconforming use has been abandoned for more than one year, unless a conforming use that meets the applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance has been lawfully established in the space previously occupied by the nonconforming use:
a. In areas excluding the Third Street Promenade Area:
i. Restaurant, full service,
ii. Restaurant, limited service and take-out,
iii. Food hall,
iv. General retail sales, small scale, and
v. General retail sales, medium scale;
b. In the Third Street Promenade Area:
i. Bar/nightclub/lounge,
ii. Restaurant, full service,
iii. Restaurant, limited service and take-out,
iv. Food hall,
v. General retail sales, small scale, and
vi. General retail sales, medium scale.

C. Conversion to Conforming Use. If a nonconforming use is converted to a conforming use, the nonconforming use may not be resumed except as authorized by subsection (B)(5).

City of Santa Monica, CA
§ 9.27.050 § 9.27.050
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SA5008 on 2025-04-14 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3422 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 22, adopted June 14, 2016; Ord. No. 2726CCS § 10, adopted October 25, 2022; Ord. No. 2741CCS § 4, adopted April 11, 2023)
§ 9.27.060. Public Utility Exception.

Nothing contained in this Chapter shall be construed or implied so as to require the removal of governmental or public utility buildings, structures, equipment, or facilities provided that there is not a change of use nor enlargement of the land area devoted to the use. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015) § 9.27.070. Building Permits or Certificates of Occupancy Prohibited.

When any nonconforming building or use is required to be eliminated pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter, no building permit or Certificate of Occupancy shall thereafter be issued for further continuance, alteration, or expansion of the nonconforming building or use. The issuance of the permit or Certificate in error shall not be construed to allow the continuation of the nonconforming building or use.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015) D. Expansion of Nonconforming Use. A nonconforming use of a building or portion of a building that conforms to the development standards of this Chapter shall neither be expanded into any other portion of the building nor changed except to a conforming use. The nonconforming use of land shall not be expanded or extended in area, except that outdoor dining areas and other outdoor spaces permitted pursuant to Sections 9.31.199, Outdoor Commercial Uses on Private Property, and 9.31.200, Outdoor Dining and Seating on Sidewalks, shall not be considered an expansion in area for the purposes of this subsection.

E. Intensification of Uses. A nonconforming use shall not be permitted to substantially change in mode or character of operation. A substantial change in mode or character of operation shall include, but is not limited to, addition of uses, a change in operational hours that extends past 11:00 p.m. any night Sunday through Thursday and/or midnight on Friday and/or Saturday or begins before 7:00 a.m., a 5% increase in the floor area of the premises, or a 5% increase in the number of seats in any restaurant, but in no case shall the increase exceed any established seating limitation in the underlying zoning district.

F. Continuation/Reinstatement. The uses existing in a structure that have been restored pursuant to Section 9.27.040 may be continued/reinstated in the reconstructed/replacement structure so long as no continued/reinstated nonconforming uses are expanded, changed or substituted.

G. Legal, Nonconforming Rent-Controlled Multiple-Unit Properties. Notwithstanding subsection (D), existing multi-unit residential units in the R1 Single-Unit Residential District that are presently controlled by Article XVIII of the City Charter may be expanded in area provided such expansion complies with all other applicable Code provisions, including those governing height, number of stories, setbacks, stepbacks, parcel coverage and off-street parking (unless the City's Parking and Traffic Engineer determines that the provision of parking is not feasible), and the number of housing units on the multi-unit residential property does not increase.

City of Santa Monica, CA
§ 9.27.050 § 9.27.080
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SA5008 on 2025-04-14 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3423 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) § 9.27.080. Removal of Illegal Nonconforming Buildings and Uses.

Nothing contained in this Chapter shall be construed or implied so as to allow for the continuation of illegal nonconforming buildings and uses. These uses shall be removed immediately upon notification by the Director.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015) § 9.27.090. Rent Control Bootleg Units.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015) § 9.27.100. Continuation of Nonconforming Uses.

No person shall occupy any nonconforming building and no person shall continue any nonconforming use except as provided for in this Chapter. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015) § 9.27.110. Parking Lots in Residential Districts.

A. A rental unit registered with the Santa Monica Rent Control Board, which was built or created without City planning or building permits shall not be required to meet the setback and density requirements of this Ordinance if the unit is or can be made habitable as determined by the Director.

B. A rental unit exempt from setback and density requirements pursuant to subsection (A) of this Section shall be required to provide parking for the unit pursuant to Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation, unless the Director determines that the provision of parking is not feasible. Parking which would result in a significant reduction in setback space is not feasible. The location of any feasible parking shall comply with the Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation, except the Director may authorize a reduction in parking space dimensions so long as the space remains accessible and safe.

C. A rental unit that meets the requirements of this Section shall be considered a legal, nonconforming unit.

A. Except as provided in Section 9.31.070(D), parking lots on parcels in Residential Districts shall be permitted to remain provided:

1. The commercial parcel supported by the residential parking lot is not redeveloped for another use;

2. The lot remains as a surface level parking lot;

3. The use or uses existing on the commercial parcel supported by the residential parking lot do not change. For purposes of this requirement, a change of use shall be defined as any new use which requires more intense parking standards than exists on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Chapter;

4. The square footage of the existing commercial building on the commercial parcel is not added to or enlarged beyond 50% of the floor area existing on the effective date of this Chapter; and
City of Santa Monica, CA
§ 9.27.080 § 9.27.110
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SA5008 on 2025-04-14 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3424 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)

5. The required parking for any new addition or expansion under 50% is not located on the residentially zoned parking lot. A parking lot on a residentially zoned parcel shall revert to residential use when one or more of the above conditions are not met.

B. Parking lots in Residential Districts with A Off-Street Parking Overlays are regulated by Chapter 9.16, A Off-Street Parking Overlay District.

City of Santa Monica, CA
§ 9.27.110 § 9.27.110
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SA5008 on 2025-04-14 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3425 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Council 5/12/15 agenda item 5-A - LUCE Map Discrepancies (FOSP & PNA) From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 03:42 PM PDT
May 12, 2015
To:       City Council
From:  Zina Josephs, Nikki Kolhoff, Maria Loya, and Oscar de la Torre RE:       May 12, 2015 agenda item 5-A
Attached please find a spreadsheet with LUCE Map Discrepancies in the Sunset Park and Pico Neighborhoods.

The addresses in question are 2337 Centinela, 2249 - 30th St., 2410 Pico, 1925 Pico, 2024 - 19th St., 2019 - 18th St., 1930 - 11th St., 1922-1924 - 11th St., 2683 - 34th St., 3401 Ocean Park Blvd., and 2644 - 30th St.

For example:
1) 2410 Pico – This parcel (Rite Aid, Next Door by Josie, and Josie restaurant) is a single parcel zoned MUBL in the middle of many blocks of NC (19th to 31st) on the south side of Pico.

In addition, as the parking lots behind have been correctly returned to R1, it is the only MUBL bordering R1 in the entire city. This is spot zoning and should not be allowed.
2) 1925 Pico – This single parcel (Burger King) is zoned MUBL in the middle of several blocks (17th to 21st) of NC and across the street from NC. This is spot zoning and should not be allowed.

Some of our other requests have to do with
-- preserving rent-controlled apartments,
-- preserving family day care, and
5/4/25, 10:25 AM Yahoo Mail - Council 5/12/15 agenda item 5-A - LUCE Map Discrepancies (FOSP & PNA) about:blank 1/2
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3426 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) ZOU_Kolhoff__Z_SunsetPark_LUCEMapDiscrepancies2.doc
46kB
-- preserving potential landmarks or structures of merit Please review the attached spreadsheet and our requested actions.

Thank you for your consideration.
5/4/25, 10:25 AM Yahoo Mail - Council 5/12/15 agenda item 5-A - LUCE Map Discrepancies (FOSP & PNA) about:blank 2/2
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3427 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Sunset Park and Pico Neighborhood LUCE Map Discrepancies Address APN ArcGIS Draft LUCE
Land Use
Designations
Draft
Districting
Map
Action Required
2337 Centinela
(next to 3402 Pico
– the GRAMMY
site)
4270-010-090 R2 MUBL MUBL This is an R2 lot, but the Zoning Administrator states it was changed to MUBL in 2013. We are
not aware of any publicly agendized item
relating to the change. Requested actions:

Change Designation to Low Density Residential.

Change Districting to R2. Alternatively, change
to NC, along with all lots on Pico east of 31st
because MUBL is inappropriate in Sunset Park.
2249 30th St.
(behind 3010 Pico
– south side – Der
Wienerschnitzel)
4270-006-002 C4 NC NC This is a little row of 1-story bungalows adjacent to the Der Wienerschitzel parking lot.

Requested action: Change to R2 to preserve
rent-controlled units.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3428 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Address APN ArcGIS Draft LUCE
Land Use
Designations
Draft
Districting
Map
Action Required
2410 Pico Blvd.
(Rite Aid, Next
Door by Josie, and
Josie restaurant) -
(south side)
4273-008-023 C4 MUBL MUBL This is a single lot zoned MUBL in the middle of many blocks NC (19th to 31st). Now that the
parking lot has been correctly returned to R1,
this is spot zoning. The Zoning Administrator
states this isn’t spot zoning because MUBL is
across the street. This isn’t persuasive because
(1) there must be a border established at some
point or the entire city would be MUBL, and (2)
PNA and FOSP have told the City Council that
MUBL is inappropriate for our neighborhoods,
and we have requested NC instead.

Furthermore, this is the only MUBL
bordering R1 in the entire city, so the issues
we raised relating to insufficient buffers
between R1 and commercial, as compared to
R1 and multi-family residential, come into play
here because there are minimal set backs and
height limitations for MUBL directly adjacent to
R1. Requested actions: We request a
Resolution of Intention to change the LUCE
Designation to NC and the Districting Map to
NC.
1925 Pico (Burger
King) (north side)
4274-019-024 C2 MUBL MUBL This is a single lot zoned MUBL in the middle of NC (17th to 21st). This is spot zoning.

Requested actions: A Resolution of Intention
to change the LUCE Designation to NC, and
change the Districting Map to NC.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3429 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Address APN ArcGIS Draft LUCE
Land Use
Designations
Draft
Districting
Map
Action Required
2024 19th Street
(behind 1819 Pico
– The Manor –
north side)
4274-017-017 R2 NC R2 This is currently an apartment building. Rentcontrolled units should be preserved.

Requested actions: We request a Resolution of
Intention to change the LUCE Designation from
NC to R2, and the Districting Map to remain R2.
2019 18th Street
(behind 1801 Pico
Subway sandwich
shop – north side)
4274-017-016 R2 NC R2 This is currently 1-story residential. Rentcontrolled units should be preserved.

Requested action: A Resolution of Intention to
change the LUCE Designation from NC to R2,
and the Districting Map to remain R2.
1930 11th (behind
1021 and 1023
Pico – north side)
4283-024-003 C4 GC GC This is a very old 1-story house, possibly a potential landmark or structure of merit. It
should be preserved. Requested action: A
Resolution of Intention to change the LUCE
Designation from GC to residential, and change
the Districting Map to residential.
1922-1924 11th
(behind 1021 and
1023 Pico – north
4283-024-004 R2 Low Density
Residential
GC This is a cute little 1-story tile-roof duplex
being used for family day care. Family day care
is a priority in the city and should be preserved.

The LUCE Designation is correct at Low Density
Residential. Requested action: Maintain the
LUCE Designation, but change the Districting
Map back to R2.
2683 34th (behind
3401 Ocean Park
Blvd.)
4270-017-019 C2 NC NC This is currently an apartment building. Rentcontrolled units should be preserved.

Requested action: A Resolution of Intention to
change the LUCE Designation from NC to R2,
and change to Districting Map to R2 as well.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3430 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Address APN ArcGIS Draft LUCE
Land Use
Designations
Draft
Districting
Map
Action Required
3401 Ocean Park
Blvd.
4270-017-020 C2 NC NC This is currently an apartment building. Rentcontrolled units should be preserved.

Requested action: A Resolution of Intention to
change the LUCE Designation from NC to R2,
and change to Districting Map to R2 as well.
2644 30th (the
original Google
building and large
parking lot, behind
the retail center on
OPB)
4270-016-084 R1 Single-Unit
Residential
R1 This lot appears to be all one APN. However it
is R1 with a commercial building on part of it
and a parking lot on the rest. Requested
action: Please confirm this is all single family
LUCE Designation and R1 Districting.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3431 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) City Council 6-23-15 Agenda Item 7A (LUCE Map)
From: Nikki Kolhoff ([email protected])
To: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 11:24 AM PDT
To: Mayor McKeown and City Council
RE: 6/23/15 City Council agenda item 7-C: Approve LUCE Amendments and LUCE Land Use Designation Map Amendments
I strongly support the amendment to eliminate the Lincoln/Ocean Park Activity Center low overlay from the LUCE Land Use Designation Map.

I also raise again the LUCE map discrepancies that were brought to your attention by FOSP and remain unresolved by Staff, Planning Commission or City Council. These discrepancies fall into four categories.

1. MUBL in Sunset Park. The MUBL designation is inappropriate for Sunset Park and all such designations should be changed to NC.

Requested actions: A Resolution of Intention to change the LUCE Designation to NC and the Districting Map to NC.

2. Conversion of residential to commercial, similar to the A-lot issue. These are lots that are currently zoned residential and then became commercial on the LUCE Land Use Designation. Like the A-lots, these changes were covertly made by staff to increase the size of commercial lots for development along the boulevards. Just as it was wrong to convert the A-lots to commercial, it is wrong to convert purely residential lots to commercial. The staff has told you that the change on the districting map is merely “clerical” to match the land use designation, but the land use designation was improperly changed from residential to commercial in 2010.

Requested actions: A Resolution of Intention to change the LUCE Designation to Low Density Residential and the Districting Map to R2.
a. 2337 Centinela – This is currently zoned R2 and was changed to MUBL on both the land use designation and districting map. It should be returned to R2. b. 2024 19th Street (behind 1819 Pico – The Manor – north side). This is currently an apartment building zoned R2 but was changed to NC in the LUCE designation and R2 on districting. Rent-controlled units should be preserved so it should be changed to Low Density Residential land use designation.
c. 2019 18th Street (behind 1801 Pico Subway sandwich shop – north side). This is currently 1-story residential zoned R2 but was changed to NC in the LUCE designation and R2 on districting. Rent-controlled units should be preserved so it should be changed to Low Density Residential land use designation.
d. 1922-1924 11th (behind 1021 and 1023 Pico – north). This is a cute little 1-story tileroof duplex being used for family day care and currently zoned R2. The LUCE Designation is correct at Low Density Residential. However, the districting was made GC. Family day care is a priority in the city and should be preserved, and the lot should be changed to R2 on the districting map.

3. Spot Zoning. These are egregious examples of illegal spot zoning.

Requested actions: A Resolution of Intention to change the LUCE Designation to NC and the Districting Map to NC.
5/4/25, 10:42 AM Yahoo Mail - City Council 6-23-15 Agenda Item 7A (LUCE Map) about:blank 1/2
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3432 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) a. 2410 Pico – This parcel (Rite Aid, Next Door by Josie, and Josie restaurant) is a single parcel zoned MUBL in the middle of many blocks of NC (19th to 31st) on the south side of Pico Blvd. Amanda Schachter says this is not spot zoning because there is MUBL “across the street.” First, allowing the designation across the street to justify spot zoning is a slippery slope that will result in increased commercialization in residential districts. There must be a border established at some point or the entire city would be MUBL. Second, now the parking lots behind have been correctly returned to R1, it is the only MUBL bordering R1 in the entire city. If this is not spot zoning, I don’t know what is. b. 1925 Pico – This single parcel (Burger King) is zoned MUBL in the middle of several blocks (17th to 21st) of NC and across the street from NC. This is spot zoning and should not be allowed.

4. Maintaining commercial designations on lots that continue to be residential use. There are significant residential uses on lots that are currently zoned commercial. However, in order to preserve affordable housing and landmark structures, these lots should be designated residential, consistent with their use. In some cases the districting was changed to R2, but land use designation remains commercial in all cases.

Requested actions: A Resolution of Intention to change the LUCE Designation from NC to Low Density Residential, and the Districting Map to become or remain R2. a. 2249 30th St. (behind 3010 Pico – south side – Der Wienerschnitzel) - This is a little row of 1-story bungalows adjacent to the Der Wienerschitzel parking lot. It is currently zoned C4 and was changed to NC under the LUCE. It should be changed to R2 to preserve rentcontrolled units. b. 1930 11th (behind 1021 and 1023 Pico – north side). This is a very old 1-story house, possibly a potential landmark or structure of merit. It is currently zoned C4 and was made GC on the LUCE designation and districting maps. However, it should be preserved and changed to residential.
c. 2683 34th (behind 3401 Ocean Park Blvd.). This is currently an apartment building and currently zoned C2. It was made NC on both the designation and districting maps.

However, rent-controlled units should be preserved so this should be changed to residential. d. 3401 Ocean Park Blvd. This is currently an apartment building. Rent-controlled units should be preserved.

We would also appreciate clarification that 2644 30th (the original Google building and large parking lot, behind the retail center on OPB) is R1. This lot appears to be all one APN. However it is R1 with a commercial building on part of it and a parking lot on the rest. Please confirm this is all single family LUCE Designation and R1 Districting.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
2628 29th Street
[email protected]
5/4/25, 10:42 AM Yahoo Mail - City Council 6-23-15 Agenda Item 7A (LUCE Map) about:blank 2/2
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3433 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3434 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3435 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3436 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3437 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3438 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3439 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3440 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3441 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3442 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3443 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3444 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3445 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3446 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3447 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3448 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3449 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3450 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3451 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3452 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3453 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3454 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3455 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3456 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3457 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3458 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3459 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3460 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3461 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3462 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3463 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3464 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3465 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3466 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3467 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3468 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3469 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3470 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3471 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3472 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3473 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3474 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3475 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3476 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3477 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3478 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3479 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3480 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3481 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3482 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3483 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3484 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3485 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3486 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3487 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3488 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3489 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3490 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3491 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3492 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3493 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3494 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3495 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3496 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3497 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3498 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 7 David Yakobson
From: Alex Novakovich <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2025 10:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Alex Novakovich
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3499 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 8 David Yakobson
From: John Reynolds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 6:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers, I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning. The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2- story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height.

This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets. 2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2-story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning? 3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning. Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning. Sincerely, John Reynolds 17th street, SM 90405 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3500 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 9 David Yakobson
From: Josh Marcus <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 6:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential).

The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets.
1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets. 2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2-story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Joshua Marcus
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3501 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 10 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 6:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential).

The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets.
1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets. 2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2-story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Megan FitzGerald
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3502 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 11 David Yakobson
From: Rose Nordbrock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 6:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Rose Nordbrock; Mark Nordbrock
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Rose Nordbrock
Across the street from 2644 30th Street
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3503 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 12 David Yakobson
From: Danielle Borgia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 6:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential).

The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets.
1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets. 2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2-story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3504 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 13 David Yakobson
From: Karen Taylor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 6:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Karen Taylor
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3505 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 14 David Yakobson
From: Brian Lanich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 6:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Brian Lanich
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3506 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 15 David Yakobson
From: Lynn Novatt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 6:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Lynn Novatt
90405
Sent from my mini computer
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3507 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 16 David Yakobson
From: katcera2 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 6:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3508 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 17 David Yakobson
From: Jenny Blum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 6:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Blum
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3509 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 18 David Yakobson
From: Tom Nunziato <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 6:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential).

The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets.
1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets. 2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2-story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
90405
Get Outlook for iOS
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3510 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 19 David Yakobson
From: Betty Green <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 6:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential).

The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets.
1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets. 2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2-story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
[Your Name] Betty L. Green
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3511 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 20 David Yakobson
From: Josh Newman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers, I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning. The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2- story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height.

This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets. 2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2-story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning? 3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning. Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning. Sincerely, Josh Newman
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3512 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 21 David Yakobson
From: Jacquelyn Lawson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:04 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Jacquelyn Lawson
2421 22nd Street
Santa Monica, CA
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3513 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 22 David Yakobson
From: Lynda M Rush <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Lynda Rush
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3514 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 23 David Yakobson
From: Jennifer Levitt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
My name is Jennifer Levitt. I’ve owned my home in Santa Monica since 2008 and write with deep concern about the development decision-making I’ve witnessed by this Council.

I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

I hope this Council chooses to protect residents rather than authorize inappropriate development. I will certainly follow this and vote against any members advancing a development agenda in the next election.

Thank you,
Jennifer Levitt
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3515 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 24 David Yakobson
From: Tina <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Friends of Sunset Park
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers, I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning. The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets. 2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2-story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning? 3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning. Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Tina Cox
90405
Tina
"Time spent with cats is never wasted"
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3516 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 25 David Yakobson
From: Mayra Herrera <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Mayra Herrera
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3517 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 26 David Yakobson
From: Dalila Fuentes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Dalila Fuentes
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3518 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 27 David Yakobson
From: Dalila Fuentes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Dalila Fuentes
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3519 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 28 David Yakobson
From: RONNA JOSEPH <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Ronna Joseph
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3520 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 29 David Yakobson
From: Allyson Dworkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Allyson Dworkin
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3521 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 30 David Yakobson
From: Faustino Garza <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential).

The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets.
1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets. 2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2-story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3522 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 31 David Yakobson
From: REM Thimble <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
90405
Sent from my iPad
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3523 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 32 David Yakobson
From: mwdobbs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Michael Dobbs
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3524 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 33 David Yakobson
From: Jenny Monbouquette <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

PLEASE!!!!
The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?!!!!!!!!!
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

PLEASE LISTEN TO US AND OPPOSE THESE CRAZY HEIGHTS!!!!

Jenny Monbouquette
90405
Jenny Monbouquette
(310)266-3665
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3525 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 34 David Yakobson
From: Nathan Tippe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 8:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets.
1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets. 2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2-story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Nathan
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3526 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 35 David Yakobson
From: Ben <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 8:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – OPPOSE rezone of 2644 30th

EXTERNAL
Please oppose upzoning 2644 30th Street and exempt its parking lot. An 85-foot building doesn’t belong across from 1- and 2-story homes. —Ben Wang 90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3527 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 36 David Yakobson
From: Harold Monbouquette <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 8:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Harold Monbouquette
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3528 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 37 David Yakobson
From: Ellen Hiura <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 8:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Ellen Hiura
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3529 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 38 David Yakobson
From: Geoff Coster <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 8:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential).

The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets.
1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets. 2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2-story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Geoff Coster
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3530 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 39 David Yakobson
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 8:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning. The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.

2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2-story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning? 3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning. Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Phyllis Chavez
Sunset Park/90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3531 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 40 David Yakobson
From: Karen Melick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 8:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, which is located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center with the Il Forno restaurant and The Counter, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height. This is much too tall for a property that is directly cross the street from homes on 29th and 30 Streets. 1) The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residential neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. The 2644 30th parcel extends even further into the residential neighborhood and is located directly across the street from homes on 29th and 30th Streets.
2) If 2644 30th is rezoned Neighborhood Commercial, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses, it could be replaced with a 85-foot tall building, directly across the street from 1- and 2- story homes. The parcel is not even located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
3) The Council is also being given the option to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, I urge you a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Sincerely,
Karen Melick
Sunset Park resident
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 3532 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) City Council
2644 30th St LUCE & Zoning Map Amendment
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 3533 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Purpose
• Consider amendments to the Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Map and Official Districting Map for a portion of parcel located at 2644 30th Street Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 3534 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Background
• City Council – 5/13/25
• Voted to table the item with direction to staff to explore possible options regarding flexibility for legal nonconforming uses instead of LUCE & Zoning map amendment • Public comment raised concerns regarding spot zoning • Since that time, the property owner has renewed requests for reconsideration of the item, and has provided additional information regarding leasing status of the building • As part of staff’s consideration of this matter, we have also worked to identify ways in which the City can address resident concerns related to potential redevelopment activities for the property Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 3535 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Legal Non-Conforming Uses • What does it mean to be legal non-conforming? • Means that a use was legally established in compliance with zoning that previously existing before change to current zoning
• What is allowed with a legal non-conforming use?
• Use is allowed to remain but not expand
• If a tenant leaves, subsequent uses must be similar to the prior legal non-conforming use and must resume within 1 year, or a use must then conform with current zoning • Legal non-conforming rules apply citywide
• Amendments to that section would have broad applicability with potential for unintended consequences including allowing legal non-conforming uses to expand and persist indefinitely Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 3536 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 2644 30th Street – Zoning History
• Building was constructed in approximately 1956
• Unclear if all surface parking lot spaces are required • Since 1961, parcel was designated as C2 (matches current NC zoning) • An inadvertent change to the property occurred via the LUCE Single Family designation in 2010 and R1 zoning in 2015
• No evidence in legislative record that the map change was discussed publicly or made deliberately
• 2015 ZO update – effort to correct unintentional mapping errors where commercial uses were changed to residential zoning
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 3537 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 2644 30th Street – Zoning History
1984 LUCE 1988 Zoning 2010 LUCE/current 2015 Zoning/ Current Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 3538 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 2644 30th Street – Additional Information
• Current owner purchased the property in 1987
• One tenant has an expiring lease in February 2027 and efforts to re-lease need to start in February 2026
• Property owner states that non-conforming condition presents impediments to future leasing and financing
• It is not impossible to lease and / or finance a building that is legal nonconforming • However, the process of leasing and financing are made more difficult and challenging when dealing with a legal non-conforming structure Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 3539 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 2644 30th Street – Existing Conditions
• Existing Use: 35,000 sf office building with adjacent surface parking lot (approximately 100 parking spaces) • Existing Zoning: R1 • Existing LUCE: Single Family
• Existing R1 Zoning/LUCE does not permit commercial use Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 3540 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) 2644 30th Street – Proposed Map Amendment • Zoning
• Existing: R1
• Proposed (Office Building only): NC
• LUCE
• Existing: Single Family
• Proposed (Office Building only): Neighborhood Commercial • Would allow property owner to pursue re-leasing and financing efforts to fill pending vacancies without facilitating large-scale redevelopment • Property owner has also voluntarily offered to execute a covenant with City confirming that for 10 years, the property owner will not: • Redevelop the R1 zoned surface parking lot • Redevelop the commercial lots utilizing new NC zoning standards Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 3541 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Spot Zoning
• Spot zoning may occur when a small parcel of property is subject to more or less restrictive zoning than the surrounding properties creating an “island” in the middle of a larger area devoted to other uses
• Proposed amendments do not appear to constitute spot zoning • Would simply expand existing NC zone adjacent to the office building • Would not result in an “island” of commercial use surrounded by residential use on all sides Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 3542 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Parking Lot Development Standards
• On July 29, the City Council directed that staff develop options for revising development standards related to surface parking lots associated with commercial corridors • If the proposed map amendments at 2644 30th Street are approved, future implementation of this direction would apply to the existing parking lot located on the parcel • Given that the property is currently zoned R1, staff would recommend that the City Council consider excluding this particular surface parking lot from any future development standard amendment for housing projects
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 3543 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) Recommendation

1. Adopt finding the proposed amendments are exempt from CEQA

2. Adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map for portion of the parcel at 2644 30th St

3. Introduce for first reading an ordinance amending the Official Districting Map for a portion of the parcel at 2644 30th St

4. Consider excluding the surface parking lot at 2644 30th St from being eligible to use future development standard amendments for housing projects Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 3544 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7288 : Map Amendments for 2644 30th Street) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 30, 2025
Agenda Item: 12.B
1 of 8
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jing Yeo, Director, Administration
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution to Amend the Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Map and the Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Official Districting Map for the Parcel Located at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding that the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and Official Districting Map are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, consistent with the findings set forth in the “Environmental Review” section of this Report;

2. Adopt a Resolution Amending the Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Map for the Parcel Located at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard; and

3. Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance Amending the Official Districting Map for the Parcel Located at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard.

Summary
On May 13, 2025, staff brought forth for City Council’s consideration map amendments to the Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Map and Official District Map for the parcel located at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard, along with updates related to State law. After receiving public comment and engaging in discussion, Council voted to table the item to a later date with direction for staff to explore possible options that could be proposed to provide flexibility regarding legal non-conforming uses instead of a General Plan and Zoning map amendment.

Subsequent to the Council’s direction, there have been renewed requests from the property owner and also recent interest from new non-retail tenants in occupying the

12.B
Packet Pg. 3545
2 of 8
vacant building. However, the partial residential zoning of the building would only allow a future use similar to the prior Rite Aid retail use. Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 9.27 regulates non-conforming uses and structures, in part, by limiting the expansion of legal non-confirming uses, and the chapter has citywide applicability.

Amendments to that chapter to allow for more flexibility related to legal non-conforming uses could be utilized to address the situation at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard, however, such a modification would have broad and potentially unknown and unintended impacts to legal non-conforming uses throughout the city. Given that there are hundreds of legal non-conforming parcels throughout the City, a change to SMMC Chapter 9.27 could potentially allow incompatible commercial uses in other parts of Santa Monica to persist indefinitely. As a result, staff does not believe that amendments to that chapter would be appropriate to address the issues presented at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard.

The subject parcel is currently “split zoned”, as it is located within both the Mixed-Use Boulevard (MUB) and Low Density Residential (R2) Zoning Districts with the split occurring through the rear portion of an existing commercial building. The General Plan designations for the parcel are similarly split. The subject map amendments will only be for a portion of the parcel to expand the Mixed-Use Boulevard zoning district and General Plan designation to encompass the entirety of the existing commercial structure and the immediately abutting single row of accessible parking and loading area.

Taking into account the totality of the proposed changes, these amendments are intended to correct a mapping error that has resulted in nonconforming conditions and impedes the ability to securing leasing and financing for the existing commercial building. Of particular note, the surface parking lot to the north (1224 14th Street) is not included in the proposed map amendments, with the parking lot set to remain as R2 and Low Density Residential land use designations.

Discussion
On May 13, 2025, staff brought forth for City Council’s consideration map amendments to the Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Map and Official District Map for the parcel located at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard that is predominantly developed with a commercial

12.B
Packet Pg. 3546
3 of 8
retail building; however, the item was tabled by Council to a later date. The report below summarizes the parcel’s current conditions and issues, as well as the proposed map amendments. Additionally, staff requests direction from Council regarding the applicability of future development standard amendments for surface parking lots pursuant to Council direction.

Existing zoning of the subject parcel and
surrounding area. Red outline shows the location
of the proposed map amendments to MUB (purple
color).

Aerial view of the subject parcel and
surrounding area. Red outline shows the location
of the existing commercial building and adjacent
accessible parking and loading area, and is the
area subject to the proposed map amendments.

Current Parcel Conditions and Issues
The subject parcel, which is improved with a commercial building and associated immediately adjacent surface parking lot, is currently “split zoned” with the front twothirds along Wilshire Boulevard being zoned MUB and the rear one-third being zoned as R2. The Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) designations are similarly split.

The origin of this split zoning condition appears to have been created in error when the Official District Map was updated in 2015. Originally, the LUCE update in 2010 designated the entire parcel as Mixed Use Boulevard, which is comprised of four connected lots. However, in 2015 only the three lots adjacent to Wilshire Boulevard remained as MUB and the fourth lot that is part building / part loading area and accessible parking was changed to R2.

R2
Zone MUB
Zone

12.B
Packet Pg. 3547
4 of 8
This split zoning runs through the existing structure and therefore makes the rear R2 portion of the building nonconforming. This means that a portion of the existing building (formerly occupied by Rite Aid, a retail use) is not allowed by the underlying R2 zoning for the property but in accordance with SMMC Chapter 9.27 (nonconforming uses), the use is allowed to remain, but not expand, since it was established before the R2 zoning was enacted. This means that the only allowable future use of the building is a use similar to the former Rite Aid retail use. This has presented issues in potential reuse and leasing of the property with other non-retail commercial uses since commercial uses are generally prohibited in the R2 zoning district.

Subject site demonstrating
mapping error
Aerial view demonstrating split zoning
through existing building. Red outline shows
proposed map amendment to MUB (purple color)
Proposed Map Amendments
Given the development history of the parcel and issues the current split zoning has created for the parcel, staff recommends the following map amendments:

Address APN Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Existing
LUCE
Proposed
LUCE
1331 Wilshire
Blvd
4281-
012-
025
MUB (Mixed Use
Boulevard) /
R2 (Low Density
Residential)
MUB
Mixed Use
Boulevard/
Low Density
Housing
Mixed Use
Boulevard

12.B
Packet Pg. 3548
5 of 8
Questions Raised On May 13, 2025
Questions arose during the last City Council hearing regarding whether this proposed amendment would constitute spot zoning. Spot zoning may occur when a small parcel of property is subject to more or less restrictive zoning than the surrounding properties, thereby creating an “island” in the middle of a larger area devoted to other uses. Staff has reviewed the proposed map amendments in light of questions related to spot zoning raised at the May 13 public hearing, The proposed map amendments here do not appear to constitute spot-zoning, as they would simply expand the MUB zone so that it applies to the entire commercial building and would not create an “island” commercial use surrounded by residential use on all sides.

Even if the amendments do constitute spot-zoning, they may be nonetheless permissible if the record demonstrates that spot zoning for a particular site is in the public interest (Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1306, 1314). Here, staff recommends that Council approve the proposed amendments based on consistency with the general plan, as supported by substantial evidence, and because it is in the public interest to ensure that vacant commercial space can be leased for the existing building and thereby reducing vacancies in the City.

In addition, questions were raised related to whether it was more appropriate to amend the City’s rules related to legal non-conforming uses rather than the proposed map amendments, and when tabling this item, Council directed staff to return with options related to amendments to the City’s rules for legal nonconforming uses. After review, staff does not recommend amendments to Chapter 9.27 to allow for more flexibility for legal nonconforming uses. As rezonings occur, any use that is legally existing on the property at the time of the rezone that is no longer permitted under the new underlying zoning is considered legal nonconforming. SMMC Chapter 9.27 sets forth the City’s rules related to legal non-conforming uses throughout the city, generally allowing those

12.B
Packet Pg. 3549
6 of 8
uses to continue, but not expand. Additional flexibility could be created to allow the property at 1331 Wilshire to be released, however, that change would be of broad applicability to all legal nonconforming uses throughout the city. Given that there are hundreds of legally nonconforming uses in Santa Monica, such a change could have unintended consequences by allowing incompatible uses in other parts of the City to expand.

Additional Considerations/Council Direction
On July 29, 2025, City Council gave the following direction that staff develop options for revising development standards to effectively implement Housing Element Program 1.C, by assessing development standard updates to incentivize housing project along transit corridors, including on surface parking lots associated with commercial corridors.

If the proposed map amendments to 1331 Wilshire Boulevard are approved, future implementation of the above direction regarding surface parking lots will apply to the existing parking lot to the north (1122 14th Street), as it would be adjacent to a commercial zoning district (MUB). As the proposed map amendments were brought forth for Council’s consideration prior to the above direction, staff requests additional direction regarding the applicability of the upcoming implementation of Council’s direction regarding surface parking lots. Specifically, staff would like the following direction from Council:

Policy Question:

Due to the fact that a portion of the property is currently zoned residential, does Council want to exclude the surface parking lot located at 1122 14th Street from being eligible to use future amendments to the development standards for surface parking lots for housing projects?
Yes, exclude the surface parking lot located at 1122 14th Street. (Staff will review options as to how to restrict the use of the program to not apply to the subject parcel. This could potentially be accomplished by including a date as to when a surface parking lot had to be adjacent to a commercial district.)

12.B
Packet Pg. 3550
7 of 8
No, allow the surface parking lot located at 1122 14th Street to be eligible for future development standards amendments.

Environmental Review
The amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and Official Districting map are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The map amendments are proposed to correct zoning and land use designations that were erroneous. No change in the physical environment would result, because there would be no change to existing conditions on the parcel, no development is proposed as part of the map amendments, and the amendments only implement existing regulations. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments may have a significant effect on the environment and accordingly, the amendments are exempt from CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3).

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

Prepared By: Ross Fehrman, Acting Planning Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council

12.B
Packet Pg. 3551
8 of 8
Attachments:

A. 2025.09.30 - Wilshire Blvd. Districting Map Amendments Resolution B. 2025.09.30 - Wilshire Blvd. Districting Map Amendments Ordinance C. PowerPoint Presentation

12.B
Packet Pg. 3552
1 City Council Meeting _________ Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

AMENDING THE SANTA MONICA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 1331 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the parcel has a “split designation” and “split zoning”, with the front two-thirds along Wilshire Blvd being designated Mixed Use Boulevard in the General Plan Land Use Map and zoned Mixed-Use Boulevard (MUB) in the Official Districting Map, and the rear one-third being designated as Low Density Housing in the General Plan Land Use Map and zoned as Low Density Residential (R2) in the Official Districting Map; and
WHEREAS, the existing “split zoning” runs through the existing structure, creating a nonconforming condition for the rear portion of the parcel; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 2010, the City Council adopted the Land Use and Circulation Element (“LUCE”) of the City’s General Plan, which included an amendment to the General Plan Use Map; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015, the City adopted a revised Zoning Ordinance, which included a revised Official Districting Map; and
WHEREAS, when the General Plan Land Use and the Official Districting Maps were amended as part of the 2015 Zoning Ordinance update, a portion of the parcel was changed to Low Density Housing in the General Plan Land Use Map and zoned as R2 in the Official Districting Map, respectively; and

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 3553 Attachment: 2025.09.30 - Wilshire Blvd. Districting Map Amendments Resolution (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) 2 WHEREAS, this rezoning to R2 appears to have been inadvertent given the longstanding use of the property; and
WHEREAS, during the public review process and in the course of analyzing the boundaries of the newly created zoning districts, inconsistencies between the adopted LUCE Land Use Designation Map and the then existing Official Districting Map were identified as reflected in the April 14, 2015, Staff Report to City Council; and WHEREAS, as a result of the identified inconsistencies, City Staff attempted to compare the LUCE Map with the existing Official Districting Map in the City, to generate a listing of inconsistent parcels, and
WHEREAS, a list of 115 parcels with such inconsistencies (“Inconsistent Parcel List”) was prepared and included with the Staff Report to the Planning Commission and were reviewed in detail on June 18, 2014 and October 1, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Inconsistent Parcel List was also included and discussed in the April 14, 2015, City Council Staff Report and reviewed by the City Council prior to their voting on the Zoning Ordinance Districting Map; and WHEREAS, the majority of these inconsistent parcels were those in the City whose land designations were changed to a commercial designation with the adoption of the LUCE Land Use Designation Map and were inconsistent with their predominantly residential zoning or partial residential zoning; and WHEREAS, however, a portion of the properties on the Inconsistent Parcel List were those designated commercial/industrial on the then-existing Official Districting Map and improved with commercial/industrial uses but had been designated residential on the 2010 LUCE map; and

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 3554 Attachment: 2025.09.30 - Wilshire Blvd. Districting Map Amendments Resolution (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) 3 WHEREAS, the subject parcel appears to be similarly situated to these previously identified formerly commercial/industrial parcels; however, the subject parcel was inadvertently not included on the Inconsistent Parcel List; and WHEREAS, on May 5, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) amending the LUCE map to, among other things, change the LUCE designation for certain parcels that had been identified on the Inconsistent Parcel List as having inconsistent LUCE and then-existing Zoning Districting Map designations; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015, the City adopted a revised Zoning Ordinance, which included a revised Districting Map that designated a portion of the existing commercial structure as R2; and
WHEREAS, the “split zoning” has presented issues in potential reuse and leasing of the property as commercial uses are generally prohibited in the Low Density Residential zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the change of the parcel to the Low Density Residential designation has resulted in the existing building becoming a legal, nonconforming building and the existing uses becoming legal, nonconforming uses and, thus, creates impediments to future financing and leasing opportunities; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2025, pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.45.060(B), the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Number 25-003 (PCS), a Resolution of Intention, declaring its intention to consider recommending to the City Council that the Council, among other things, amend the Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Map and Official Districting Map for the City of Santa Monica for the parcel located at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard; and

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 3555 Attachment: 2025.09.30 - Wilshire Blvd. Districting Map Amendments Resolution (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) 4 WHEREAS, amending the General Plan Land Use Map to designate the entire parcel located at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard as Mixed Use Boulevard will correct the prior inadvertent designation and reflect the longstanding use of the subject parcel, removing impediments to future leasing/changes of use and financing of the subject parcel; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, and after considering oral and written testimony, adopted a Resolution of Recommendation, Resolution Number 25-005 (PCS), recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Map for the parcel located at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard for consistent designation; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed hearing, and, after considering all oral and written testimony, decided to table the adoption of the amendments to the Official Districting Map to a later date; and WHEREAS, after renewed requests from the property owner and also recent interest from non-retail tenants to occupy the vacant building, on September 30, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed hearing, and, after considering all oral and written testimony, desires to amend the Official Districting Map for the parcel located at 1331 Wilshire Blvd. as set forth below.

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

SECTION 1. Amendments to the General Plan Map. Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.45.080, the City Council does hereby amend the General Plan Land Use Map for the parcel located at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard because the subject parcel is currently designated as both Mixed Use Boulevard and Low Density Housing

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 3556 Attachment: 2025.09.30 - Wilshire Blvd. Districting Map Amendments Resolution (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) 5 but has long been developed with a commercial use. This “split designation” runs through the existing commercial development, and, therefore, has resulted in the Low Density Housing portion being nonconforming, presenting issues in potential reuse of the property. Additionally, the split designation presents a constraint on potential redevelopment of the parcel as two incongruous sets of land use regulations and development standards would be applied to the parcel. This proposed change designating the entire parcel as Mixed Use Boulevard will provide a consistent General Plan designation for the parcel, eliminate the nonconforming condition and impediments to future leasing/changes of use and financing of the subject parcel, ensure consistency between the General Plan Land Use Map and the Official Districting Map, and address any nonconforming conditions, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached to this Resolution.:

SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Heidi von Tonglen,
Interim City Attorney

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 3557 Attachment: 2025.09.30 - Wilshire Blvd. Districting Map Amendments Resolution (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) 6 EXHIBIT A
Amendment to the Land Use Map of the General Plan for the Parcel Located at 1331 Wilshire Blvd.

Address APN Zoning
Classification
Proposed
1331 Wilshire Blvd 4281-012-
025
Mixed Use
Boulevard / Low
Density Residential
Mixed Use Boulevard
Mixed Use
Boulevard
Low Density Housing
portion to be designated
Mixed Use Boulevard

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 3558 Attachment: 2025.09.30 - Wilshire Blvd. Districting Map Amendments Resolution (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) 1 City Council Meeting: September 30, 2025 Santa Monica, California

ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

AMENDING THE OFFICIAL DISTRICTING MAP OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA REGARDING 1331 WILSHIRE BLVD.

WHEREAS, the parcel located at 1331 Wilshire Blvd (the parcel also shown on the map included in Attachment “A”) is currently improved with longstanding retail use; and
WHEREAS, the parcel has a “split designation” and “split zoning”, with the front two-thirds along Wilshire Blvd being designated Mixed Use Boulevard in the General Plan Land Use Map and zoned Mixed-Use Boulevard (MUB) in the Official Districting Map, and the rear one-third being designated as Low Density Housing in the General Plan Land Use Map and zoned as Low Density Residential (R2) in the Official Districting Map; and
WHEREAS, the existing “split zoning” runs through the existing structure, creating a nonconforming condition for the rear portion of the parcel; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 2010, the City Council adopted the Land Use and Circulation Element (“LUCE”) of the City’s General Plan, which included an amendment to the General Plan Use Map; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015, the City adopted a revised Zoning Ordinance, which included a revised Official Districting Map; and
WHEREAS, when the General Plan Land Use and the Official Districting Maps were amended as part of the 2015 Zoning Ordinance update, a portion of the subject

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 3559 Attachment: 2025.09.30 - Wilshire Blvd. Districting Map Amendments Ordinance (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) 2 parcel was changed to Low Density Housing in the General Plan Land Use Map and zoned as R2 in the Official Districting Map, respectively; and WHEREAS, this rezoning to R2 appears to have been inadvertent given the longstanding use of the property; and
WHEREAS, during the public review process and in the course of analyzing the boundaries of the newly created zoning districts, inconsistencies between the adopted LUCE Land Use Designation Map and the then existing Official Districting Map were identified as reflected in the April 14, 2015, Staff Report to City Council; and WHEREAS, as a result of the identified inconsistencies, City Staff attempted to compare the LUCE Map with the existing Official Districting Map in the City, to generate a listing of inconsistent parcels, and
WHEREAS, a list of 115 parcels with such inconsistencies (“Inconsistent Parcel List”) was prepared and included with the Staff Report to the Planning Commission and were reviewed in detail on June 18, 2014 and October 1, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Inconsistent Parcel List was also included and discussed in the April 14, 2015, City Council Staff Report and reviewed by the City Council prior to their voting on the Zoning Ordinance Districting Map; and
WHEREAS, the majority of these inconsistent parcels were those in the City whose land designations were changed to a commercial designation with the adoption of the LUCE Land Use Designation Map and were inconsistent with their predominantly residential zoning or partial residential zoning; and
WHEREAS, however, a portion of the properties on the Inconsistent Parcel List were those designated commercial/industrial on the then-existing Official Districting Map

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 3560 Attachment: 2025.09.30 - Wilshire Blvd. Districting Map Amendments Ordinance (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) 3 and improved with commercial/industrial uses but had been designated residential on the 2010 LUCE map; and
WHEREAS, the subject parcel appears to be similarly situated to these previously identified formerly commercial/industrial parcels; however, the subject parcel was inadvertently not included on the Inconsistent Parcel List; and WHEREAS, on May 5, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) amending the LUCE map to, among other things, change the LUCE designation for certain parcels that had been identified on the Inconsistent Parcel List as having inconsistent LUCE and then-existing Zoning Districting Map designations; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015, the City adopted a revised Zoning Ordinance, which included a revised Districting Map that designated a portion of the existing commercial structure as R2; and
WHEREAS, the “split zoning” has presented issues in potential reuse and leasing of the property as commercial uses are generally prohibited in the R2 zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the change of the subject parcel to the R2 designation has resulted in the existing building becoming a legal, nonconforming building and the existing uses becoming legal, nonconforming uses and, thus, creates impediments to future financing and leasing opportunities; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2025, pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.45.060(B), the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Number 25-003 (PCS), a Resolution of Intention, declaring its intention to consider recommending to the City Council that the Council, among other things, amend the General Plan Land Use

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 3561 Attachment: 2025.09.30 - Wilshire Blvd. Districting Map Amendments Ordinance (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) 4 Map and Official Districting Map of the City of Santa Monica for the subject parcel located at 1331 Wilshire Blvd.; and
WHEREAS, amending the Official Districting Map to zone the entire parcel located at 1331 Wilshire Blvd. as MUB will correct the prior inadvertent designation and reflect the longstanding use of the subject parcel, removing impediments to future leasing/changes of use and financing of the subject parcel; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, and, after considering oral and written testimony regarding the proposed amendments to the Official Districting Map, adopted Resolution Number 25- 006 (PCS), recommending that the City Council amend the Official Districting Map for the parcel located at 1331 Wilshire Blvd. based on the following findings:

1. The change in district boundaries is consistent in principle with the General Plan in that the proposed amendments will provide consistency between existing development and the Official Districting Map. Currently, the parcel has been “split zoned” with the front two-thirds along Wilshire Blvd being classified MUB (Mixed-Use Boulevard), and the rear one-third being classified as R2 (Low Density Residential). This split zoning runs through the existing structure and therefore makes the rear R2 portion nonconforming. This presents issues in potential reuse of the property as commercial uses are generally prohibited in the R2 zoning district and a constraint on potential redevelopment of the parcel as two incongruous sets of land use regulations and development standards would be applied to the parcel. The proposed change will rectify this issue by aligning the Official Districting Map with existing development for the entirety of the parcel; and

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 3562 Attachment: 2025.09.30 - Wilshire Blvd. Districting Map Amendments Ordinance (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) 5 2. The change in district boundaries is consistent with the purpose of this Ordinance to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the subject parcel has “split zoning” with the front two-thirds along Wilshire Blvd being classified MUB (Mixed-Use Boulevard), and the rear one-third being classified as R2 (Low Density Residential) that runs through the existing commercial development. This has resulted in the rear R2 portion of the existing use as being considered nonconforming and has presented constraints on potential redevelopment of the parcel as two incongruous sets of land use regulations and development standards would be applied to the parcel. The proposed change will amend this issue by aligning the Official Districting Map with existing development for the entirety of the parcel; and

3. The change in district boundaries is necessary to achieve the balance of land uses desired by the City, consistent with the General Plan, and to increase the inventory of land within a given Zoning District in that the subject parcel currently has “split zoning”, with the front two-thirds along Wilshire Blvd being classified MUB (Mixed-Use Boulevard), and the rear one-third being classified as R2 (Low Density Residential). This has created issues regarding nonconforming uses with the same structure and redevelopment of the parcel as the current two zoning districts have conflicting land use regulations and development standards. The proposed change will amend this issue by aligning the Official Districting Map with existing development for the entirety of the parcel; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed hearing,

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 3563 Attachment: 2025.09.30 - Wilshire Blvd. Districting Map Amendments Ordinance (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) 6 and, after considering all oral and written testimony, decided to table the adoption of the amendments to the Official Districting Map to a later date; and WHEREAS, after renewed requests from the property owner and also recent interest from non-retail tenants in occupy the vacant building, on September 30, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed hearing, and, after considering all oral and written testimony, desires to amend the Official Districting Map for the parcel located at 1331 Wilshire Blvd. as set forth below.

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

SECTION 1. Based upon the oral and written testimony presented to the City Council at the public hearing on September 30, 2025, regarding the proposed change to the Official Districting Map for the subject parcel located at 1331 Wilshire Blvd, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:

1. The change in district boundaries is consistent in principle with the General Plan in that the proposed amendments will provide consistency between existing development and the Official Districting Map. Currently, the parcel has been “split zoned” with the front two-thirds along Wilshire Blvd being classified Mixed-Use Boulevard (MUB), and the rear one-third being classified as Low Density Residential (R2). This split zoning runs through the existing structure and therefore makes the rear R2 portion nonconforming. This presents issues in potential reuse of the property as commercial uses are generally prohibited in the R2 zoning district and a constraint on future leasing and financing of the existing vacant building. The proposed change will rectify this issue by aligning the Official Districting Map with existing development for the entirety of the parcel;

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 3564 Attachment: 2025.09.30 - Wilshire Blvd. Districting Map Amendments Ordinance (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) 7 and

2. The change in district boundaries is consistent with the purpose of this Ordinance to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the subject parcel has “split zoning” with the front two-thirds along Wilshire Blvd being classified Mixed-Use Boulevard (MUB), and the rear one-third being classified as Low Density Residential (R2) that runs through the existing commercial development. This has resulted in the rear R2 portion of the existing use as being considered nonconforming and has presented constraints on future leasing and financing of the existing vacant building. The proposed change will amend this issue by aligning the Official Districting Map with existing development for the entirety of the parcel; and

3. The change in district boundaries is necessary to achieve the balance of land uses desired by the City, consistent with the General Plan, and to increase the inventory of land within a given Zoning District in that the subject parcel currently has “split zoning”, with the front two-thirds along Wilshire Blvd being classified Mixed-Use Boulevard (MUB), and the rear one-third being classified as Low Density Residential (R2). This has created issues regarding nonconforming uses within the same structure and the future leasing and financing of the existing vacant building. The proposed change will amend this issue by aligning the Official Districting Map with existing development for the entirety of the parcel.

SECTION 2. The City of Santa Monica Official Districting Map is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto.

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 3565 Attachment: 2025.09.30 - Wilshire Blvd. Districting Map Amendments Ordinance (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) 8 SECTION 3. Any provision of the Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

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

SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

HEIDI VON TONGELN
Interim City Attorney

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 3566 Attachment: 2025.09.30 - Wilshire Blvd. Districting Map Amendments Ordinance (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) 9 EXHIBIT A
Amendment to the Zoning Designation in the Official Districting Map for the Parcel Located at 1331 Wilshire Blvd.

Address APN Zoning
Classification
Proposed
1331 Wilshire Blvd 4281-012-
025
MUB (Mixed Use
Boulevard)/R2
(Low Density
Residential)
MUB (Mixed Use Boulevard)
MUB
Zoning
District
R2 portion of
the parcel to be
rezoned MUB

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 3567 Attachment: 2025.09.30 - Wilshire Blvd. Districting Map Amendments Ordinance (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) City Council
1331 Wilshire LUCE & Zoning Map Amendment
September 30, 2025
Item 12-B
September 30, 2025
Item 12-B
September 30, 2025

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 3568 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) Purpose
• Amendments to the Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Map and Official Districting Map for portion of parcel located at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard Item 12-B
September 30, 2025
Item 12-B
September 30, 2025

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 3569 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) Background
• City Council 5/13/25
• Voted to table the item with direction to staff to explore possible options regarding flexibility for legal nonconforming uses instead of LUCE & Zoning map amendment • Public comment raised concerns regarding spot zoning • Property owner has renewed requests for reconsideration of the item and recent interest from non-retail tenants to occupy the vacant building
Item 12-B
September 30, 2025
Item 12-B
September 30, 2025

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 3570 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) Legal Non-Conforming Uses • What does it mean to be legal non-conforming? • A use was legally established in compliance with zoning that previously existing before change to current zoning • What is allowed?
• Use is allowed to remain but not expand
• If a tenant leaves, subsequent uses must be similar to the prior legal non-conforming use and must resume within 1 year or a use must conform with current zoning • Legal non-conforming rules apply citywide
• Amendments to that section would have broad applicability with potential for unintended consequences including allowing legal non-conforming uses to expand and persist indefinitely Item 12-B
September 30, 2025
Item 12-B
September 30, 2025

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 3571 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) 1331 Wilshire Boulevard – Zoning History
• An inadvertent change to the property occurred via the LUCE Low Density Residential designation in 2010 and R2 zoning in 2015 • No evidence in legislative record that the map change was discussed publicly or made deliberately
Item 12-B
September 30, 2025
Item 12-B
September 30, 2025

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 3572 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) 1331 Wilshire Boulevard – Existing Conditions
Existing building was formerly occupied by Rite-Aid • Existing Split Zoning: MUB/R2 • Existing Split LUCE: Mixed Use Boulevard/Low Density Residential Existing R2 Zoning in only on rear portion of building and does not permit commercial uses
R2
MUB
R2
Item 12-B
September 30, 2025
Item 12-B
September 30, 2025

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 3573 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) 1331 Wilshire Boulevard – Proposed Map Amendment • Zoning • Existing Split Zoning: MUB/R2 • Proposed Zoning: MUB
• LUCE
• Existing Split LUCE: Mixed Use Boulevard/Low Density Residential • Proposed LUCE: Mixed Use Boulevard • Would allow non-retail tenant to occupy vacant building and remove impediments to re-leasing due to rear portion of building being legal non-conforming use
MUB
Item 12-B
September 30, 2025
Item 12-B
September 30, 2025

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 3574 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) Parking Lot Development Standards
• On July 29, the City Council directed that staff develop options for revising development standards related to surface parking lots associated with commercial corridors • If the proposed map amendments at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard are approved, future implementation of this direction would apply to the existing parking lot to the north (1122 14th Street) of the site
• Given that the property is currently zoned R2, staff would recommend that the City Council consider excluding this particular surface parking lot from any future development standard amendment for housing projects
Item 12-B
September 30, 2025
Item 12-B
September 30, 2025

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 3575 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) Recommendation

1. Adopt a finding that the proposed amendments are exempt from CEQA

2. Adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map for the parcel located at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard

3. Introduce for first reading an ordinance amending the official districting map for the parcel located at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard

4. Consider excluding the surface parking lot at 1122 14th St from being eligible to use future development standard amendments for housing projects Item 12-B
September 30, 2025
Item 12-B
September 30, 2025

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 3576 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7291 : Map Amendments for 1331 Wilshire Boulevard) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 30, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Appointments to one unscheduled vacancy and one scheduled vacancy on the Building & Fire-Life Safety Commission for terms ending on June 30, 2028.

Prepared By: David Yakobson, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List

16.A
Packet Pg. 3577
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Building & Fire-Life Safety Commission
Name Application Date
Helms, William S.* 08/14/2025
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 1
* Not a civil or structural engineer

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 3578 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 2] (7248 : 16.A. Building & Fire-Life Safety Commission Vacancies (5 Min)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 30, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Recommendation to accept Albin Gielicz's resignation from the Transient Occupancy Tax Advisory Committee and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy
Prepared By: David Yakobson, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Resignation Email

16.B
Packet Pg. 3579

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 3580 Attachment: Resignation Email (7303 : 16.B. Recommendation to accept Albin Gielicz's resignation (1 Min)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 30, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Mayor Negrete that the City Council consider directing the City Manager to assess options for enhanced On-Site Public Notice Requirements for Development Projects that will provide greater transparency and accessibility that will provide community members with additional project information and engagement opportunities.

Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Developing Enhanced Notification For Development Projects

16.C
Packet Pg. 3581
Memo
To: Oliver Chi, City Manager
From: Lana Negrete, Mayor
Date: September 23, 2025
Re: A Request that the City Council Consider Directing the City Manager to Assess Options for Enhanced On-Site Public Notice Requirements for Development Projects Santa Monica residents have consistently expressed a desire for greater transparency, accessibility, and early engagement in the City’s development review process. Enhancing public notice practices is a straightforward way to ensure that information about proposed projects is readily available and easily understood.

Currently, the City requires the provision of public notices for proposed development projects through a combination of mailed notices, postings at or near the project site, and online availability of staff reports and related materials. In particular, I have heard feedback from the community which suggest that the posting of notices on / near the project site can be difficult to locate, read, or access – particularly in the case of smaller site signs that are unable to display more details related to the overarching project.

To address the matter, I am proposing that we assess modernizing our public notice requirements for on-site signage for development projects to include:
• Larger, more visually prominent signage placed directly on project sites. • Plain-language descriptions of proposed projects.
• Inclusion of direct website links or QR codes directing residents to project details, environmental documents, and opportunities to participate in the review process.

Accordingly, I would like the City Council to consider my request that the City Manager evaluate and return with recommendations on enhancing on-site public signage / notice requirements for development projects, including options for larger, more visible site signage and the inclusion of a website link or QR code on the posted sign to provide community members with additional project information and engagement opportunities.

Please place this item on the September 30 agenda for full City Council consideration.

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 3582 Attachment: Developing Enhanced Notification For Development Projects (7324 : On-Site Public Notice Requirements for Development City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 30, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.D
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Mayor Negrete that the City Council consider directing the City Manager to assess the viability of establishing a Santa Monica Citizen’s Academy, inclusive of a Youth-in-Government program component and return to the City Council with options before the end of the year with an overview of how we might implement such a program locally.

Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Citizen's Academy Program

16.D
Packet Pg. 3583
Memo
To: Oliver Chi, City Manager
From: Lana Negrete, Mayor
Date: September 23, 2025
Re: A Request that the City Council Consider Directing the City Manager to Assess the Viability of Creating an Annual Citywide Citizen’s Academy, to Include a Youth-inGovernment Program Component During the past year, I had the opportunity to work with the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District on a youth-in-government program, which served to provide our local students with an opportunity to learn about how the City actually works.

That particular effort inspired me to think about how a broader and more formalized Santa Monica Citizen’s Academy program could help to strengthen civic literacy, build trust, and create a deeper bench of informed community leaders. Including a youth track as part of such a program would also serve to help cultivate the next generation of civic participants while broadening access to local government.

I have seen other cities throughout our region who have successfully implemented multi-week academies that serve to accomplish the following objectives:
• Demystifying how municipal budgeting, planning, public safety, mobility, libraries, housing/homelessness response, and public works functions. • Better connecting residents directly with staff and facilities. • Producing graduates who serve on boards / commissions, volunteer, and constructively engage in public processes.

Accordingly, I would like the City Council to consider my request that the City Manager assess the viability of establishing a Santa Monica Citizen’s Academy, inclusive of a Youth-in-Government component, and return to the City Council with options before the end of the year with an overview of how we might implement such a program locally.

Please place this item on the September 30 agenda for full City Council consideration.

16.D.a
Packet Pg. 3584 Attachment: Citizen's Academy Program (7325 : Santa Monica Citizen’s Academy) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 30, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.E
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Mayor Negrete that the City Council consider directing the City Manager to create a Community Trash Clean-Up Program, including the CalTrans Right-of-Way within Santa Monica and return with a program framework for a community trash clean-up initiative.

Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Developing a Community Clean-Up Day

16.E
Packet Pg. 3585
Memo
To: Oliver Chi, City Manager
From: Lana Negrete, Mayor
Date: September 23, 2025
Re: A Request that the City Council Consider Directing the City Manager to Create a Community Trash Clean-Up Program, Including in the CalTrans Right-of-Way Santa Monica residents have long expressed concern about trash, litter, and debris throughout various parts of the City, including in I-10 Freeway-adjacent areas in the CalTrans right-of-way. In response to these concerns, I have often thought that designing a community-facing clean-up program which compliments the City’s professional maintenance efforts could not only help improve the cleanliness of Santa Monica, but would simultaneously reinforce notions related to civic engagement, environmental responsibility, and community pride.

To advance this concept, I am requesting that the City Council support an effort to create a community trash clean-up program, which would include beautification efforts in the Cal-Trans right-of-way. I understand in talking with staff that we have recently entered into an agreement with Cal-Trans that facilitates the City taking a lead role in maintaining our on- and off-ramps, along with areas adjacent to the I-10 Freeway. In my mind, the overarching program could involve a number of possible strategies, including developing volunteer-based clean-up days, where the City partners with neighborhood groups, schools, nonprofits, and businesses to organize clean-up events. In addition, we should consider organizing the program during times where we already coordinate relevant existing City programing, such as Sustainable September or Earth Day.

Accordingly, I would like the City Council to consider my request that the City Manager develop and return with a program framework for a community trash clean-up initiative, including in the CalTrans right-of-way areas located within Santa Monica.

Please place this item on the September 30 agenda for full City Council consideration.

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 3586 Attachment: Developing a Community Clean-Up Day (7326 : Community Trash Clean-Up Program) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 30, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.F
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Councilmember Zwick that the City Council, as part of National Seafood Month, consider approval of City sponsorship of the OFF THE HOOK Santa Monica Seafood Festival taking place on Sunday, October, 19, 2025 on the Santa Monica Pier by directing the City Manager to waive the City’s portion of fees for use of the Pier for Spin PR Group, the Santa Monicabased PR, Marketing and Events agency producing the event. City fees related to the OFF THE HOOK Santa Monica Seafood Festival include the application, administrative, neighborhood notification, business license, parking, and zero waste plan fees associated with the use of the Pier in an amount up to $16,000 in waived fees.

Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. OFF THE HOOK Fee Waiver

16.F
Packet Pg. 3587
Memo
To: Oliver Chi, City Manager
From: Jesse Zwick, City Councilmember
Date: September 22, 2025
RE: A Request that the City Council Consider Directing the City Manager to approve waving of fees for the OFF THE HOOK Seafood Festival event produced by Spin PR Group, the Santa Monica-based PR, Marketing and Events agency. City fees related to the OFF THE HOOK Santa Monica Seafood Festival include the application, administrative, neighborhood notification, business license, parking, and zero waste plan fees associated with the use of the Pier in an amount up to $16,000 in waived fees.

OFF THE HOOK celebrates the sea and showcases the city's best restaurants and chefs with dishes and their favorite underwater ingredients. Attendees enjoy incredible seafood tastings, beer gardens, wine tastings, live music, games, oyster shucking competition, and more underwaterinspired fun on the Pier! Off the Hook is 100% free of single-use plastics and a portion of sales will benefit Heal the Bay to help protect our coastline, restore our waterways, and keep our Santa Monica ocean clean.

OFF THE HOOK Santa Monica Seafood Festival set for Sunday, October. 19th on the Santa Monica Pier.

Please agendize this matter for City Council consideration at our September 30, 2025 meeting.

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 3588 Attachment: OFF THE HOOK Fee Waiver (7327 : Sponsorship of the OFF THE HOOK Santa Monica Seafood Festival)