Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, September 30, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 Homes across the street on 29th Street.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
13 View through Parkinig Lot facing south.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
14 29th Street facing north.
29th Street facing south.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
15 Homes across the streetHomes on 30th Street.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
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
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
18 30th Street facing north.
30th Street facing south.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
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
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
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
(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
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
(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
§ 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
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
(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
§ 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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
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.