Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, September 30, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

2644 30th Street Commercial Building
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Existing Conditions
• Commercial Office Building Lot
• Approx. 18,000 sf
• Improved with a commercial
office building
• Zoning = R1
• LUCE = Single Family Housing
• R1 Parking Lots (not proposed for
change)
• Approx. 36,000 sf R1
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Proposed Change
18,000 sf lots with commercial office
building  NC designation
36,000 sf lots with surface parking 
retain R1 (Single Family Zoning)
designation (no change)
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Comparison of Use Regulations
Existing R1 Zoning
• R1 does not allow any
commercial uses (SMMC Table

9.07.020)
• Legal nonconforming use
• “Maintenance” of existing
legal nonconforming use is
extremely limiting for future
leasing of building.
• Abandonment language is
problematic.

NC Zoning
• Variety of commercial
office uses are permitted
including (SMMC Table 9.11.020)
• Business & Professional
Office
• Creative Office
• Walk-In Clientele Offices
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Summary
• Change LUCE and Zoning to Neighborhood Commercial
• R1 zoning is:
• Inconsistent with long-standing existing commercial use • Historical zoning
• Problematic for future leasing of the building
• Owner has offered covenant not to redevelop either the R1 surface parking lots or the proposed commercial lots under the NC housing project standards for 10 years
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Background
In 2015, when Zoning was changed, both Planning Commission and City Council were informed that they had been given a comprehensive list of map inconsistencies prior to voting on the LUCE map amendments to address inconsistencies.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2014/15 Map Inconsistency Identification • In 2015, Staff attempted to prepare a comprehensive list of inconsistencies • A list of 115 parcels with inconsistent 1988 zoning and 2010 LUCE designations was prepared and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. • 19 of the parcels on the list were zoned commercial/industrial and used with commercial/industrial uses but had been given a residential LUCE designation. Resolution No. 15-007 (PCS) recitals state:

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Parcels with Inconsistent 1988 Zoning/2010
LUCE Map Designations
2644 30th Street met the
criteria to be included on
this list but was missed.

It was zoned C2 in 1988/pre-2015
Zoning but the 2010 LUCE designation
was Single Family Housing.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1984 LUCE 1988 Zoning
(pre-2015 Zoning)
2010/Current LUCE 2015/Current Zoning
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Jamison Strofs <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 4:41 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,
Jamison Strofs
Home owner on 30th
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 4:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: 2644 30th street: Corporations as R-1 neighbors From: Teri B <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 11:54 AM
To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]> Cc: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Nikki Kolhoff [email protected] <[email protected]>; Roni Crichton <[email protected]>; Dick Bernstein <[email protected]>; Mindi Shank <[email protected]>; Dan Kolhoff <[email protected]>; Oliver Chi <[email protected]>; Zina <[email protected]>; Tracey Hom <[email protected]>
Subject: 2644 30th street: Corporations as R-1 neighbors

EXTERNAL
City staff and City Council fiduciaries of our neighborhood:

Please vote this upzoning down and never bring it back to the agenda.

The way this was brought to this agenda was sneaky in a way that I am guessing makes many of you uncomfortable.

Unlike some of my neighbors, I voted for the slate with Barry Snell because he was associated with SMC and was an old school CPA who was most likely trained in the fiduciary and ethical responsibilities of top-down leadership. It was a little Pollyanna of me, in hindsight.

I am disappointed that City Staff and the Council are in the "Corporations are People too" camp. They endorse this Corporate Incrementalism at the 2644 property. Jesse Zwick mistakenly labeled those who wanted to live in R-1 neighborhoods as racist, when in fact those opting for R-1 neighborhoods did not want to live next door to a CORPORATION or Commercial businesses.

The Harding law firm (with its moles in the PTA) are trying to get this Commercial toehold on an R-1 street without regard for the residents and voters.

As individuals, jointly and severally, the City and Council will be responsible for lowering our property values if this is passed and we need to disclose this in any sale of property. I'm guessing a jury of my peers would be the side of the current residents in this. What kind of liability might that produce for the future of Santa Monica?
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
3 Also, even if the state no longer requires EIR considerations, no law can eliminate the ACTUAL Environmental Impact of clogging this corridor of egress from tsunamis and disasters with all of this building. You as City staff and Council are responsible for the deaths that may occur.

Please vote against this and all other item. Be visionary and ethical.

Thank you,
Teri Davis Bernstein
2528 29th St.

On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 9:32 AM Tracey Hom <[email protected]> wrote:

All they do is lie
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 30, 2025, at 9:07 AM, Teri B <[email protected]> wrote:

Great reminder, Tracey!
A succinct illustration of staff and Council’s duplicity.

Teri
On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 9:03 AM Tracey Hom <[email protected]> wrote:

So here is the message from Zing in response to terri Berstein Jing Yeo
From:[email protected]
To:Teri B
Cc:Tracey Hom,Dick Bernstein
Thu, Jun 12 at 5:49 PM
Hello Teri,
At the May 13 meeting, City Council voted to table the item to rezone 2944 30th St and for staff to return with revisions to address the abandonment provisions for legal nonconforming uses. What that means is that the Council was not interested in the upzoning and requested looking at other possible options instead that would accomplish the property owner’s stated goals of filling vacancies in the existing office building.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
4 At this time, given other priorities and additional research needed, there isn’t a timeline for returning to Council with those revisions to the legal non-conforming section of the zoning ordinance.

Thank you,
Jing
So what happened? Harding Laremore put more pressure on you all. You know this is wrong.

Tracey P. Hom Esq.
10850 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 825
Los Angeles, California 90024
310 749 5343
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Richard Bernstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 1:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Opposed to upzoning 2644 30th Street

EXTERNAL
From:

Richard Bernstein
2606 29th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Dear Councilmembers:

The current two-story brick building and adjoining parking lot have been operaƟng as “legal non-conforming” uses. There doesn’t seem to be any problem re-defining what this designaƟon entails without turning this buffer into a frontal assault on our block.

In the words of poet Wallace Stevens:

I placed a jar in Tennessee,
And round it was, upon a hill.

It made the slovenly wilderness
Surround that hill.

The wilderness rose up to it,
And sprawled around, no longer wild.

The jar was round upon the ground
And tall and of a port in air.

It took dominion everywhere.

The jar was gray and bare.

It did not give of bird or bush,
Like nothing else in Tennessee.

A five to eight story building on the same residenƟal street as one and two story houses – directly across the street – cuƫng off sun and air – would indeed be a “jar” on our block, dominaƟng and redefining our neighborhood.

Please keep the property as legal, non-conforming R1.

Thank you.

Richard Bernstein
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Aleson Clarke <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 1:06 PM
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: Item 12.A 2644 30th Street Commercial Building Re-Zone Support

EXTERNAL

Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing as a Santa Monica/Sunset Park homeowner a few blocks away from 2644 30th Street, I’m writing to express my support for the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and Official Districting Map for 2644 30th Street.

From my perspective, this action represents a reasonable good-faith compromise. I sincerely value the convenience of having small businesses in close proximity, not to mention the added business/economic activity for local restaurants and stores, all of which keep the neighborhood vibrant and thriving.

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 error during the 2010 LUCE update and 2015 Zoning Ordinance. What kind of precedent is being set when a clerical error would be allowed to destroy local businesses and property owners in an already challenging economy?
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.

Also, the property owner has voluntarily offered 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, I have seen misinformation and misleading material circulating in the community, including false “renderings” depicting massive high-rise developments supposedly planned for this site.

These materials are not based in fact and only serve to stir up fear, confusion and division.

I believe Santa Monica deserves a decision based on accurate information and the actual record before Council.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
3 For these reasons, I urge you to approve the staff recommendation and adopt the proposed map amendments. This will correct a longstanding error but also is a fair and balanced solution that respects the needs of the property owner, the surrounding community, and the integrity of our planning process

Thank you for your service and consideration.

Respectfully,
Aleson Clarke
2435 31st Street
Santa Monica, 90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 2:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Barry Snell
Cc: Oliver Chi; Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman; Rachel Kwok; Heidi von Tongeln; Michelle M.

Hugard
Subject: Item 12.A: 2644 30th Street, Re-Zone Support
Attachments: Letter to CC re 2644 30th 2025.09.30.pdf; Attachment to Letter to CC re 2644 30th 2025.09.30.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
On behalf of the owner of 2644 30th Street, please see the attached letter requesting that the Council re-zone only the portion of the Property occupied by the commercial building to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) consistent with the long-standing commercial use and historical commercial zoning for the Commercial Lots. Re-zoning the Commercial Lots back to commercial will allow needed flexibility to ensure the commercial building’s longterm viability as an existing oƯice building.

The second attachment responds to various arguments made in opposition to the proposed re-zone. The Planning Commission considered and was unpersuaded by the opponents’ arguments and recommended approving the rezone.

Moreover, to further address speculative concerns raised about the NC rezone facilitating redevelopment of the Property, the property owner has oƯered to record a covenant/deed-restriction evidencing his commitment not to redevelop the Property for the foreseeable future.

Sincerely,
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

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

(310) 656-4311
September 30, 2025

VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
Re: Agenda Item 12.A -- 2644 30th Street, Re-Zone of Commercial Lots Our File No. 22795
Dear Councilmembers:

I am writing on behalf of 2644 SM Partners, LP, the owner of 2644 30th Street (the “Property”). As recommended by the Planning Commission and City Staff, we respectfully request that the Council re-zone only the portion of the Property occupied by the commercial building (the “Commercial Lots”) to the same commercial LUCE and zoning designation -- Neighborhood Commercial (NC) -- as the immediately adjacent commercial property to the south. Re-zoning the Commercial Lots back to commercial will allow needed flexibility to ensure the commercial building’s longterm viability as an existing office building. This will return the existing commercial building to a commercial zone, not a single family zone.

As explained in the Staff Report, the Commercial Lots are improved with a twostory commercial building built in 1956 and for decades had been zoned (and continuously used) for commercial (C2) just like the immediately adjacent commercial property to the south, including when the current owner purchased the Property in 1987.

The rest of the Property, 36,000 square feet occupied by surface parking, is zoned R1 and will remain R1.

Under the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning, the existing building could be leased to a variety of commercial tenants, including most importantly a wide variety of office tenants that fall into the Business & Professional and Creative Office use categories. (SMMC Table 9.11.020, Specific Limitation 21.) By contrast, with the Commercial Lots in the R1 zone, the existing building is both a legal, nonconforming building (as it doesn’t comply with the R1 physical development standards) and the existing uses within the building are legal, nonconforming uses. As explained in the attached document, the City’s legal, nonconforming building regulations and legal, nonconforming use regulations are complex and limiting, especially in the current leasing environment. The best and simplest answer is to re-zone the Commercial Lots [email protected]
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Santa Monica City Council
September 30, 2025

Page 2 ends

(already improved with the existing commercial building) back to commercial and leave the parking lot as R1.

Attached is a document responding to various arguments made in opposition to the proposed re-zone. The Planning Commission considered and was unpersuaded by the opponents’ arguments. Instead, the Planning Commission recommended approving the re-zone. Moreover, to further address speculative concerns raised about the NC rezone facilitating redevelopment of the Property, the property owner has offered to record a covenant/deed-restriction evidencing his commitment not to redevelop the Property for the foreseeable future.

In sum, we respectfully ask the City Council designate the Commercial Lots to Neighborhood Commercial consistent with the long-standing commercial use and historical commercial zoning for the Commercial Lots.

Sincerely,
Paula J. Larmore
cc: Oliver Chi, City Manager
Jing Yeo, Community Development Director
Ross Fehrman, Acting Planning Manager
Rachel Kwok, Environmental Planner
Heidi von Tongeln, Interim City Attorney
Michelle M. Hugard, Deputy City Attorney

F:\WPDATA\22795\002 (2644 30th)\Cor\CC 2025.09.30 (2644 30th).docx Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1 Responses to Arguments Made in Opposition to the Commercial Lots Re-Zone

1. The property owner is not proposing a housing project.

Opponents of the proposed zone change have instilled fear in neighbors and community members by asserting that the zone change is being done to facilitate a new housing project on the Property. There is no such proposal. As stated repeatedly, including on the record at the prior Planning Commission and City Council hearings, the zone change will facilitate the commercial building’s long-term viability as an office building. Moreover, to further underscore this the property owner has offered a covenant not to redevelop the surface parking lots or utilize the NC “housing project” development standards for the Commercial Lots for a period of 10 years.

2. The proposed change to the Commercial Lots zoning does not constitute illegal spot zoning.

Opponents of the proposed zone change have asserted that the proposed actions would constitute illegal spot zoning on the alleged grounds that (i) this would be the only “interior” lot in the NC Zone that would extend into residential neighborhoods beyond the depth of other NC lots; (ii) the NC Zone was only intended to be located on the City’s boulevards; and (iii) the site would receive a benefit (i.e., not being restricted by legal nonconforming use limitations) that other sites may not receive.

None of the above, even if true, shows that the proposed zoning map amendment constitutes illegal spot zoning. Moreover, as a factual matter, the City Council has already incorporated a number of lots throughout Santa Monica in the NC Zone that do not front on boulevards or for which the boundary of the NC Zone may extend further than for some other nearby properties (e.g. 2938 2nd Street, 2420 2nd Street, 2828 Pico Boulevard, 2665 30th Street, 2665 31st Street, 2683 34th Street).

First, there is no legal requirement that zoning district boundaries must be perfectly uniform. Rather, it is entirely within the City Council’s broad legislative discretion in the exercise of its police power to amend zoning district boundaries as long as this is not being arbitrary or unreasonable and has a reasonable relation to public welfare. (See Wilkins v. City of Santa Barbara (1946) 29 Cal.2d 332, 337; Hamer v.

Town of Ross (1963) 59 Cal.2d 776, 781-782.)
Courts have held that so-called “spot-zoning” may arise, for example, when creating “an island of property in the middle of properties with more restrictive zoning.” (Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1314.) However, because zoning always requires the drawing of lines, “where the ‘spot’ is not an island but is connected on some sides to a like zone the allegation of spot zoning is more difficult to establish.” (Viso v. State of California (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 15, 22.) Moreover, “[e]ven where a small island is created in the midst of less restrictive zoning, the zoning may be upheld where rational reason in the public benefit exists for such a classification.” (Ibid.)
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2 In this case, the proposed actions do not create an NC-zoned island surrounded by other R1 zoned properties. Rather, just the opposite will result, because including the subject property in the NC Zone will simply mean this property will have the same NC zoning as the property next to it at 2901 Ocean Park Boulevard. This zoning correction consistent with the actual use of the property for decades, clearly does not constitute spot zoning.

Moreover, as shown in the Staff Report, there is substantial evidence that the proposed General Plan and Zoning amendments are both consistent with the City’s General Plan and would serve the public interest in supporting local economic stability and reducing commercial office vacancies. For example, the LUCE provides that “[c]ommercial and industrial uses are important components of the City’s economic diversity and rich heritage in that they provide a source of local jobs and generate a significant portion of the City’s municipal revenues,” and that “growth in employment is a key consideration in maintaining the strength of the local economy.”

3. The LUCE does not prevent the Council from changing the Commercial Lots zoning back to commercial.

Opponents have argued that the Commercial Lots cannot be zoned NC because they have no frontage on Ocean Park Boulevard. This argument has no merit. On all the City’s commercial boulevards, including Ocean Park Boulevard, the line between the commercial and residential zoning varies. As a result, some properties with mixed-use and commercial zoning (i.e., Neighborhood Commercial, Mixed-Use Boulevard Low, Mixed-Use Boulevard, and General Commercial) do not have frontage on a commercial boulevard. For example, in the NC zone adjacent to Ocean Park Boulevard alone, 2665 30th Street, 2665 31st Street, and 2683 34th Street are all designated NC but have no frontage on Ocean Park Boulevard. In the NC zone adjacent to Pico Boulevard, 2250 30th Street and 2249 30th are examples of properties that do not have frontage on Pico Boulevard. In the NC zone adjacent to Montana Avenue, 725 7th Street does not have frontage on Montana Avenue.

4. Amending the City’s legal, nonconforming use regulations is not the best way to ensure the existing building’s long-term viability as an office building.

Opponents have asked that, as an alternative to re-zoning the Commercial Lots to NC, the City retain the R1 zoning and modify its legal, nonconforming use regulations. As explained below, the City’s legal, nonconforming use regulations are complex. In addition, the R1 zoning results in the existing building becoming a legal, nonconforming structure which results in the building being subject to another layer of complex regulation. The simple, clean approach is to move the Commercial Lots back into the same commercial zone as the property to the south (just as it was for decades).

For context, the City’s legal, nonconforming use regulations (SMMC § 9.27.050) allow the existing uses to remain (and allow replacement tenants to move into the existing building if they fall within the same specific use category as the immediately Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
3 prior tenant) but prevent the property owner from leasing a vacancy to other commercial uses. For example, to an accountant, architect, or lawyer. In addition, if any of the suites were to remain vacant for more than a year (other than for remodeling per a City-issued building permit) it would no longer be able to be rented to any commercial tenant because the R1 zone prohibits commercial uses. (SMMC § 9.27.050(B).) Amending the City’s legal, nonconforming use regulations to both (a) allow new types of commercial tenants in the building that do not match the existing commercial tenants and (b) change the one-year abandonment period could address the immediate need to (a) provide reasonable releasing flexibility and (b) avoid rendering the building (or portions of it) permanently vacant without any process to reoccupy it; however, these amendments (i) would not address the limitations in the City’s legal, nonconforming building regulations and (ii) would have City-wide implications beyond the Commercial Lots.

In the longer term, the City’s legal, nonconforming use and building regulations put constraints on the types of repairs and alterations that can be made to the existing building. Substantial remodels which cross the City’s “demolition” threshold are prohibited per SMMC § 9.27.030(F). Notably, a building is deemed demolished and cannot be rebuilt if at any time over a 5-year period, more than 50% of the exterior wall elements (including but not limited to subsurface or nondecorative cladding necessary for structural support, columns, studs, cripple walls, or similar vertical load-bearing elements and associated footings, windows, or doors) are removed or are no longer a necessary integral structural component of the overall building. Moreover, there is no ability to make a minor addition (even 1 square foot) because no commercial uses are allowed in the R1 zone and therefore any addition of commercial floor area would be prohibited. Such constraints do not exist if the building were to be re-zoned back to commercial. If the building were to be re-zoned NC and needed to be substantially remodeled, it could be in compliance with the NC’s development standards for nonhousing projects (i.e., 2 stories/32 feet and .75 FAR).

Lenders, investors and insurance companies often express apprehension and skepticism with the complexities and limitations associated the City’s legal, nonconforming building and legal, nonconforming use regulations and the risks associated with these buildings. They may charge more to lend, invest and insure and, in some cases, have been flatly unwilling to lend, invest and insure buildings. This risk increases as buildings age and is particularly acute where the asset is a commercial building and the underlying zoning is residential. By contrast, if the existing building were to be re-zoned commercial (NC), these concerns and risks are eliminated.

5. There is no evidence the change of the Commercial Lots to R1 was intentionally; moreover the change was not called out on the Inconsistent Parcel List prepared by the City previously prior to adoption of the Zoning Map.

Certain opponents of the re-zone have challenged the statement that the prior change of the Commercial Lots to R1 was inadvertent; however, there is no evidence that the change was intentional and, importantly, the Property was not included on the Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
4 list of properties with inconsistent zoning that was presented to the Planning Commission and City Council prior to adopting the Zoning Map. As discussed in the Staff Report for the Zoning Ordinance update, City “staff compared the LUCE Map with the [then-existing Zoning Map] for all 23,500 parcels in the City to generate a listing of inconsistent parcels” (e.g. LUCE was residential but prior zoning was commercial or LUCE was commercial but prior zoning was residential or vise versa). Although the Property qualified for inclusion on the Inconsistent Parcel list (and there were 19 other parcels in the same situation as the Commercial Lots that were included on the list), it was not included on that list. The Planning Commission then reviewed the Inconsistent Parcels List and made a recommendation with respect to the LUCE and Zoning designations for those properties. The City Council then decided on how to resolve the inconsistency for each of those properties. Indeed, the property owner was not made aware of this zone change until 2024 when it contacted the City to determine the allowable uses on the Commercial Lots in anticipation of various leases expiring.

6. The R1 Zoning for the surface parking lots is not proposed for change.

Certain opponents of the re-zone have asserted that the surface parking lots are proposed to be re-zoned. This is not accurate. The draft LUCE resolution and draft Ordinance before the City Council for adoption are clear that only the Commercial Lots are proposed to be changed to NC and the surface parking lots will remain R1.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
5 David Yakobson
From: Stan Sowa <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 4:19 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 Council Members,
I strongly 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 strongly 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,
Stan & Michelle Sowa
33rd Street Residents 90405
Stan P. Sowa, President
Sowa Development, Inc.

Cell. (310) 804-6157
[email protected]
www.sowadevelopment.com
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
6 A referral is the best compliment one can offer
______________________________________
Sent with Gratitude from my iPhone
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
7 David Yakobson
From: Jing Yeh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 4:56 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 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,
Jing Yeh
90405
"Only from the heart can you touch the sky." Rumi
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
8 David Yakobson
From: TROY PARR <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 5:03 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.

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,
Troy Parr
90404
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: SALLY STINER <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 1:51 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.

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,
Sally STINER
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Yollanda Ziff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 11:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 2644 30th St Rezoning

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I have lived across the street from this building and parking lot since 1987.

For the most part, the interaction with this neighbor has been uneventful.

We have recently received a communication from the owner, stating that the building will operate just as it had in the past, and that there are no plans for redevelopment.

If this is true, I have no objection to action being taken, even though I am confused by the need to rezone if there is no change in the uses for the property.

If, however, there are plans to enlarge or redevelop the building for any other purpose, I strongly object.

Our small community, and our street cannot sustain any additional strain on our infrastructure or on the flow of traffic.

Also, it does not make sense to create more office space or living quarters in our neighborhood when the entire city is riddled with permanent “For Lease” signs. The same goes for the proposed project on Ocean Park and 31st Street.

I think the council needs to reassess the need for any new mega structures, when so many that have already been built are languishing unoccupied.

Sincerely,
Yollanda Ziff
2625 30th St
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Hicks <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 11:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
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,
Nancy Hicks
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: John Reynolds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 11:50 AM
To: John Murdock; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems Cc: [email protected]; Nikki Kolhoff; Robb Curtis Brown; Cathy Larson; Jeanne Laurie; ALICEANN GRUSIN; Clare Thomas; John Murdock
Subject: Re: 2644 30th Street Proposal

EXTERNAL
Send it!!!
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Tuesday, September 30, 2025, 11:18 AM, John Murdock <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear City Council and City Manager:

The proposed zoning amendment to the parcel at 2644 30th Street does not comport with Code Requirements and cannot be approved consistent with Santa Monica Municipal Code requirements.

The emails produced to a member of the public pursuant to a Public Records Act request show that attorneys for the owner initiated this request on 9/6/24, reaching out to staff to meet for a presentation, which means they had been working on it longer. This evidence shows this entire process stems from a request from the property owner, A private applicant, and objections to the process previously made by various members of the public are precisely on point.

The code amendment must be justified by a showing of “public necessity and convenience and the general welfare” to maintain consistency with the General Plan, as required by Section 9.46.010:

Chapter 9.46AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP
§ 9.46.010Purpose.The purpose of this Chapter is to provide procedures by which changes may be made to the text of this Ordinance and to the Zoning Map whenever the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare require such amendment to maintain consistency with the General Plan.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015) The proper procedure for initiating a plan and zone amendment is not simply a request to have staff recommend it to Council. Rather, there is a formal requirement for an application, fees to the city, documentation to prove it is required by public necessity, public review of said Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
4 documentation, and participation in public hearings after review of that evidence. None of that has happened here, and the proposal before you is in violation of the code requirements. § 9.46.040"Application Requirements.
"A. Application. A qualified applicant shall submit an application for a zoning amendment on a form prescribed by the Director accompanied by the required fee. The Director may require an applicant to submit such additional information and supporting data as considered necessary to process the application"
So, query, Did the Public Records Act Request by the public bring up any application or supporting data or payment of fees to the city as required by code? No.

The following analysis is a summary of the general process in a request for zone change which is representative of how the process should have unfolded. Objection is hereby made to the hidden, informal application by attorneys for the owner, without adequate documentation of evidence to support the public necessity, and without adequate public review of the information supposedly given by owner to justify the change.

Application & Processing (Common Procedures)
Because a zone change is a type of zoning Amendment, it must comply with the “common procedures” laid out in SMMC Chapter 9.37 (Common Procedures) and the special rules in 9.46.

Here’s how the process typically unfolds:

1. Pre-Application / Consultation
o The applicant normally meets with City planning staff ahead of formal submission to review feasibility, required materials, and identify issues. o Staff may advise on neighborhood response, compatibility with the General Plan, etc.

2. Application Submission / Completeness Review.. See Code Requirements:

Chapter 9.37COMMON PROCEDURES
§ 9.37.010Purpose.

This Chapter establishes procedures that are common to the application and processing of permits and approvals provided for in this Ordinance, unless superseded by specific requirement of this Ordinance or State law.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015) § 9.37.020Application Forms and Fees.

Initiation of Application. An application shall be filed by a qualified applicant.

Application Forms and Materials.

1. Application Forms. The Director shall prepare and issue application forms and lists that specify the information that will be required from applicants for projects subject to the provisions of this Ordinance.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
5 2.

Supporting Materials. The Director shall require the submission of supporting materials as part of the application, including but not limited to statements, photographs, plans, drawings, renderings, models, material samples, contextual drawings, massing diagrams and/or models, site development history information, and other items necessary or relevant (e.g., easements, prior site zoning) to describe existing conditions and the proposed project and to determine the level of environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

3. Availability of Materials. All material submitted becomes the property of the City, may be distributed to the public, and shall be made available for public inspection. At any time upon reasonable request, and during normal business hours, any person may examine an application and materials submitted in support of or in opposition to an application in the Planning Division offices. Unless prohibited by law, copies of such materials shall be made available at a reasonable cost.

Application Fees. The City Council shall approve by resolution a Municipal Fee Schedule that establishes fees for permits, appeals, amendments, informational materials, penalties, copying, and other such items. These fees may be amended by the City Council by legislation.
o Thus, the applicant submits the required application forms, plans, reports, etc. as defined by the Director under SMMC § 9.37.020.
o Supporting materials may include site plans, diagrams, renderings, statements of justification, context analysis, environmental review materials, etc. o The City must determine whether the application is “complete” before proceeding (as per § 9.37.020).
o The applicant must pay application fees (Santa Monica publishes a “Text Amendment / Zone Change” fee in its Planning Fees schedule).

2. Staff Review & Recommendation
o Once the application is deemed complete, planning staff will prepare a staff report that analyzes consistency with the General Plan, zoning objectives, potential impacts, and whether to recommend approval, denial, or approval with conditions.
o The staff report is circulated to other City departments (e.g. Public Works, Fire, etc.) for comment.
o Environmental review (under CEQA) may be required depending on the magnitude of change and impacts.

3. Public Notice & Hearing(s)
o Because a zone change is a legislative or discretionary action, public notice and a public hearing(s) are required.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
6 o The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the zone change proposal, consider public testimony, staff report, and make a recommendation to the City Council.
o Then, the City Council will hold a public hearing (or multiple hearings) and make the final decision (adopt or reject an ordinance amending the map). o The public hearings allow neighbors, stakeholders, and interested parties to weigh in.

4. Council Decision & Ordinance Adoption
o If the Council approves, it must adopt an ordinance that amends the Zoning Map accordingly.
o That ordinance becomes part of the municipal code / zoning map and is the new controlling classification for the parcel.
o If denied, the applicant typically has appeal options (if provided by code) or may revise and resubmit.

5. Post-Approval / Implementation
o Once zone change is adopted, any development on the parcel must conform to the requirements of the new zone (uses, setbacks, density, height, etc.). o The applicant must still apply for the necessary development permits (building permits, site review, applicable conditional or minor use permits, etc.) under the new zoning.

A zone change is not guaranteed — it’s discretionary, and the burden is on the applicant to justify why the change is appropriate in light of City policies, compatibility, and community impacts.
 The city will evaluate consistency with the General Plan (or any applicable specific plan) as part of the review.
 Because the change is to the zoning map (i.e. a legislative change), the standard is more demanding than a variance or waiver.
 The city prohibits granting a variance if it would be “substantially equivalent to a reclassification (zone change)” — meaning you can’t bypass the zone change by asking for extreme variances.
 Environmental impacts (traffic, noise, height/shadow, aesthetic, infrastructure) often become key battlegrounds, particularly in urbanized areas.  The cost (fees, consultants, time) can be significant. According to Santa Monica’s FY 24– 25 fee schedule, the “Text Amendment / Zone Change” fee is about $34,471.90 (plus other associated fees) as of the current schedule.

Here’s a Santa Monica Zone Change (Zoning Map Amendment) Step-by-Step Timeline & Checklist (2025 practice, under SMMC):

2. Application Submission & Completeness (1–2 months)
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
7  Submit formal application for “Zoning Map Amendment” under SMMC 9.46.030.  Must include:
o Application form (City Planning Division)
o Justification statement (public necessity, general welfare, consistency with General Plan)
o Legal description of parcel
o Site plan / concept drawings
o Environmental review materials (CEQA checklist)
 Fee: ~$34,471.90 (FY 24–25 schedule).
 City has 30 days to review for completeness (Gov. Code § 65943). If incomplete, they issue a letter of required corrections.

3. Staff Review & Environmental Analysis (3–6 months)
 Once complete, staff circulate application to Public Works, Fire, Housing, Mobility.  City may prepare an Initial Study for CEQA.
o If impacts are modest: Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. o If substantial: full EIR, which adds cost and 12–18 months.  Planning staff draft a staff report with analysis and recommendation.

4. Planning Commission Hearing (2–3 months after staff report)  Notice published in newspaper, mailed to owners within 500 ft, and posted on site.  Commission reviews:
o Staff report
o CEQA document
o Public testimony
 Commission votes recommendation (approve, deny, or approve with modifications).  This is advisory only — City Council makes the final call.

5. City Council Hearing (1–3 months after Commission)
 Public notice given again.
 Council considers:
o Commission recommendation
o Staff analysis
o Public input (neighbors)
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
8  Council may:
o Adopt ordinance approving zone change (two readings required) o Deny outright
o Request modifications.
 Legal standard: Zone change must be consistent with the General Plan and serve “public necessity, convenience, and general welfare” .

THE CURRENT PROCESS FAILS TO COMPLY WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS The process which has unfolded to date is a complete failure to adhere to the code requirements to file an application, pay the fees, give proper notice, and provide data and documents as called for in strict code sections, documents that the public is able to review and refute. Staff is required to circulate the application to departments for comment per code. Did staff must do an initial study per CEQA. By simply proposing, at the last minute, the “10-year covenant” staff is admitting the potential impact of a huge structure in the single-family zone, so they propose a band-aid mitigation measure without going through CEQA’s requirements for a mitigated negative declaration and public comment.

The staff report justifies this as public benefit because it will help the owner avoid a future speculative vacancy in the building. Please don’t make us laugh! Is that a “public necessity”, or is it merely a favor supporting a private owner’s investment? No evidence justifies this as public necessity.

Applicant slept through the public process when the plan and zoning were adopted and then slept again through the public “correction” process whereby errors could be changed.

However, the public, including FOSP, was not asleep, they participated dutifully in the review with supporting comments, and the position advocated by FOSP prevailed and is now binding absent a formal application to amend as spelled out in the code. The statute of limitations on informal “corrections” due to inadvertence has run, ergo a formal application is required with adequate time to examine any evidence put forth in support of “public necessity”, since none is apparent on this record.

If the city wants to initiate a zoning and plan designation on a parcel because of a genuine mistake brought up by staff, and it goes through the normal process of adopting a corrective ordinance to amend the zone and the plan, that is allowed in the code.

But if a parcel owner just wants to increase the value of its particular parcel by changing (upzoning) the parcel, and that owner failed to participate in the hearings when it went through planning (LUCE) or zoning on the parcel, when public people commented and supported the zone as published by staff, and then owner failed to participate during the corrective period designed to catch mistakes, (staff report says it was "overlooked at the time") but then shows up a few years later, says "oops- mistake!" and meets privately with staff to get an amendment recommended to Council, with the idea "Let's just have you recommend that Council do a rezone based on ‘inadvertence’ so we can get a different (more lucrative) type of tenants in future, or a certain type of financing (who knows what or when), despite the fact we are grandfathered to do normal lease and finance opportunities under normal constraints, albeit perhaps less profitable?" All based on mere statements by owner to staff about tenants and financing, with no evidence provided on the record for the Council and the public to review.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
9 This entire process is illegal and cannot be approved.

Thank you for your attention,
John Murdock
1209 Pine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
10 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 11:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Oliver Chi
Subject: September 30, 2025 City Council Meeting - Item 12A Upzoning of 2644 30th St - OPPOSE
Attachments: 2025-09-30 NHK Comment re 2644 30th.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council -
Please see my attached comment in opposition to the upzoning of 2644 30th Street.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and Voter
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1 September 30, 2025
Via Email
To: Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers
From: Nikki Kolhoff
Re: September 30, 2025 City Council Meeting – Item 12A Upzoning of 2644 30th Street - OPPOSE
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council –
I object to the change of land use and rezoning of 2644 30th Street, and object to the parking lot being included as a candidate for upzoning. It is an illegal spot-zoning misrepresented in the staff report as correcting an “inadvertent” designation. If we are to believe the statements from staff that allegedly came from the owner, there is a concern about a lease vacancy in 2027. Really? That is why we are here? An owner of a fully leased building has a “concern” about whether it can find a tenant in 2027 for a space that may or may not become vacant? This is a gross misuse of staff time for the benefit of an owner, and possibly a developer, with the inappropriate direct assistance of Harding Larmore Kutcher and Kozal, the biggest developer lawyer in town.

In May, City Council clarified that the owner could make this application instead of staff engaging in spot zoning. Furthermore, Council instructed staff to investigate changes to the legal nonconforming use and abandonment ordinance as a more appropriate solution. Staff claims in the staff report this isn’t feasible, with no evidence or substantiation. Staff not only returns with upzoning, but a dubious assertion that the owner will covenant not to develop, while also asking Council if they want to change policy to upzone the parking lot too. This is an awful lot of expensive staff and lawyer work over an entire year for an owner that allegedly has no plans and no substantiated vacancy in the near future.

What we do know is that if council sides with staff over the residents, this property will be able to go 85 feet high (7 stories) with state bonuses. That’s about 378,000 square feet, compared to the 35,000 square feet the owner is limited to now. What is the dollar value of increasing the density TEN TIMES on the parcel? Do you seriously believe the owner or any buyer won’t take the gift?
According to staff, this change was requested by owner’s counsel in September 2024. It would upzone the parcel in a manner that more than doubles the height and increases density, as well as resulting in a MASSIVE windfall for the owner, with 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. All because of a “concern” about whether the owner can find a tenant in 2027 for a space that may or may not become vacant.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2 Stop wasting our time and money. Stop working with developer lawyers against the people.

Reject the upzoning. Tell staff not to spend another second on this. Tell the owner to hire a lease broker. The owner can file their own application and go on the record with their own statements as to what they believe their “concern” is for a space that may or may not become vacant in 2027.

It’s important to note that staff continues to make false and misleading statements in the staff reports and resolutions, which have been refuted by residents in prior hearings and comments, including:
• The change was an error or inadvertent. False.
• Upzoning is consistent with the general plan. False.
• It’s not possible to modify legal nonconforming use rules. False. • Legal nonconforming use impedes leasing. False.
• Legal nonconforming use impedes financing. False.
• The owner won’t develop the building and the parking lot will remain. False.

Furthermore, the following issues remain unaddressed:
• There are no Neighborhood Commercial development standards for interior parcels, so this item is premature absent the creation of such standards, which is not part of this hearing.
• This is spot zoning that bestows a giant windfall on the owner at the expense of the surrounding residents with no public benefit.
• There is no CEQA analysis for a zoning change not required by the Housing Element nor studied in the EIR.
• There is a lack of process, lack of transparency, and bias toward the owner.

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 and zoning are errors or were inadvertent. 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 and residents have provided evidence this is false since March. 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.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
3 Because this parcel is not on a boulevard, it was designated Single Family Residential and R1.

Staff has softened its language since May, with more references to “inadvertent” than error, but it still says inadvertent EIGHTEEN times, including in the resolutions. This is our public record and it must be accurate, not distorted by staff to support its rogue recommendation.

A. Public Discussion and Deliberate Action
Staff claims there is a “lack of evidence in the record that such a change was discussed publicly or made deliberately.” First, the LUCE and zoning update process lasted eight years and 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. It is not our fault that staff and council don’t read our emails because they are busy ignoring us and pushing their own agendas. We also provided evidence of the public record in our public comments on this upzoning since March, so it’s concerning staff keeps repeating this false statement. If sufficient discussion time were the goal, staff and council wouldn’t be pushing this item through now with unsubstantiated claims, missing documents, and limited public comment periods.

Second, the residential zoning is consistent with the LUCE, so it’s really absurd for staff to argue that alignment with the LUCE wasn’t deliberate! This ignores the LUCE itself, which assigned commercial zoning to the boulevards only, to protect the residential neighborhoods. Again, the designation of R1 is consistent with the LUCE.

B. LUCE (General Plan) Designation.

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 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 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
4 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.

C. Zoning Designation.

The Parking Lot has always been R1 and the Office Building was formerly C2. After the purposeful designation of the Office Building to Residential in the LUCE, the zoning of R1 is consistent with the LUCE. As a result, there is 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 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 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
5 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
6 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.)

2. This upzoning is consistent with the general plan. FALSE. Staff makes this false statement eight times in the documents presented to Council. In fact, the upzoning proposed by staff is the OPPOSITE OF AND IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. As stated above, 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 was intentional, consistent with the LUCE. No other parcel was assigned Neighborhood Commercial that extended beyond the strip of parcels along the boulevards in the entire city.

Staff, at the behest of Harding Larmore, is trying to argue that a new general plan designation must be consistent with a prior zone, which is the exact opposite of what happens in a plan update, which is intended to govern development going forward. If a prior zone could never be updated, then there would never be a LUCE update.

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 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
7 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.

Again, the resolution at the May 5, 2015 City Council meeting confirms the LUCE goal of preserving and protecting existing neighborhoods against the potential impacts related to development. “[B]y 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.”
The resolution 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;”
Both 29th Street and 30th Street already have more commercial intrusion than the other blocks because the parcel on Ocean Park Blvd is so large. This proposed upzoning of an interior parcel (including step 2 upzoning the parking lot) almost doubles it. Yet staff is inexplicably claiming Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
8 now that extending commercial zoning into residential neighborhoods is consistent with our general plan.

3. It’s not possible to modify legal nonconforming use rules. FALSE. In May, City Council instructed staff to table this item and come back with an analysis of amendments to the legal nonconforming use ordinance, including the definition of abandonment. Instead of providing any facts or analysis, staff simply concludes that changes to legal nonconforming use rules “would have broad and potentially unknown and unintended impacts to legal nonconforming uses throughout the City – which number in the hundreds – which could potentially allow incompatible commercial uses to persist indefinitely”.

There is no evidence that staff conducted any analysis. Staff have not provided a map of parcels that are legal nonconforming use. Staff also hasn’t presented which parcels would be problematic if uses were broadened or the definition of abandonment were loosened. Furthermore, staff has presented no evidence that any potential downside in such changes is worse that allowing an 85’ commercial building in the middle of a residential neighborhood in violation of the LUCE. In fact, staff was continuing to work with HLKK during this time on the upzoning ordinance while failing to inform the public that was happening.

Contrary to staff’s assertion, it seems like revisiting our legal nonconforming use rules would actually be a more productive exercise in keeping properties leased than spending an entire year helping upzone single property that is already fully leased.

4. Legal nonconforming use impedes leasing. FALSE. The property is fully occupied and has always been consistently occupied. If legal nonconforming use were a real issue, the property would have been vacant for 15 years. Tenants lease spaces that work for them. This is an attractive property for any tenant with the appropriate use, in large part because it is surrounded by amenities and comes with parking. Tenants with unpermitted uses cannot lease it and this is no different than any other parcel in the city. A cement plant can’t lease the same space a Starbucks can.

The MLS shows the building as fully leased and there are no listings. If the owner is concerned about a vacancy, they should list the lease and hire a lease broker to find a tenant, instead of hiring Harding Larmore to upzone the building.

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.” Section 9.27.020 of the Santa Monica Code states that a “lawful nonconforming use” as “an Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
9 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.” Of course that space has been leased and the staff is now claiming the owner is concerned about a lease expiring in 2027. Which is it? A plain reading of the code shows the abandonment concern is unfounded. 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 very 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.)
Staff has yet to provide a list of all the uses permitted in the building, and only list the current tenant uses. Furthermore, staff failed to include new uses that would be legal – and inappropriate - in a residential neighborhood if the property is upzoned to Neighborhood Commercial.

Notwithstanding this deficiency in the staff report, we know use isn’t a problem because the property has consistently been leased and is fully occupied.

5. Legal nonconforming us impedes financing. FALSE. The staff report claims, “The property owner has stated that the non-conforming condition created by the rezoning to R1 presents impediments to future leasing and financing for the existing commercial office building.” This is not true because the owner most recently financed the property in 2019 under the current LUCE and zoning designations.

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 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
10 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. According to the MLS, the term of the loans on this property is 2049. So the owner clearly is able to finance this property as it currently exists as a legal nonconforming use, and doesn’t have to refinance for 24 years. Of course it should not be able to obtain financing for a massive commercial development that is inappropriate for the neighborhood and violations our zoning.

Staff has suggested that lending standards could change, or that legal non-conforming uses might be subject to additional hurdles. This is purely speculative and not substantiated given the current financing of the property. Generally speaking, a lender is looking at lease revenue to pay debt service on the loan, and here they have a fully leased building. So long as the leases are permitted, which they are even with a legal nonconforming use, the lender can underwrite the loan. The status of the building is irrelevant, so long as it’s legal, which this is.

6. The owner won’t develop the building and the parking lot will remain. FALSE.

Nobody hires Harding Larmore to upzone their property without an intention of doing so. Also, staff spells out that by upzoning the building, it believes the parking lot qualifies for Council’s next commercial encroachment into residential neighborhoods, upzoning residential parking lots.

The bottom line is the intentions of this owner don’t matter. They will have the entitlements, which can be used by them or any successor to go to 85 feet high.

A 10-year covenant is insufficient because it’s not permanent. It doesn’t “allow us to revisit” the zoning in 10 years because the covenant expires and they just get to keep Neighborhood Commercial! Furthermore, the covenant is not part of the staff report or the resolution and Council cannot grant an entitlement today with a hope of extracting a concession later. That is incompetent dealmaking, a breach of fiduciary duty, and unacceptable here. All the terms of a proposed covenant would have to be presented to the public and discussed in a public meeting, and the granting of zoning entitlements would have to be contingent on the covenant.

We know this is the end game, because 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. Two months later at City Council, the staff report again misleadingly stated, “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 referenced the entire parcel, which included the Parking Lot as well as the Office Building. The staff report materially misrepresented what City Council is being asked to approve and called into question the legality of the vote taken by the Planning Commission in support of the resolutions.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
11 Since the May City Council meeting, Council instructed staff to look into upzoning parking lots.

Coincidentally, this current item now only upzones the building because staff plans to upzone the parking lot in the upcoming item for parking lots and is seeking direction to do so now.

7. The nonconforming use is preventing the owner from renovating. FALSE. While not raised in the staff report this time, staff did indicate over the weekend they plan to talk about this.

Previously, the May staff report claimed, “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.)

8. New Information Has Been Presented. FALSE. Staff makes a strange claim that “there have been renewed requests from the property owner”, as if that is reason enough to proceed with what the owner wants. Staff also claims “new information”, as if it is material or has any bearing on this parcel. This includes:
• The owner has owned the property since 1987. We already knew this and it was in our prior public comments. Staff should have known this basic information already since it has worked with the owner for a year. It looks like staff is suggesting this means the owner is entitled to the old zoning, but instead it shows they owned the property during the LUCE and Zoning update and chose not to participate. Finally, it’s irrelevant to upzoning because the owner, and anyone they sell to, can build as big as the zone allows. • Staff includes a very basic lease chart that fails to support the claim there is an issue in 2027. There is no information about lease renewals and no evidence that a tenant is NOT renewing. Furthermore, they cite as problematic a lease expiring in 2027, but another is listed as expiring earlier. Has that one already been extended but the extension was omitted from the chart?
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
12 • Staff presents the high average vacancy rate in Santa Monica as justification for upzoning as a solution here. This makes no sense as this is an attractive building, closed to amenities and comes with highly valued on-site parking. Also, IT’S FULLY LEASED.

If staff is concerned about vacant offices, it should focus its efforts on the vacant offices.

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. A new category would have to be created and that is not before you on the agenda. Also, the height of Neighborhood Commercial is unresolved with the state.

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.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
13 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, 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 this upzoning is even more concerning since 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.

Staff claims that it has followed up with HCD and continues to do so, and blames the state for not responding, but the most recent evidence of written follow-up is November 2023, almost two years ago. It’s noteworthy that staff found time to work with and correspond with HLKK to prepare multiple staff reports and resolutions for the benefit of a single parcel owner while not finding the time to send a follow-up email to HCD in two years. Council should instruct staff to follow up with HCD in writing immediately.

2. The City’s special treatment of this parcel constitutes spot zoning. There is no other commercial parcel that extends as far into the residential neighborhood. The new parcel more than doubles this intrusion. While not an island, it is a peninsula, and extends a zone that isn’t supposed to exist not on a boulevard. If staff’s claim that only having three sides mismatched is valid, what’s to stop them from taking the whole block? Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
14 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.

And the windfall is an orchestrated 2-step process, whereby the parking lot can ONLY be upzoned AFTER the building is upzoned because a parking lot has to be “associated with existing commercial uses.” Hidden in the resolution are words that are different from the narrative in the staff report. While the staff report says the upzoning is “limited only to the portion of the parcel that is currently developed with a commercial office building,” the resolution says it will “change in district boundaries.” This is a back door extension of Neighborhood Commercial off the boulevard in violation of the LUCE to enable the 2-step process of upzoning the entire parcel.

In order for the parking lot game to work, it has to be “associated with existing commercial uses”. The building isn’t zoned commercial, so staff, working with HLKK, is instead attempting to expand the “commercial district” on the boulevard depth to the Office Building to get to the parking lot in what feels like a game of developer Tetris being played at our expense. This will result in an interior commercial parcel that is 180’ x 300’ x 7 stories tall, which is 378,000 sq ft before setbacks, or ten times the density of the existing structure. How much value is the owner being handed with this zoning change? Who benefits here? Ironically, because staff is only addressing the office building now, staff is claiming the public interest is leased office space. First, the space is already leased, so there isn’t a problem. But second, in order to make this argument, staff has to forego the permitted use of additional housing, which council has allowed to significantly expand in R1.

Finally, 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 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
15 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.

3. CEQA. Staff concludes, “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).” This is false. The designation wasn’t erroneous and upzoning it to 85’ is a change in condition that could have a significant effect on the environment.

In addition, this voluntary change is NOT part of our Housing Element. It permits 85’ tall buildings in a residential neighborhood, which wasn’t studied in the EIR for the Housing Element. Furthermore, it would add people and cars with no study of the adequacy of emergency egress. Please study the safety of adding density before approving more density that wasn’t required by our Housing Element or studied in the related EIR.

4. Lack of Process, lack of transparency, and Coordination between Owner and Staff.

Residents have experienced a lack of process, and really feel like the city has been working against us. The LUCE update took 6 years and the Zoning Ordinance Update took almost 2 years. Residents participated while the owner did not. The owner is not entitled to special treatment for a do-over because it failed to participate. Furthermore, we have learned that staff has been working with HLKK to draft the staff reports, resolutions and ordinances that would grant a huge windfall to the owner, all while not being communicative with residents.

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 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 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
16 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.

And now we have learned, one day before this hearing, that city staff have been working hand in hand with the owner and their lawyer, Harding Larmore, against the residents this whole time. I submitted several Public Records Act requests for correspondence between the city, on one hand, and the owner and their agents, on the other hand.

While the PRA wasn’t fulfilled completely, it did produce the following inappropriate and unfair activity:
• An initial, fully formed request for the upzoning by HLKK and emails setting up meetings among staff, owner, and HLKK.
• Staff sending public comments to HLKK prior to them being available to the public, giving HLKK more time to review and strategize with staff. • Staff giving the owner & HLKK, who are not applicants, advance copy of Staff Reports, Resolutions, and Ordinances, with HLKK commenting on and revising the same, all while the residents are left in the dark.

Why isn’t this contact, collaboration, and bias mentioned in the staff report? Why didn’t the owner file an application to change its own zoning instead of ghost-writing for staff? This has the impact of converting the item from an application to legislation, which removes a number of requirements, including applications and fees, that are a normal part of this process. Furthermore, staff commented at Planning Commission that ex parte disclosure isn’t required for legislation, so we end up learning the night before this hearing that they haven’t only been communication, but they have been working on the documents and strategizing together.

This approach also results in a lack of accountability and integrity of the public record. If the owner had applied, it would have been required to make certain representations and certify they are true. Instead we have staff saying things like “we understand from the owner”, which means staff is not accountable for the veracity of the statement and neither is the owner. We are entitled to a full and accurate record, not unsubstantiated reporting.

CONCLUSION
The upzoning of 2644 30th Street is an illegal spot-zoning based on inaccurate and misleading statements in the staff report that have been provide by, and in some cases written by, owner’s counsel. It would result in a MASSIVE windfall for the owner, and negative impacts on the residential neighbors. Nowhere else in the city of Santa Monica is the Neighborhood Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
17 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, this process has become more contrived as this item now relates only to the building, and then there is a second step to upzone the parking lot, coincidentally after this special change because otherwise the parking lot wouldn’t be eligible.

While we appreciate the communication from the new City Manager, the communication from other staff has been deficient. There has been no outreach to the neighborhood by the owner or city staff. We had to ask for a meeting. Furthermore, city staff 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. And then we learn the night before the hearing that this entire process was requested by owner’s counsel, Harding Larmore, and they prepared a significant part of the documents that other members of the public had no access to.

How is this appropriate for a zoning change? Why was this allowed to happen? Procedurally this is super disappointing, especially given the lack of due process being exhibited in our country right now. This is more lack of due process for the benefit of the wealthy at the expense of the people.

There are information requests outstanding, and staff are scrambling to research and provide more information to council tonight without adequate time for either council or the public to meaningfully review, respond, and comment. There is no emergency here if, as the owner alleges, there is merely a vacancy concern for one tenant two years from now. If that is truly all this is, it will be borne out in the additional documents and discussion. Why further erode trust and risk more litigation?
Please do the right thing and reject the upzoning of both the Office Building and Parking Lot.

Alternatively, postpone this item so everyone can have an informed discussion in the daylight.

This is the only action that would honor process and transparency. Otherwise, we are left to conclude that this is being rushed through for other reasons, orchestrated by the biggest developer law firm and city staff over the course of a year, working against the residents on our dime.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and Voter
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
11 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 11:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Oliver Chi
Subject: September 30, 2025 City Council Meeting - Item 12A Upzoning of 2644 30th St - OPPOSE
Attachments: 2024 Leasing flyer.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council -
Please see the attached brochure marketing 2644 30th Street in 2024. As a reminder it is now fully leased and the owner hasn't listed any space for lease per the MLS.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and Voter
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2644 30TH STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
± 9,178 SF GROUND FLOOR SPACE FOR LEASE

HIGH SPEED FIBER OPTIC INTERNET

INDUSTRIAL/FLEX/CREATIVE

CLICK FOR MORE PICTURES
$2 PSF BROKER BONUS

VIEW VIRTUAL TOUR
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Dylan Mahood, CCIM
310-899-2706
[email protected]
AGT DRE 02027002
FEATURES • Mix of Twelve (12) Offices, Open Space and
Workstations
• High Speed Fiber Optic Internet
• Exposed Ceilings
• Concrete Slap Floor - 2 Inches
• Private Outdoor Meeting Space
• Two (2) Large Windowed Conference Rooms
• Full Kitchen
• 11’ High Ceilings
• Up to Four (4) Roll Up Doors Potential
• Up to Two (2) Dedicated Loading Areas from
Parking Lot
• Power: 400 amp/120/208 volt 3 phase
• Approx 20 Ton HVAC
• Reserved Parking
• Perfect for Flex/industrial, Production, Tech/Internet, & Creative Uses • Former Offices of Google, Applied Semantic, and
Animal Logic offices and McDonald
Douglas Model Workshop
• Located within walking distance to numerous
eateries including The Counter, IL Forno, and
Society Kitchen

CONTACTS
David Wilson
310.899.2707
[email protected]
AGT DRE 00822760
James Wilson
310-899-2708
[email protected]
AGT DRE 00883324
No warranty or representation is made to the accuracy of the foregoing information. Terms of sale or lease are subject to change or withdrawal without notice.

GROUND FLOOR FLEX/CREATIVE space

PREMISES
± 9,178 SF (Divisible)
RENT
Years 1 - 2: $1.95/SF, MG
Years 3+: Negotiable

OCCUPANCY
Immediate
TERM
3 - 5 Years

PARKING
27 Single Reserved Spaces Included
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
FOR LEASE Page 3
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
FOR LEASE Page 4
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
FOR LEASE Page 5
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
FOR LEASE Page 6
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
FOR LEASE Page 7

EXISTING FLOOR PLAN
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
FOR LEASE Page 8

EXISTING FLOOR PLAN WITH ROLL UP DOOR OPTION
ROLL-UP DOOR CONCEPT @ SUITE 100 3/32" = 1'-0" 2.17.23
DH
212051
1 of 1 2644 30th St, Suite 100
Santa Monica, CA 90405
PMI Properties

POSSIBLE

LOCATION(S) FOR

ROLL-UP DOORS
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
FOR LEASE Page 9

SPEC FLOOR PLAN (DIVISIBLE)

SUITE B

SUITE A
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
FOR LEASE Page 10

SITE PLAN WITH POTENTIAL LOADING DOCK

ROLL-UP DOOR LOCATIONS
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
FOR LEASE Page 11

AREA OVERVIEW

SOCIETY KITCHEN

CRIMSON

STARBUCKS
MIYAKO

JUICE CRAFTERS

BLOSSOM VIETNAMESE

THE COUNTER

ESTATE COFFEE
VITO

IL FORNO
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
FOR LEASE Page 12

NEARBY AMENITIES
2 1
3 4
9 7
6 5
11 9
10 12
13 14
15 16
20 19
18 17

1. Tiato Kitchen & Market

2. Birdie G’s

3. Bergamot Cafe

4. Lime Cafe

5. Lunetta All Day

6. Society Kitchen

7. The Counter

8. Vito

9. Blueys Market & Cafe

10. Starbucks

11. El Torito

12. Kiff Kafe

13. The Arsenal

14. Bed Bath & Beyond

15. Tacos Por Favor

16. Ralph’s

17. Marshalls

18. Best Buy

19. Starbucks

20. Chipotle

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

JAMES WILSON
310.899.2708
[email protected]
AGT DRE 00883324

DYLAN MAHOOD, CCIM
310.899.2706
[email protected]
AGT DRE 02027002

DAVID WILSON
310.899.2707
[email protected]
AGT DRE 00822760
Lee & Associates Los Angeles West, Inc.
1508 17th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90404
www.leewestla.com | DRE 01222000

CONTACTS
FOR LEASE Page 13
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
12 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 11:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Oliver Chi
Subject: September 30, 2025 City Council Meeting - Item 12A Upzoning of 2644 30th St - OPPOSE
Attachments: Correspondence Between City and HCD re NC.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council -
Please see the attached letter from Planning Commission to City Council and correspondence between the City and HCD regarding the upzoning of Neighborhood Commercial that shows the last written outreach from City staff was in November of 2023, almost 2 years ago. This is relevant because any upzoning of this interior parcel to Neighborhood Commercial would carry with it the erroneous upzoning of Neighborhood Commercial in violation of our general plan.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and Voter
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Planning Commission
January 23, 2023
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main St
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Honorable Councilmembers:

The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council request the approval of the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to amend Program 1J of the City’s certified Housing Element (2021-2129) in order to meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives and to protect small, locally owned businesses and service providers The proposed amendment would fine-tune the program by retaining the City’s long-term commitment to providing access to housing opportunity while ensuring we maintain complete neighborhoods that provide access to economic opportunity and address vehicle miles traveled concerns. Specifically, the proposed amendment would retain the existing heights and Floor Area Ratios (FAR) in the Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NC) on Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue, rather than increasing them as proposed in the current language of Program 1J.

The Planning Commission also recommends that the City request HCD’s guidance as to whether the SSI should be amended to remove the thirteen properties in the Neighborhoods Commercial District and to add (a) Replacement Site(s) that is (are) necessary to compensate for the 165 housing units projected for development in the NC District.

This request for approval to amend Program 1J is based on the following:

1. The Commission understands that the State is concerned about accomplishing AFFH goals by upzoning the NC Districts. The City has found through on-going analysis that this upzoning is not necessary to accomplish DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
the City’s RHNA goals nor to further AFFH objectives. The City believes that AFFH goals are being reached in all the neighborhoods served by the NC Districts, or will be reached through the implementation of new programs mandated by the Housing Element.

2. The upzoning of our NC districts will cause the displacement of locally owned businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to residents.

In fact, the loss of these neighborhood-serving businesses will be in direct conflict with AFFH objectives. Many of these small businesses are minorityowned. Further, NC Districts currently offer entrepreneurial opportunities for local residents, many of whom are people of color.

3. Proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would remove the requirement that the ground floors of new projects on Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards include commercial space. This proposed zoning change recognizes the inability of local businesses to afford the rents in these new buildings and the fact that these two neighborhood commercial streets would not attract sufficient regional interest to attract non-local retailers, which could afford the new, higher rents. The result of this would be the removal of all convenient, walkable commercial opportunities in Sunset Park and the Pico neighborhood.

4. The NC Districts include many designated Landmarks and other significant historic resources. This fact reduces the overall development capacity of NC areas.

5. A Replacement Site that can accommodate more than the 165 units projected for the upzoned NC areas has been identified. With even greater capacity than those sites, it will actually increase the number of affordable and market rate units produced during the 6th Cycle.

6. The Replacement Site will locate new residents close to the Expo Light Rail Line, offering access to numerous job nodes throughout the region. Access to high quality transit is critical to the economic health of many residents, especially lower incomes.

Data Demonstrating AFFH in Neighborhood Commercial Districts The proposed Housing Element amendment will not have negative impacts on the State’s AFFH requirements because each neighborhood surrounding the NC zones DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
currently offers or will offer a variety of housing types and affordability levels during the 6th Cycle.

Main Street
The NC district on Main Street is the major commercial area serving residents of Ocean Park. The historically red-lined Ocean Park community has always provided a variety of housing types and a range of affordability levels. Community Corporation of Santa Monica (CCSM), Santa Monica’s most prolific affordable housing development nonprofit established with a seed grant from the City of Santa Monica in 1982, owns and operates 343 affordable housing units on 22 sites across Ocean Park. Of these units, 44 are on Main Street, just north of Main Street’s NC District. Across the street from this CCSM project on Main Street is a mixed income rental housing project with approximately 60 units. This existing housing has been developed using the zoning standards of the General Commercial District, which has a lower FAR and height limit than that proposed in the Housing Element for the NC portion of Main Street.

There are approximately 170 units of deed restricted affordable rental units for seniors in Ocean Park.

According to the 2021 Santa Monica Rent Control Board Annual Report, 4,684 rental units in Ocean Park are subject to local rent control (17% of the citywide total). The median monthly Maximum Allowable Rents for these units range from $1,521 for a studio apartment to $2,466 for a three-bedroom apartment. These rents are affordable to moderate income households and include units with long term tenants and those that have been decontrolled to market rate levels.

The feasibility of developing housing with the existing NC development standards has been demonstrated by a recently approved market rate rental housing project with ground floor retail in the NC District. This project demonstrates that housing can be feasibly developed with a retail component on this NC portion of Main Street.

Ocean Park is a diverse community from the standpoint of income levels and demographics. John Muir Elementary School is located in Ocean Park and serves the majority of children who live in that community. It is currently closed for remediation purposes. When in operation, the school is a Title I school, meaning at least thirty five percent (35%) of its students are from families living at or near the poverty level. Forty seven percent (47%) of the students are from low-income families. John Muir is also racially and ethnically integrated with almost sixty percent (60%) of students identifying as non-white.

DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
The Ocean Park housing market also includes many single-family houses and condominiums with values well into the millions of dollars.

The City believes that upzoning the NC District on Main Street is unnecessary because Ocean Park is already a model community for meeting AFFH objectives.

Ocean Park Boulevard
The NC area on Ocean Park Boulevard is the major neighborhood commercial district for the Sunset Park community with locally owned businesses and necessary community retail and essential services. A common misperception about the Sunset Park community is that it is primarily populated by single family homeowners in R1 districts. Similar to Ocean Park, Sunset Park offers a wide variety of housing choices and affordability levels. There are approximately 7,000 housing units in Sunset Park.

Of these, 2,634 are on R1 properties, and 3,309 are rentals subject to local rent control. The median Maximum Allowable Rents for these rent-controlled units range from $1,140 for a studio to $2,298 for a three-bedroom unit. These rents are affordable to low and/or moderate-income households. CCSM owns and operates 310 deed restricted affordable rental units in Sunset Park. The balance of the units in Sunset Park (747) are condominiums and post-1978 apartments.

Another interesting fact about Sunset Park is that one of its two elementary schools (Will Rogers) is among the most ethnically and racially diverse schools in the district.

It serves the Pico and Sunset Park neighborhoods west of 17th Street. Thirty three percent (33%) of the students identify as white, forty five percent (45%) as Hispanic, nine percent (9%) as black, and thirteen percent (13%) as members of other racial/ethnic groups. Will Rogers is designated as a Title I school. John Adams Middle School, which serves the Pico Neighborhood, Sunset Park and Ocean Park is also a Title 1 school. No feasibility analysis showing the need to increase FAR and height in the NC District of Ocean Park Boulevard was performed, but existing conditions demonstrate the district’s ability to offer housing opportunity at a wide range of affordability.

Montana Avenue
The Montana Avenue NC district is the major neighborhood commercial area for the neighborhoods north of Montana Avenue and between Montana Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard. Although the north of Montana neighborhood is primarily R1 with extremely high property values, it is bound by streets with hundreds of units of multifamily housing. The certified Housing Element proposes furthering AFFH objectives in the R1 District north of Montana through active encouragement of ADU DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
construction and enactment of zoning changes that encourage the development of duplexes using SB9.

The neighborhood between Montana Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard is almost entirely developed with multi-family housing and has the highest percentage of the City’s rent-controlled housing supply (6,012 units). These rent-controlled units are affordable to and serve all income groups.

Pico Boulevard
Businesses in the Pico Boulevard NC District serve residents of the Pico Neighborhood and the northern section of Sunset Park with a variety of affordable retail and service options. Although designated a High Resource Area like the rest of the city, the Pico Neighborhood is home to its lowest income and most rent burdened residents. The neighborhood also has the highest concentration of people of color and is the community most at risk because of gentrification and its resulting displacement. Planning for this area is a delicate balance between encouraging diversity and protecting existing residents and the commercial facilities that serve them.

Beginning with the Pico Neighborhood Community Plan in 1983, the residents of the Pico Neighborhood have advocated for fair housing, appropriate commercial/industrial development, to reduce crime, support youth, and for public services in their district. Spurred by new energy from the community in 2016, the city began an update of the Pico Neighborhood Plan that focused specifically on the NC district. Community advocates brought strong support for maintaining and supporting the ethnic and cultural character of the Pico Neighborhood, protecting residents from displacement, and developing new ways to support business opportunities for local entrepreneurs in the NC district on Pico Boulevard. In 2019, targeted adjustments were made to the city’s zoning regulations for NC on Pico Boulevard to support local economic development. For example, a community kitchen that supports seed businesses in food service is under construction. The City also gives micro-grants to local entrepreneurs seeking to start small businesses.

And, a Protecting Our Diversity program provides rent subsidies for Pico Neighborhood residents.

The Pico Neighborhood also includes an area north of the I10 Freeway, which was severedfrom the southern portion of the neighborhood by construction of the Santa Monica Freeway in the 1960s. It encompasses the Bergamot Plan area where hundreds of new mixed income housing units are expected because of the upzoning planned for in the City’s Housing Element. This is also where the proposed DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Replacement Site is situated. This aggressive development scenario will maintain the cultural and economic diversity in the Pico Neighborhood, while adding a robust program of new housing choices adjacent to transit.

Conclusion
The Neighborhood Commercial District zones support Santa Monica’s most diverse communities with locally owned, legacy businesses that have been serving their neighborhoods for decades. Many of these businesses are minority owned. These businesses include laundromats, shoe repair shops and affordable grocery stores, restaurants, and family entertainment options The Venice Family Clinic is located in the NC District of Pico Boulevard. Its displacement would eliminate affordable health care for the many lower income families in the community. NC areas define “community” for many current and future residents of Santa Monica at all income levels. Business owners are also neighbors who often know their customers by name. They provide daily neighborhood gathering opportunities, support for neighborhood organizations and schools, and job opportunities for local youth and Santa Monica College students.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requires a holistic approach to meeting housing needs and providing neighborhood-serving and affordable businesses, employment opportunities, and the kind of community cohesion that ensures safe and vibrant places for people at all income levels in Santa Monica. The city’s Neighborhood Commercial districts on Main Street, Pico Boulevard, Montana Avenue and Ocean Park Boulevard provide these opportunities. The Commission believes that protecting these resources is consistent with AFFH objectives.

Sincerely,
Jim Ries, Chair
DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: McDougall, Paul@HCD
Sent: Tue, 4 Apr 2023 13:42:58 +0000
To: Roxanne Tanemori
Subject: RE: City of Santa Monica Update
Thursday at 4p works
From: Roxanne Tanemori <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 11:50 PM
To: McDougall, Paul@HCD <[email protected]>
Subject: City of Santa Monica Update
Hi, Paul –
This is Roxanne Tanemori from the City of Santa Monica – Jing has been on maternity leave since March 3 rd and I’ve covering her role until she returns in September. My colleague Heidi von Tongeln and I would like to give you a brief update on the City Council’s recent action to implement phase one programs identified in our certified 6th Cycle Housing Element. Do you have time for a short call with the two of us later this week or early next week?
Thursday, April 6th 8:30am
Thursday, April 6th at/after 4pm
Monday, April 10th 9:30 to 11am
Monday, April 10th 1-2pm
Thanks,
Roxanne
Roxanne Tanemori, AICP
Acting Planning Manager
(310) 458-2201 ext. 8202
[email protected]
santamonica.gov [santamonica.gov]
Reach the City Planning team anytime at 311! [santamonica.gov] Zoning Code [qcode.us] | Applications & Forms [smgov.net] | Plans & Projects [smgov.net] Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Roxanne Tanemori
Sent: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 03:09:36 +0000
To: McDougall, Paul@HCD
Cc: David White; David Martin; Douglas Sloan; Susan Cola; Heidi von Tongeln Subject: Santa Monica 4 12 2023: Request for Technical Assistance Dear Paul,
Thank you for taking time to speak with City staff on April 6th. We appreciated the chance to update you on the Santa Monica City Council’s recent actions to implement phase one programs identified in our certified 6th Cycle Housing Element, including rezoning and process streamlining for housing projects.

We also noted that the City Council provided direction to staff to seek technical assistance from HCD regarding a potential change to portions of the City’s Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. The attached letter outlines this request for technical assistance in more detail.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need more information to assist in your review of the City’s inquiry.

The Council then held a public hearing on March 21, 2023, and adopted the amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Element (“LUCE”), Bergamot Area Plan (“BAP”), Downtown Community Plan (“DCP”), and introduced for first reading amendments to the Zoning Ordinance necessary to implement these requirements of our first phase of certified Housing Element implementation.

The second reading of the ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance was adopted by the City Council on April 11, 2023.

Among those amendments, the City Council completed implementation of Program 1J (Rezoning By Revising Development Standards To Ensure That Housing Projects Are Feasible And Incentivized Over Commercial Development), which included increasing the maximum allowable floor area ratio (“FAR”) and height (i.e., up-zoning) for housing projects in the City’s nonresidential districts outside of the downtown in order to incentivize housing production, and Program 4A (Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Permit Multiple-Unit Housing in Non-Residential Zones Where Not Currently Permitted), which included a commitment to promote fair and equitable housing opportunities in certain zoning districts.

During the Council’s February 22, 2023 study session preceding its March 21, 2023 vote to approve the full range of first phase program implementation, including Programs 1J and 4A, part of the Council’s discussion highlighted its interest in balancing both the City’s programmatic Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
approach to affirmatively furthering fair housing (Assessment of Fair Housing in the City, Chapter 2) by providing new housing choices and more affordability in high opportunity areas, with its concern about displacement of small businesses from neighborhood commercial areas. During the February 22nd study session, in response to concerns raised by the community, the Planning Commission, and Councilmembers, the City Council directed staff to request technical assistance from HCD regarding a potential proposal to amend a portion of the City’s Housing Element that would reverse the increase in allowable FAR and building height for certain sections of the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone.

More specifically, and as described in more detail below, the City of Santa Monica respectfully submits the following question for technical advice:

Would HCD consider the City’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element to be substantially compliant with State Housing Element Law (i.e., would the Housing Element retain its certified status) if the City were to amend Programs 1.J and 4.A to eliminate the up-zoning (i.e., increasing height and FAR) for certain sections of the NC Zone on Main Street, Montana Avenue, Ocean Park Boulevard and Pico Boulevard? For clarity, and as described in more detail below, if the City were to pursue this amendment, and if it were approved by HCD, it would result in a reversal of the up-zoning of those limited portions of the NC Zone that the City Council adopted on March 21, and April 11, 2023.

This question comes in response to the City Council’s discussion of concerns regarding how best to protect these neighborhood-serving commercial areas that are home to local, small businesses.

As indicated in the attached materials, arguments presented to the City Council include: retaining small businesses would be a means to remove barriers to entry and increase entrepreneur opportunities for local residents, promote workforce development through local jobs, which in turn supports affirmatively furthering fair housing by allowing local residents to participate in the local economy. For ease of reference, Chapter 2 of the City’s certified Housing Element provides an overview of the City’s approach to these areas from an affirmatively furthering fair housing perspective (see pp. 77-78).

Table 1 below outlines the up-zoning of the Neighborhood Commercial Zone as described in Program 1.J of the City’s certified 6th Cycle Housing Element. The City Council approved this upzoning of the Neighborhood Commercial Zone as part of its March 21, 2023 and April 11. 2023 actions.

TABLE 1.

NC Zone Parcel
Information
Approx. Acres
to be Rezoned
Current Tier 1
FAR/Height
Current Tier 2
FAR/Height
Minimum FAR/Height
with Rezoning
NC1 27 1.50/32 ft N/A 2.25/50 ft
NC (Main) 14 1.00/27 ft N/A 2.50/55 ft
NC (Ocean Park) 15 1.00/32 ft N/A 2.50/55 ft
NC (Montana) 15 1.00/ 32 ft N/A 2.50/55 ft
1 This NC Zone includes Pico Boulevard but other NC Zones on 14th Street and 26th Street have not been the subject of Council discussions and is therefore not part of the question being asked.

The map set forth below is also provided here to display the parcels zoned NC where the upzoning would be reversed with this proposal (parcels outlined in blue). In other words, the highlighted parcels would revert back to the “current” maximum height and FAR set forth in Table Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1 that has been in effect since June 23, 2015. There are a total of 13 parcels zoned Neighborhood Commercial on Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, and Montana Avenue that are also listed on the City’s Suitable Sites Inventory (Attachment “E”).

Figure 1. NC Zone Parcels under Discussion
Attached to this request for technical assistance is a letter from the Planning Commission dated January 23, 2023 (Attachment “A”) and a link to written correspondence received at the February 22, 2023 study session (Attachment “B”) that the Council considered as part of its discussion and as context to directing this request.

Finally, for reference, Attachment “C” to this letter provides a redline of the summary table incorporating this potential change to the NC Zone (Program 1.J on pages 129-130 of the City’s certified 6th Cycle Housing Element) and Attachment “D” provides a summary map showing the up-zoning Council adopted on March 21, 2023 and April 11, 2023 in order to ensure that for the City as a whole, new housing is feasible and incentivized over commercial development and new housing choices and more affordability in high opportunity areas are accommodated.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
We look forward to receiving HCD’s response to this technical assistance request. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or (310) 458-8202.

Sincerely,
Roxanne Tanemori, AICP
Acting Planning Manager
cc: David White, City Manager
David Martin, Community Development Director
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney
Susan Cola, Assistant City Attorney
Heidi von Tongeln, Chief Deputy City Attorney
Attachments
A. Letter from Planning Commission to City Council proposing amendments to the Housing Element, January 23, 2023
B. Link to written correspondence for City Council Study Session, February 22, 2023 C. Redline summary table (Program 1.J on pages 129-130 of the City’s certified 6th Cycle Housing Element)
D. Map of Council-adopted rezoning, March 21, 2023
E. Certified 6th Cycle Housing Element Suitable Sites Inventory with NC-Zoned parcels highlighted
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: McDougall, Paul@HCD
Sent: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:48:23 +0000
To: Roxanne Tanemori
Cc: David White; David Martin; Douglas Sloan; Susan Cola; Heidi von Tongeln Subject: RE: City of Santa Monica Request for Technical Assistance Thank you all; we look forward to touching base in a week or so From: Roxanne Tanemori <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 8:10 PM
To: McDougall, Paul@HCD <[email protected]>
Cc: David White <[email protected]>; David Martin <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Susan Cola <[email protected]>; Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]>
Subject: City of Santa Monica Request for Technical Assistance Dear Paul,
Thank you for taking time to speak with City staff on April 6th. We appreciated the chance to update you on the Santa Monica City Council’s recent actions to implement phase one programs identified in our certified 6th Cycle Housing Element, including rezoning and process streamlining for housing projects.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need more information to assist in your review of the City’s inquiry.

Thanks,
Roxanne Tanemori
Roxanne Tanemori, AICP
Acting Planning Manager
(310) 458-2201 ext. 8202
[email protected]
santamonica.gov [santamonica.gov]
Reach the City Planning team anytime at 311! [santamonica.gov] Zoning Code [qcode.us] | Applications & Forms [smgov.net] | Plans & Projects [smgov.net] Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Total Number of Redactions in Document: 1
Redaction Reasons by Page
Page Reason Description Occurrences
1 Privacy
Gov. Code section 7922.000; Const. Art. 1,
section 1; information if disclosed would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of
privacy
1 Redaction Date: 8/29/2025 10:17:15 AM
Redaction Log
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Redaction Reasons by Exemption
Reason Description Pages
(Count)
Privacy
Gov. Code section 7922.000; Const. Art. 1,
section 1; information if disclosed would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of
privacy
1(1)
Redaction Date: 8/29/2025 10:17:15 AM
Redaction Log
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Jing Yeo
Sent: Fri, 3 Nov 2023 21:29:01 +0000
To: McDougall, Paul@HCD
Subject: Status of Requests for technical assistance
Hi Paul,
Hope you’re doing well! I’m just following up on our two requests for technical assistance that we submitted to HCD and checking as to when we might expect a response? The subject matter was regarding the following:
 Potential Amendment to Certified 6th Cycle Housing Element (letter sent April 12, 2023)  Applicability of SB330 to combination of units in a stock cooperative (letter sent July 21, 2023) Thanks!
Jing
Jing Yeo
Planning Manager
(310) 458-8203
santamonica.gov [santamonica.gov]
Facebook [facebook.com] | Twitter [twitter.com] | Instagram [instagram.com] Reach the City Planning team anytime at 311! [santamonica.gov] Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
13 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 11:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Oliver Chi
Subject: September 30, 2025 City Council Meeting - Item 12A Upzoning of 2644 30th St - OPPOSE
Attachments: 2025-09-29 PRA Response 2644 30th R037159-Emails_Redacted.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council -
I submitted a Public Records Act request on September 12 for “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.”
The City responded with a different construction that was narrower than the request:
"To locate potentially responsive email communications, the City performed the following search of the City server:

Inbound/Outbound
Keywords: ("2644 30th" OR "2644 SM Partners") AND ("zoning") Timeframe: 2024-08-01 - 2025-09-12
With this letter, the City has produced all responsive email communications located using the above-identified email search parameters. The City withheld records that are not responsive to your request." The attached is what I received, which reveals that this item was initiated by Harding Larmore, counsel to the owner. Instead of requiring the owner to submit a zoning application, staff proceeded with this item as "legislation". The attached further reveals that Harding Larmore wrote portions of the staff reports, resolutions and ordinances, staff solicited their input during this process while not offering the same opportunity to the public, and staff provided public comment to Harding Larmore before it was available to the public.

Staff failed to disclose this collaboration with the owner. Residents are entitled to a more transparent and fair process. This behavior should not be rewarded, and instead you must reject this request to upzone 2644 30th Street.

Regards,
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Susie Ahn
To: Gabrielle Maher
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Meeting rg 2644 30th St?
Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 8:59:58 AM
Attachments: image002.png

EXTERNAL
Gabrielle, let me check re in-person or virtual. I will get right back to you. Thank you! Susie N. Ahn | Senior Legal Assistant
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 393-1007 | [email protected]
From: Gabrielle Maher <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 8:51 AM
To: Susie Ahn <[email protected]>; Paula Larmore <[email protected]> Cc: Julia Daniels <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Meeting rg 2644 30th St?
Yes. Would you like me to send out the invite or will your office? Also, is this a virtual meeting or in person? If in person, I can schedule a conference room in City Hall East.

Let me know.

Thanks,
Gabi
Gabrielle Maher
Executive Administrative Assistant
Community Development Department
(310) 458-2201 ext. 2586
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Susie Ahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 8:15 AM
To: Gabrielle Maher <[email protected]>; Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Cc: Julia Daniels <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Meeting rg 2644 30th St?

EXTERNAL
Good morning, Gabrielle! May we book Thursday, September 19th at 11am please? Susie N. Ahn | Senior Legal Assistant
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 393-1007 | [email protected]
From: Gabrielle Maher <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 1:06 PM
To: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Cc: Julia Daniels <[email protected]>; Susie Ahn <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Meeting rg 2644 30th St?
Good afternoon,
David and Jing have the following times available for this meeting:

Wednesday, Sept 11 @ 10:30 am or 11:00 am
Wednesday, Sept 18 @ 2:00 pm
Thursday, Sept 19 @ 11:00 am
Let me know if any of the above work or if you need dates further out.

Thank you.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Gabrielle Maher
Executive Administrative Assistant
Community Development Department
(310) 458-2201 ext. 2586
From: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 9:05 AM
To: David Martin <[email protected]>; Jing Yeo <[email protected]> Cc: Gabrielle Maher <[email protected]>; Julia Daniels <[email protected]>; Susie Ahn <[email protected]>
Subject: Meeting rg 2644 30th St?

EXTERNAL
Hi David and Jing,
Can we schedule a time to meet about a lot that was inadvertently changed from commercial (C2) to R1 during the 2010 LUCE/2015 Zoning Ordinance? The lot is improved with a commercial office building and had been zoned C2 for decades. I’ve done a lot of research on the history and the remapping process during the 2015 Zoning Ordinance update that I would like to present to you virtually or inperson. I have gathered the list of these inconsistent parcels from the staff reports and the relevant pages discussing the inconsistencies, the relevant ordinances and resolutions. When you see the various maps side-by-side it is understandable to see how this lot was missed/not identified. I will send you my summary and all the relevant documents after we meet but we wanted to talk it through with you live and hopefully brainstorm opportunities to address the issue. (The full site involves 3 lots but it is only the southernmost lot with the commercial building on it that was rezoned. The surface parking lots to the north are also zoned R1 but these have been residential for many years.) From our side, the meeting would include the property owner PMI (Jeff Palmer and Gabrielle Ipale) and me. Given your schedules, perhaps Gabrielle could suggest a few times that work for both of you. I’ve copied our assistants Julia and Susie to help with scheduling for our team. This isn’t urgent but I wanted to get this on your radar in case there are any upcoming opportunities to address this.

Thanks,
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Paula
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Gabrielle Maher
To: Susie Ahn
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Meeting rg 2644 30th St?
Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 9:55:03 AM
Attachments: image002.png
Hi Susie,
I have booked CHE Room 120 which seats up to 10 people and has a TV monitor if you wish to connect a laptop. David and Jing will meet your team in the City Hall East Lobby and escort them to the conference room.

Thanks,
Gabrielle Maher
Executive Administrative Assistant
Community Development Department
(310) 458-2201 ext. 2586
From: Susie Ahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 9:32 AM
To: Gabrielle Maher <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Meeting rg 2644 30th St?

EXTERNAL
Gabrielle, may we do in-person for now and if we need to switch to virtual, I will let you know within the next few days.

And I would be happy to send the invite. Please let me know if I should specify a room/conference room in the invite. Thank you!
Susie N. Ahn | Senior Legal Assistant
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 393-1007 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

From: Gabrielle Maher <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 8:51 AM
To: Susie Ahn <[email protected]>; Paula Larmore <[email protected]> Cc: Julia Daniels <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Meeting rg 2644 30th St?
Yes. Would you like me to send out the invite or will your office? Also, is this a virtual meeting or in person? If in person, I can schedule a conference room in City Hall East.

Let me know.

Thanks,
Gabi
Gabrielle Maher
Executive Administrative Assistant
Community Development Department
(310) 458-2201 ext. 2586
From: Susie Ahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 8:15 AM
To: Gabrielle Maher <[email protected]>; Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Cc: Julia Daniels <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Meeting rg 2644 30th St?

Wednesday, Sept 11 @ 10:30 am or 11:00 am
Wednesday, Sept 18 @ 2:00 pm
Thursday, Sept 19 @ 11:00 am
Let me know if any of the above work or if you need dates further out.

Thank you.

Gabrielle Maher
Executive Administrative Assistant
Community Development Department
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
(310) 458-2201 ext. 2586
From: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 9:05 AM
To: David Martin <[email protected]>; Jing Yeo <[email protected]> Cc: Gabrielle Maher <[email protected]>; Julia Daniels <[email protected]>; Susie Ahn <[email protected]>
Subject: Meeting rg 2644 30th St?

Thanks,
Paula
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Paula Larmore
To: Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman; Heidi von Tongeln
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: 2644 30th Street Questions on Draft Resolution/Suggested Edits Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 3:42:05 PM
Attachments: image003.png

EXTERNAL
Thanks,
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message.

Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

From: Jing Yeo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 3:28 PM
To: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>; Ross Fehrman <[email protected]>; Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 2644 30th Street Questions on Draft Resolution/Suggested Edits Thanks Paula – we will update the resolution to be consistent with the language in the staff report that speaks to addressing non-conformities.

From: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2025 11:30 AM
To: Jing Yeo <[email protected]>; Ross Fehrman <[email protected]>; Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]>
Subject: 2644 30th Street Questions on Draft Resolution/Suggested Edits

EXTERNAL
Jing, Ross and Heidi,
For the mapping change for 2644 30th Street, I think the Staff Report (page 6, excerpt below) adequately explains the mapping issue; however, the language in the draft resolution is narrower.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
The resolution only mentions consistency between the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance. For 2644 30th Street, the inconsistency is with the existing development/use and the historical zoning. Attached are a few suggested edits to the draft resolution. The two in highlight in Sections 1 and 2 are the most important but the one in the recital also adds clarity. In addition, I think it might be helpful to show on Exhibit A or at least preview that the new zoning being considered is NC with the adjacent parcel (and not some other more intense designation).

I’m happy to hop on a call early next week if you would like to discuss.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Paula
Staff Report Excerpt:

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Heidi von Tongeln
To: Paula Larmore
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 8:57:16 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Great, thank you.

From: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 8:36:39 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street

EXTERNAL
Thanks Heidi. FYI I’m also going to forward to Oliver as we discussed this briefly today as well.

From: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 8:27 PM
To: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Thanks, Paula. Will do. Appreciate you sending everything along. Will review and be in touch with any questions.

Best,
Heidi
From: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 8:22:25 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street

EXTERNAL
Hi Heidi,
Please use the attached version rather than the one sent a few minutes ago as I found a typo in one of the recitals.

Thanks,
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Paula
From: Paula Larmore
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 8:20 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Hi Heidi,
Thanks for reaching out. I included suggested revisions to the draft ordinance in the attached redline. The revisions include (a) additional relevant facts (in the recitals) and (b) clarification/use of legal description of the relevant lots to make it crystal clear that it is only the two lots that were previously designated/zoned commercial that are being brought back to commercial LUCE designation/zoning (and that the surface parking lots are not proposed to be changed from their long-standing designation as R1). Although I didn’t add it in the recitals, we could also add that there is 120 linear feet of r-zoned surface parking separating the lots that are proposed to be brought back to commercial LUCE designation/zoning from the residential homes to the north.

In addition, Oliver provided some interesting facts the other day about the office vacancy rate that I think might be helpful to add in the recitals if the data is publicly available.

I can also update the draft resolution with similar changes if it would be of interest to you; however, I thought it might be most efficient to first send you the attached draft ordinance for your review since the changes will be similar.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Paula
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

From: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 4:07 PM
To: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Hi Paula,
Councilmember Torosis mentioned that you have additional facts/suggested edits for the resolution and ordinance to implement the proposed map amendments for the property located at 2644 30th Street. Apologies if you have already sent along, but I am unable to locate at the moment. Would you mind sending along what you have so we can ensure we have everything?
Thank you,
Heidi
Heidi von Tongeln
Chief Deputy City Attorney, Advisory Unit
1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 458-8336
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is a confidential attorney client communication and attorney work product. This message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) it is addressed to above. Please do not forward or produce pursuant to a Public Records Act request. The information in this message may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (310-458-8336) and delete the original message. Thank you.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Paula Larmore
To: Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman; Heidi von Tongeln
Subject: 2644 30th Street Questions on Draft Resolution/Suggested Edits Date: Saturday, February 15, 2025 11:33:22 AM
Attachments: image002.png
s20250219 7Cc.markup.docx

The resolution only mentions consistency between the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance. For 2644 30th Street, the inconsistency is with the existing development/use and the historical zoning. Attached are a few suggested edits to the draft resolution. The two in highlight in Sections 1 and 2 are the most important but the one in the recital also adds clarity. In addition, I think it might be helpful to show on Exhibit A or at least preview that the new zoning being considered is NC with the adjacent parcel (and not some other more intense designation).

I’m happy to hop on a call early next week if you would like to discuss.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Paula
Staff Report Excerpt:

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Heidi von Tongeln
To: Paula Larmore
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Date: Friday, August 1, 2025 6:18:18 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Thank you, Paula. Just sent the invite. Hope you have a nice weekend, too.

Heidi von Tongeln
Chief Deputy City Attorney, Advisory Unit
1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 458-8336
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is a confidential attorney client communication and attorney work product. This message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) it is addressed to above. Please do not forward or produce pursuant to a Public Records Act request. The information in this message may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (310-458-8336) and delete the original message. Thank you.

From: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2025 6:03 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street

EXTERNAL
Perfect. Thank you and have a nice weekend.

Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

From: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 1, 2025 5:52 PM
To: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Hi Paula,
Let’s do 4 pm on Monday. I am happy to send out a Teams invite if that works for you.

Thank you,
Heidi
Heidi von Tongeln
Chief Deputy City Attorney, Advisory Unit
1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 458-8336
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is a confidential attorney client communication and attorney work product. This message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) it is addressed to above. Please do not forward or produce pursuant to a Public Records Act request. The information in this message may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (310-458-8336) and delete the original message. Thank you.

From: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2025 5:42 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street

EXTERNAL
Hi Heidi,
Here are times that work for me:

Monday 8/4: 1030am-3pm or 3:30-5pm
Tuesday 8/5: 9am-10am; 10:30-11;30am or after 1pm
Wednesday 8/6: 10:30am-11:30am; 1:30-2:30pm; 4-5pm
Thursday 8/7: 9:30am-11am
Friday 8/8: 9:30am-5pm
If none of these work for you, I’ll move things around to accommodate your schedule.

Thanks,
Paula
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

From: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 1, 2025 5:27 PM
To: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Hi Paula,
Thank you for checking in. We are still reviewing and discussing internally, but happy to discuss potential solutions if you have time next week. Please let me know of some times that may work for you.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Best,
Heidi
Heidi von Tongeln
Chief Deputy City Attorney, Advisory Unit
1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 458-8336
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is a confidential attorney client communication and attorney work product. This message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) it is addressed to above. Please do not forward or produce pursuant to a Public Records Act request. The information in this message may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (310-458-8336) and delete the original message. Thank you.

From: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2025 5:26 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street

EXTERNAL
Hi Heidi,
I’m checking in on the below.

I know there is some concern in the community that the below is related to the surface parking lot housing overlay item the Council directed earlier this week. I have a potential solution that will address this concern if of interest.

Paula
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

Best,
Heidi
From: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 8:22:25 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street

EXTERNAL
Hi Heidi,
Please use the attached version rather than the one sent a few minutes ago as I found a typo in one of the recitals.

Thanks,
Paula
From: Paula Larmore
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 8:20 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Hi Heidi,
Thanks for reaching out. I included suggested revisions to the draft ordinance in the attached redline. The revisions include (a) additional relevant facts (in the recitals) and (b) clarification/use of legal description of the relevant lots to make it crystal clear that it is only the two lots that were previously designated/zoned commercial that are being brought back to commercial LUCE designation/zoning (and that the surface parking lots are not proposed to be changed from their long-standing designation as R1). Although I didn’t add it in the recitals, we could also add that there is 120 linear feet of r-zoned surface parking separating the lots that are proposed to be brought back to commercial LUCE designation/zoning from the residential homes to the north.

In addition, Oliver provided some interesting facts the other day about the office vacancy rate that I think might be helpful to add in the recitals if the data is publicly available.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Paula
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

From: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 4:07 PM
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
To: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Hi Paula,
Councilmember Torosis mentioned that you have additional facts/suggested edits for the resolution and ordinance to implement the proposed map amendments for the property located at 2644 30th Street. Apologies if you have already sent along, but I am unable to locate at the moment. Would you mind sending along what you have so we can ensure we have everything?
Thank you,
Heidi
Heidi von Tongeln
Chief Deputy City Attorney, Advisory Unit
1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 458-8336
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is a confidential attorney client communication and attorney work product. This message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) it is addressed to above. Please do not forward or produce pursuant to a Public Records Act request. The information in this message may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (310-458-8336) and delete the original message. Thank you.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Paula Larmore
To: Heidi von Tongeln
Cc: Roxanne Tanemori
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Date: Friday, August 22, 2025 5:03:08 PM
Attachments: image002.png

EXTERNAL
Heidi,
For any future noticing, I think it would be valuable to be clear that it is only the “Northwest 60 feet of lots 78 and 83 of Tract No. 1980” within 2644 30th that are proposed for re-zone and not the surface parking lots. Since the address includes both the commercial building and the surface parking lots, this seemed to cause confusion at the prior hearing.

Also, would it be helpful to redline the draft reso to add the clarification about its application to only the lots with the commercial building and the history for your consideration (consistent with the redline for the ordinance)?
I’m also copying Roxanne for visibility.

Thanks,
Paula
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

From: Paula Larmore
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 8:22 PM
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
To: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Hi Heidi,
Please use the attached version rather than the one sent a few minutes ago as I found a typo in one of the recitals.

Thanks,
Paula
From: Paula Larmore
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 8:20 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Hi Heidi,
Thanks for reaching out. I included suggested revisions to the draft ordinance in the attached redline. The revisions include (a) additional relevant facts (in the recitals) and (b) clarification/use of legal description of the relevant lots to make it crystal clear that it is only the two lots that were previously designated/zoned commercial that are being brought back to commercial LUCE designation/zoning (and that the surface parking lots are not proposed to be changed from their long-standing designation as R1). Although I didn’t add it in the recitals, we could also add that there is 120 linear feet of r-zoned surface parking separating the lots that are proposed to be brought back to commercial LUCE designation/zoning from the residential homes to the north.

In addition, Oliver provided some interesting facts the other day about the office vacancy rate that I think might be helpful to add in the recitals if the data is publicly available.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Paula
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

From: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 4:07 PM
To: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Hi Paula,
Councilmember Torosis mentioned that you have additional facts/suggested edits for the resolution and ordinance to implement the proposed map amendments for the property located at 2644 30th Street. Apologies if you have already sent along, but I am unable to locate at the moment. Would you mind sending along what you have so we can ensure we have everything?
Thank you,
Heidi
Heidi von Tongeln
Chief Deputy City Attorney, Advisory Unit
1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 458-8336
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is a confidential attorney client communication and attorney work product. This message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) it is addressed to above. Please do not forward or produce pursuant to a Public Records Act request. The information in this message may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
USC Sections 2510-2521. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (310-458-8336) and delete the original message. Thank you.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Paula Larmore
To: Heidi von Tongeln
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 8:22:42 PM
Attachments: image001.png
CDD-Ord-2644 30th St-Zoning Map Amendment 051325rv.docx

EXTERNAL
Hi Heidi,
Thanks for reaching out. I included suggested revisions to the draft ordinance in the attached redline. The revisions include (a) additional relevant facts (in the recitals) and (b) clarification/use of legal description of the relevant lots to make it crystal clear that it is only the two lots that were previously designated/zoned commercial that are being brought back to commercial LUCE designation/zoning (and that the surface parking lots are not proposed to be changed from their long-standing designation as R1). Although I didn’t add it in the recitals, we could also add that there is 120 linear feet of r-zoned surface parking separating the lots that are proposed to be brought back to commercial LUCE designation/zoning from the residential homes to the north.

In addition, Oliver provided some interesting facts the other day about the office vacancy rate that I think might be helpful to add in the recitals if the data is publicly available.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Paula
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Paula Larmore
To: Roxanne Tanemori
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Date: Friday, July 25, 2025 4:25:52 PM
Attachments: image003.png
CDD-Ord-2644 30th St-Zoning Map Amendment 051325rv.docx

EXTERNAL
FYI
From: Paula Larmore
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 8:22 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Hi Heidi,
Please use the attached version rather than the one sent a few minutes ago as I found a typo in one of the recitals.

Thanks,
Paula
From: Paula Larmore
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 8:20 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Hi Heidi,
Thanks for reaching out. I included suggested revisions to the draft ordinance in the attached redline. The revisions include (a) additional relevant facts (in the recitals) and (b) clarification/use of legal description of the relevant lots to make it crystal clear that it is only the two lots that were previously designated/zoned commercial that are being brought back to commercial LUCE designation/zoning (and that the surface parking lots are not proposed to be changed from their long-standing designation as R1). Although I didn’t add it in the recitals, we could also add that there is 120 linear feet of r-zoned surface parking separating the lots that are proposed to be brought back to commercial LUCE designation/zoning from the residential homes to the north.

In addition, Oliver provided some interesting facts the other day about the office vacancy rate that I think might be helpful to add in the recitals if the data is publicly available.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
I can also update the draft resolution with similar changes if it would be of interest to you; however, I thought it might be most efficient to first send you the attached draft ordinance for your review since the changes will be similar.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Paula
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

From: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 4:07 PM
To: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Hi Paula,
Councilmember Torosis mentioned that you have additional facts/suggested edits for the resolution and ordinance to implement the proposed map amendments for the property located at 2644 30th Street. Apologies if you have already sent along, but I am unable to locate at the moment. Would you mind sending along what you have so we can ensure we have everything?
Thank you,
Heidi
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Heidi von Tongeln
Chief Deputy City Attorney, Advisory Unit
1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 458-8336
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is a confidential attorney client communication and attorney work product. This message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) it is addressed to above. Please do not forward or produce pursuant to a Public Records Act request. The information in this message may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (310-458-8336) and delete the original message. Thank you.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Paula Larmore
To: Oliver Chi
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 8:51:31 PM
Attachments: image003.png
CDD-Ord-2644 30th St-Zoning Map Amendment 051325rv.docx

Thanks,
Paula
From: Paula Larmore
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 8:20 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Hi Heidi,
Thanks for reaching out. I included suggested revisions to the draft ordinance in the attached redline. The revisions include (a) additional relevant facts (in the recitals) and (b) clarification/use of legal description of the relevant lots to make it crystal clear that it is only the two lots that were previously designated/zoned commercial that are being brought back to commercial LUCE designation/zoning (and that the surface parking lots are not proposed to be changed from their long-standing designation as R1). Although I didn’t add it in the recitals, we could also add that there is 120 linear feet of r-zoned surface parking separating the lots that are proposed to be brought back to commercial LUCE designation/zoning from the residential homes to the north.

In addition, Oliver provided some interesting facts the other day about the office vacancy rate that I think might be helpful to add in the recitals if the data is publicly available.

I can also update the draft resolution with similar changes if it would be of interest to Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
you; however, I thought it might be most efficient to first send you the attached draft ordinance for your review since the changes will be similar.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Paula
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

From: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 4:07 PM
To: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Hi Paula,
Councilmember Torosis mentioned that you have additional facts/suggested edits for the resolution and ordinance to implement the proposed map amendments for the property located at 2644 30th Street. Apologies if you have already sent along, but I am unable to locate at the moment. Would you mind sending along what you have so we can ensure we have everything?
Thank you,
Heidi
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Heidi von Tongeln
Chief Deputy City Attorney, Advisory Unit
1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 458-8336
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is a confidential attorney client communication and attorney work product. This message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) it is addressed to above. Please do not forward or produce pursuant to a Public Records Act request. The information in this message may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (310-458-8336) and delete the original message. Thank you.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Paula Larmore
To: Heidi von Tongeln
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 8:25:09 PM
Attachments: image003.png
CDD-Ord-2644 30th St-Zoning Map Amendment 051325rv.docx

EXTERNAL
Hi Heidi,
Please use the attached version rather than the one sent a few minutes ago as I found a typo in one of the recitals.

Thanks,
Paula
From: Paula Larmore
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 8:20 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Hi Heidi,
Thanks for reaching out. I included suggested revisions to the draft ordinance in the attached redline. The revisions include (a) additional relevant facts (in the recitals) and (b) clarification/use of legal description of the relevant lots to make it crystal clear that it is only the two lots that were previously designated/zoned commercial that are being brought back to commercial LUCE designation/zoning (and that the surface parking lots are not proposed to be changed from their long-standing designation as R1). Although I didn’t add it in the recitals, we could also add that there is 120 linear feet of r-zoned surface parking separating the lots that are proposed to be brought back to commercial LUCE designation/zoning from the residential homes to the north.

In addition, Oliver provided some interesting facts the other day about the office vacancy rate that I think might be helpful to add in the recitals if the data is publicly available.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

From: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 4:07 PM
To: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Hi Paula,
Councilmember Torosis mentioned that you have additional facts/suggested edits for the resolution and ordinance to implement the proposed map amendments for the property located at 2644 30th Street. Apologies if you have already sent along, but I am unable to locate at the moment. Would you mind sending along what you have so we can ensure we have everything?
Thank you,
Heidi
Heidi von Tongeln
Chief Deputy City Attorney, Advisory Unit
1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 458-8336
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is a confidential attorney client communication and attorney work product. This message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) it is addressed to above. Please do not forward or produce pursuant to a Public Records Act request. The information in this message may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (310-458-8336) and delete the original message. Thank you.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Paula Larmore
To: Jing Yeo
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: 2644 30th St. LUCE and Zoning Information Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 2:21:43 PM

EXTERNAL
Hi Jing,
I hope you had a nice break. I wanted to touch base on this mapping item and timing. Do you expect the mapping changes to go forward with the other housing items to Council in late April?
Thanks,
Paula
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

From: Jing Yeo <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2024 12:07 AM
To: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>; David Martin <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 2644 30th St. LUCE and Zoning Information Thanks for the comprehensive information Paula. We’ll keep you posted when we move forward with the mapping changes.

From: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2024 1:05 PM
To: David Martin <[email protected]>; Jing Yeo <[email protected]> Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Subject: 2644 30th St. LUCE and Zoning Information

EXTERNAL
David and Jing,
As a follow up to our recent meeting regarding the mapping issue for 2644 30th Street, below is a summary and attached are the supporting documents for Staff’s convenient reference. I also attached the presentation we provided in the meeting, which has excerpts from the various exhibits.

We understand the mapping changes to implement AB821 are anticipated to be brought forward to the Planning Commission and City Council sometime in 2025 and that would be a logical time to address this Property’s mapping situation as well. Please let us know when you have a better sense of timing for the mapping changes (e.g. Q1 or Q2?) and/or if you have any additional questions or need any additional information regarding 2644 30th Street.
(As we mentioned, the mapping issue relates to 2644 30th Street only, the parcel with the commercial office building on it, and not to the surface parking parcels located to the north of 2644 30th Street which have a long history of residential zoning.) Thanks,
Paula

1. 2644 30th Street (the “Property”) Existing Conditions a. The Property consists of approximately 18,000-square foot of land. b. The Property is improved with a commercial office building. c. The Property is currently zoned R1 with LUCE designation of “Single Family Housing”.
d. Permitted uses in the R1 zone are extremely limited.

2. The Property’s Zoning / LUCE History
a. The Property has a long history of commercial zoning and use – in 1984 LUCE and 1988 Zoning the Property was designated C2.
b. In 2010, the Property’s LUCE designation was changed from C2 to “Single Family Housing”.
·
There is no evidence this change was intentional.
c. Until 2015, the Property was zoned C2.
d. In 2015, the City updated its zoning Citywide to be consistent with 2010 LUCE. ·
As explained below, during the 2015 Zoning Map update process City Staff attempted to identify all parcels that had inconsistent 2010 LUCE designations relative to their then-existing/pre-2015 zoning designations and provided the list of these parcels to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Property was missed during this identification process and not included on the list presented to the Planning Commission or the City Council. As such, neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council were notified of the inconsistency for this Property before voting on the map with the R1 zoning for this property.
·
It is easy to see how the inconsistency was inadvertently missed. See Exhibit 1 attached.

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

3. LUCE/Zoning Ordinance Map Changes Background
a. During Zoning Ordinance update process in 2014/2015, inconsistencies between the then-existing/pre-2010 LUCE zoning and the new LUCE zoning were identified.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
)
b. As a result of the effort above, a list of 115 parcels with inconsistent was prepared and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. 19 of the parcels on the list were zoned commercial/industrial and used with commercial/industrial uses but had been given a residential LUCE designation. [See Resolution No. 15- 007 (PCS) attached as Exhibit 3.]
2644 30th Street was missed/not included on the list of parcels with inconsistent zoning and LUCE designations. At that time, it was zoned C2 but the 2010 LUCE designation was Single Family Housing. See Exhibit 1.
c. On May 5, 2015 Council adopted Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) (attached as Exhibit 4) amending the LUCE including the LUCE map. The amendments to the LUCE map included changing the LUCE designation from residential to commercial for then-identified parcels that had commercial zoning and were in commercial use.

At the time of voting on the Resolution, Council had been informed that staff had provided a comprehensive list of all of the parcels with inconsistent zoning (1988) and 2010 LUCE designations. One of the recitals to Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) states:
“
W
H
E
R
E
A
S
,
s
t
a
f
f
h
a
s
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
heLUCEMapwiththeexistingOfficialDistricting
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Mapforall23,500parcelsintheCity,togeneratea
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
listingofinconsistentparcels;”(CityCouncilR
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
1 0
8 7
4 (
C
C
S
)
,
p
a
g
e
1 2
.
)
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Paula Larmore
To: Jing Yeo
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] FW: Do not rezone 29th and 30th at Ocean Park Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 11:12:36 AM

EXTERNAL
Received. Thank you.

Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

From: Jing Yeo <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 11:12 AM
To: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: Do not rezone 29th and 30th at Ocean Park Hi Paula,
Public comment has been posted to the agenda including the below regarding the LUCE/Zoning map change for 2644 30th St. We will be clarifying tonight that the map change only applies to the office building and not the surface parking lots as that appears to be a point of misunderstanding.

Also note that while staff is recommending approval of the change, the Planning Commission could make a different recommendation and ultimately the Council could as well.

Thanks,
Jing
From: Tracey Hom
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 11:28
To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Betty Mednick < ; Roni Crichton >; Brian Estwick >; Lenny Hom < ; Esther Hickman >; Kate Bransfield <
Subject: Do not rezone 29th and 30th at Ocean Park

EXTERNAL
When we bought our homes we relied on the zoning we bought R1. If this area had been R2 we would not have purchased. You will greatly lowere the value of our homes. Stop this madness
What Staff is Doing: Trying to turn 2644 30th - the 2-story office building and parking lot that fronts both 29th and 30th streets (NOT a boulevard) - to Neighborhood Commercial. Again.

False Claims Made by Staff in the staff report and resolution:

1. The state REQUIRES us to align the zoning of all parcels with current use. NO. It doesn't when the current use is an acknowledged non-conforming use. Plus they are proposing to zone it in a manner that is much bigger than what is there now. This is the same thing they said in 2015 and we fought it back then and won.

2. The lot has been C2 since 1956. No it has not. Staff doesn't show any of those maps. But we do know it was already R1 on ARCGIS BEFORE the LUCE updates of 2015. Staff has not presented evidence of the C2 designation.

3. The LUCE designation of R1 was inadvertent.

The staff report reads as follows. The lies are highlighted in yellow. Extremely disturbing language is highlighted in orange. "Staff have been made aware of the following two LUCE designation and Zoning Ordinance Classification mapping errors that have resulted in nonconforming conditions and impediments to planned and future development of the subject parcels including affecting the ability to lease and obtain financing. ... The subject 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. Historically, the parcel was designated as C2 (what is now typically NC - Neighborhood Commercial), but when the General Plan Land Use Map was amended as part of the 2010 LUCE update and the Official Districting Map was amended as part of the 2015 Zoning Ordinance update, the parcel’s designations were changed to Single Family Housing in the Land Use Map and R1 (Single-Unit Residential) in the Official Districting Map. This appears to have been inadvertent given the longstanding use of the property and prior designation as C2. During the Zoning Ordinance update, there was an effort to correct these unintentional mapping errors (115 were identified, 19 of which were changed from commercial/industrial to residential); however, it appears the subject parcel was inadvertently overlooked at that time. This has created a nonconforming condition and impediments to future development and financing for the property. Therefore, given the development history of the parcel and the land use limitations of the R1 zoning districts, staff recommends the above LUCE designation and Zoning Ordinance classification shown in the table." Not only has staff known about this for over a decade, but they also know it wasn't an error and it wasn't overlooked. This parcel was already R1 on ARCGIS BEFORE the LUCE updates in 2015! And we know this because staff tried to upzone it back then. This coincided with the A-Lot scandal (to this day, staff has never said WHO made the A-Lot changes), where staff turned all the R1 parking lots behind lots on the boulevards into the commercial designation of the boulevards in the draft zoning changes. The neighborhoods caught them and made them change the designations back to R1. Attached is the draft (maybe final?) letter from FOSP from 2015 on this topic.

Here is what the Code says about Neighborhood Commercial. Clearly, it's its 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:

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, expanded mobility, and shared parking.

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

3. We need to facilitate development.

First, we do NOT need commercial development encroaching into R1 (or residential). This is NOT a boulevard lot. It's several parcels into the residential street. Furthermore, the lot is 1/2 a nonconforming 2-story office building plus 1/2 a parking lot. This light commercial use has less impact than the current Neighborhood Commercial would allow. Furthermore, state height and density bonuses mean that it's possible to DOUBLE the NC height restrictions.

NC height on Ocean Park Blvd is now 55', thanks to staff's "error" in the Housing Element. That is taller than all other NC (only 50') and taller than General Commercial on Pico (45') and the same as Lincoln (55')! If 100% affordable, it can be 65'! And if it gets state height bonuses, it could be 110'! Not only is this too tall for Ocean Park Blvd (and staff needs to request an amendment to the housing element), but it's way too tall for the interior of a residential street! Here is a very rough color-coding I did from google maps to show how far into the R1 area this goes..

Green = R1
Yellow = R2
Red = existing NC
Maroon = Proposed conversion from R1 to NC
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Second, what is being planned? It's highly unlikely staff would be doing this but for the lobbying of a developer. In addition to plans for this parcel, imagine if it were combined with the large commercial property at 2901 Ocean Park Boulevard (i.e. The Counter, Il Forno, etc.). I bet they are doing this in preparation for developing the airport and the business park, and that is also why staff "mistakenly" upzoned all of Ocean Park Blvd coincidentally across from the airport and business park.

Tracey P. Hom Esq.
10850 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 825
Los Angeles, California 90024
310 749 5343
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Paula Larmore
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Armine Chaparyan; Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman Subject: Agenda Item 11.A: Support the LUCE and Zoning Change for 2644 30th Street Commercial Office Building Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 11:43:26 AM
Attachments: 2644 30th Presentation.pdf
Exhibit 1 - Old and Current Zoning and LUCE Maps.pdf
Exhibit 2 - Excerpts from CC SR 2014.04.14.pdf
Exhibit 3 - Resolution No. 15-007 (PCS) w.highlight.pdf Exhibit 4 - Excerpt CC Resolution 10874 (Amend LUCE).pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing on behalf of the owner of 2644 30th Street in support of the proposed change of the LUCE and Zoning designations this property to Neighborhood Commercial (from R1 single-family residential) consistent with its current use as a commercial office building and prior commercial zoning. Under the R1 single-family zoning district land use regulations (which are currently applicable to the Property), there are no permitted commercial uses. Thus, the existing commercial uses within the building are now considered legal, nonconforming and retenanting and changes of use are extremely limited.

Below is a summary of the issue. A powerpoint summary with pictures of the building and property are also attached.

Please note that the proposed change of the LUCE and Zoning designations relate only to 2644 30th Street, the parcel with the commercial office building on it, and not to the surface parking parcels located to the north of 2644 30th Street.

2. The Property’s Zoning / LUCE History
a. The Property has a long history of commercial zoning and use – in 1984 LUCE and 1988 Zoning the Property was designated C2.
b. In 2010, the Property’s LUCE designation was changed from C2 to “Single Family Housing”.
·
There is no evidence this change was intentional.
c. Until 2015, the Property was zoned C2.
d. In 2015, the City updated its zoning Citywide to be consistent with 2010 LUCE. ·
As explained below, during the 2015 Zoning Map update process City Staff attempted to identify all parcels that had inconsistent 2010 LUCE designations relative to their then-existing/pre-2015 zoning designations Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
and provided the list of these parcels to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Property was missed during this identification process and not included on the list presented to the Planning Commission or the City Council. As such, neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council were notified of the inconsistency for this Property before voting on the map with the R1 zoning for this property.
·
It is easy to see how the inconsistency was inadvertently missed. See Exhibit 1 attached.

Initially the focus was on properties that had been changed from residential to commercial but, after community feedback, City Staff attempted to conduct a comprehensive list of inconsistent parcels. An April 14, 2014, City Council Staff Report to the City Council (attached as Exhibit 2) states in relevant part:
“
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
h
e
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
courseofanalyzingtheboundariesofthenewlycreatedzoning
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
districts,inconsistenciesbetweentheadoptedLUCELandUse
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
DesignationMapandtheexistingOfficialDistrictingMapwer
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
eidentified.Asaresult,staffcomparedtheLUCEMapwiththee
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
O
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
n
g
M
a
p
f
o
r
a
l
l
2 3
,
5 0
0 p
a
r
c
e
l
s
i
n
t
h
e
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
City,togeneratealistingofinconsistentparcels.”(emphas
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
i
s
a
d
d
e
d
.
)
b. As a result of the effort above, a list of 115 parcels with inconsistent was prepared and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. 19 of the parcels on the list were zoned commercial/industrial and used with commercial/industrial uses but had been given a residential LUCE designation. [See Resolution No. 15- 007 (PCS) attached as Exhibit 3.]
2644 30th Street was missed/not included on the list of parcels with inconsistent zoning and LUCE designations. At that time, it was zoned C2 but the 2010 LUCE designation was Single Family Housing. See Exhibit 1.
c. On May 5, 2015 Council adopted Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) (attached as Exhibit 4) amending the LUCE including the LUCE map. The amendments to the LUCE map included changing the LUCE designation from residential to commercial for then-identified parcels that had commercial zoning and were in commercial use.

Paula
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Dan Hall
To: Paula Larmore
Subject: Re: Agenda Item 11.A: Support the LUCE and Zoning Change for 2644 30th Street Commercial Office Building Date: Saturday, March 22, 2025 7:55:38 AM
Thanks Paula, I watched your presentation at Planning. This is helpful.

Dan Hall
City Councilmember
City of Santa Monica, California
From: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 11:45:05 AM
To: Dan Hall <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Agenda Item 11.A: Support the LUCE and Zoning Change for 2644 30th Street Commercial Office Building

EXTERNAL
FYI as I noticed you were copied on another communication about this item.

From: Paula Larmore
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 11:43 AM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Armine Chaparyan <[email protected]>; 'Jing Yeo' <[email protected]>; Ross Fehrman <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 11.A: Support the LUCE and Zoning Change for 2644 30th Street Commercial Office Building
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing on behalf of the owner of 2644 30th Street in support of the proposed change of the LUCE and Zoning designations this property to Neighborhood Commercial (from R1 single-family residential) consistent with its current use as a commercial office building and prior commercial zoning. Under the R1 single-family zoning district land use regulations (which are currently applicable to the Property), there are no permitted commercial uses. Thus, the existing commercial uses within the building are now considered legal, nonconforming and retenanting and changes of use are extremely limited.

Below is a summary of the issue. A powerpoint summary with pictures of the building and Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
property are also attached.

Initially the focus was on properties that had been changed from residential to commercial but, after community feedback, City Staff attempted to conduct a comprehensive list of inconsistent parcels. An April 14, 2014, City Council Staff Report to the City Council (attached as Exhibit 2) states in relevant part:
“
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
publicreviewprocessandinthecourseofanalyzingthebounda
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
riesofthenewlycreatedzoningdistricts,inconsistenciesb
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
etweentheadoptedLUCELandUseDesignationMapandtheexisti
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
ngOfficialDistrictingMapwereidentified.Asaresult,staf
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
fcomparedtheLUCEMapwiththeexistingOfficialDistricting
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Mapforall23,500parcelsintheCity,togeneratealistingofi
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
.
”
(
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
a
d
d
e
d
.
)
b. As a result of the effort above, a list of 115 parcels with inconsistent was prepared and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. 19 of the parcels on the list were zoned commercial/industrial and used with commercial/industrial uses but had been given a residential LUCE designation. [See Resolution No. 15- 007 (PCS) attached as Exhibit 3.]
2644 30th Street was missed/not included on the list of parcels with inconsistent zoning and LUCE designations. At that time, it was zoned C2 but the 2010 LUCE designation was Single Family Housing. See Exhibit 1.
c. On May 5, 2015 Council adopted Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) (attached as Exhibit 4) amending the LUCE including the LUCE map. The amendments to the LUCE map included changing the LUCE designation from residential to commercial for then-identified parcels that had commercial zoning and were in commercial use.

At the time of voting on the Resolution, Council had been informed that staff had provided a comprehensive list of all of the parcels with inconsistent zoning (1988) Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
and 2010 LUCE designations. One of the recitals to Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) states:
“
W
H
E
R
E
A
S
,
s
t
a
f
f
h
a
s
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
h
e
L
U
C
E
M
a
p
w
i
t
h
t
h
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
eexistingOfficialDistrictingMapforall23,500
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
parcelsintheCity,togeneratealistingofincons
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
istentparcels;”(CityCouncilResolutionNo.108
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
7 4
(
C
C
S
)
,
p
a
g
e
1 2
.
)
Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration.

Paula
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Paula Larmore
To: Michelle M. Hugard; Rachel Kwok; Ross Fehrman
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 10:14:53 AM
Attachments: image003.png
CDD-Ord-2644 30th St-Zoning Map Amendment 051325rv.docx

EXTERNAL
See attached and below in highlight.

Thanks,
Paula
From: Paula Larmore
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 8:22 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Hi Heidi,
Please use the attached version rather than the one sent a few minutes ago as I found a typo in one of the recitals.

Thanks,
Paula
From: Paula Larmore
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 8:20 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Hi Heidi,
Thanks for reaching out. I included suggested revisions to the draft ordinance in the attached redline. The revisions include (a) additional relevant facts (in the recitals) and (b) clarification/use of legal description of the relevant lots to make it crystal clear that it is only the two lots that were previously designated/zoned commercial that are being brought back to commercial LUCE designation/zoning (and that the surface parking lots are not proposed to be changed from their long-standing designation as R1). Although I didn’t add it in the recitals, we could also add that there is 120 linear feet of r-zoned surface parking separating the lots that are proposed to be brought back to commercial LUCE designation/zoning from the residential homes to the north.

In addition, Oliver provided some interesting facts the other day about the office vacancy rate that I think might be helpful to add in the recitals if the data is publicly available.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Paula
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

From: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 4:07 PM
To: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Hi Paula,
Councilmember Torosis mentioned that you have additional facts/suggested edits for the resolution and ordinance to implement the proposed map amendments for the property located at 2644 30th Street. Apologies if you have already sent along, but I am unable to locate at the moment. Would you mind sending along what you have so we can ensure we have everything?
Thank you,
Heidi
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Heidi von Tongeln
Chief Deputy City Attorney, Advisory Unit
1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 458-8336
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is a confidential attorney client communication and attorney work product. This message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) it is addressed to above. Please do not forward or produce pursuant to a Public Records Act request. The information in this message may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (310-458-8336) and delete the original message. Thank you.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Subject: 2644 30th St. LUCE and Zoning Information
David and Jing,
As a follow up to our recent meeting regarding the mapping issue for 2644 30th Street, below is a summary and attached are the supporting documents for Staff’s convenient reference. I also attached the presentation we provided in the meeting, which has excerpts from the various exhibits.

3. LUCE/Zoning Ordinance Map Changes Background
a. During Zoning Ordinance update process in 2014/2015, inconsistencies between Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
the then-existing/pre-2010 LUCE zoning and the new LUCE zoning were identified.

A
s
a
r
e
s
u
l
t
,
s
t
a
f
f
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
h
e
L
U
C
E
M
a
p
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
O
f
f
i
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
cialDistrictingMapforall23,500parcelsintheCity,togene
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
r
a
t
e
a
l
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
f
i
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
.
”
(
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
a
d
d
e
d
.
)
b. As a result of the effort above, a list of 115 parcels with inconsistent was prepared Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. 19 of the parcels on the list were zoned commercial/industrial and used with commercial/industrial uses but had been given a residential LUCE designation. [See Resolution No. 15- 007 (PCS) attached as Exhibit 3.]
2644 30th Street was missed/not included on the list of parcels with inconsistent zoning and LUCE designations. At that time, it was zoned C2 but the 2010 LUCE designation was Single Family Housing. See Exhibit 1.
c. On May 5, 2015 Council adopted Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) (attached as Exhibit 4) amending the LUCE including the LUCE map. The amendments to the LUCE map included changing the LUCE designation from residential to commercial for then-identified parcels that had commercial zoning and were in commercial use.

At the time of voting on the Resolution, Council had been informed that staff had provided a comprehensive list of all of the parcels with inconsistent zoning (1988) and 2010 LUCE designations. One of the recitals to Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) states:
“
W
H
E
R
E
A
S
,
s
t
a
f
f
h
a
s
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
h
e
L
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
UCEMapwiththeexistingOfficialDistrictingMap
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
forall23,500parcelsintheCity,togeneratealis
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
tingofinconsistentparcels;”(CityCouncilReso
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
l
u
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
1 0
8 7
4 (
C
C
S
)
,
p
a
g
e
1 2
.
)
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Michelle M. Hugard
To: Paula Larmore
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 11:00:48 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
Thank you!
--
Michelle M. Hugard
Deputy City Attorney
(310) 458-8363
[email protected]
From: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 10:12 AM
To: Michelle M. Hugard <[email protected]>; Rachel Kwok <[email protected]>; Ross Fehrman <[email protected]> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street

EXTERNAL
See attached and below in highlight.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Thanks,
Paula
From: Paula Larmore
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 8:20 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Additional Facts for 2644 30th Street Hi Heidi,
Thanks for reaching out. I included suggested revisions to the draft ordinance in the attached redline. The revisions include (a) additional relevant facts (in the recitals) and (b) clarification/use of legal description of the relevant lots to make it crystal clear that it is only the two lots that were previously designated/zoned commercial that are being brought back to commercial LUCE designation/zoning (and that the surface parking lots are not proposed to be changed from their long-standing designation as R1). Although I didn’t add it in the recitals, we could also add that there is 120 linear feet of r-zoned surface parking separating the lots that are proposed to be brought back to commercial LUCE designation/zoning from the residential homes to the north.

In addition, Oliver provided some interesting facts the other day about the office vacancy rate that I think might be helpful to add in the recitals if the data is publicly available.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Paula Larmore
To: Michelle M. Hugard; Rachel Kwok; Ross Fehrman
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: 2644 30th St. LUCE and Zoning Information Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 2:11:27 PM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.png

EXTERNAL
Below is information from the owner regarding the existing building and leases.

The existing building is 35,500 sf of leaseable area. A chart is below with the specifics on the current four leases.

One tenant with a lease expiring in early 2027 has already indicated they are not renewing so they will start to look for a new tenant about a year out (Feb 2026). Due to uncertainty in leasing marketing, it will also be important for them to be in a position by early next year to consider options for the other space that will be rolling over in early 2027.

Expiration
Square
footage Business type/use
2/29/20289,178 Production/Event Production
2/28/20278,159 Production
1/1/20269,432 Production/Event Production
2/28/20278,731 Production
35,500
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Paula Larmore
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2024 1:05 PM
To: David Martin <[email protected]>; Jing Yeo <[email protected]> Subject: 2644 30th St. LUCE and Zoning Information
David and Jing,
As a follow up to our recent meeting regarding the mapping issue for 2644 30th Street, below is a summary and attached are the supporting documents for Staff’s convenient reference. I also attached the presentation we provided in the meeting, which has excerpts from the various exhibits.

Initially the focus was on properties that had been changed from residential to commercial but, after community feedback, City Staff attempted to conduct a comprehensive list of inconsistent parcels. An April 14, 2014, City Council Staff Report to the City Council (attached as Exhibit 2) states in relevant part:
“
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
o
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
fanalyzingtheboundariesofthenewlycreatedzoningdistric
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
ts,inconsistenciesbetweentheadoptedLUCELandUseDesigna
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
tionMapandtheexistingOfficialDistrictingMapwereidenti
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
fied.Asaresult,staffcomparedtheLUCEMapwiththeexisting
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
OfficialDistrictingMapforall23,500parcelsintheCity,to
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
generatealistingofinconsistentparcels.”(emphasisadded
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
.
)
b. As a result of the effort above, a list of 115 parcels with inconsistent was prepared and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. 19 of the parcels on the list were zoned commercial/industrial and used with commercial/industrial uses but had been given a residential LUCE designation. [See Resolution No. 15- 007 (PCS) attached as Exhibit 3.]
2644 30th Street was missed/not included on the list of parcels with inconsistent zoning and LUCE designations. At that time, it was zoned C2 but the 2010 LUCE designation was Single Family Housing. See Exhibit 1.
c. On May 5, 2015 Council adopted Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) (attached as Exhibit 4) amending the LUCE including the LUCE map. The amendments to the LUCE map included changing the LUCE designation from residential to commercial for then-identified parcels that had commercial zoning and were in commercial use.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Paula Larmore
To: David Martin; Jing Yeo
Subject: 2644 30th St. LUCE and Zoning Information
Date: Thursday, October 24, 2024 1:08:01 PM
Attachments: 2644 30th Presentation 9.19.2024.pdf
Exhibit 1 - Old and Current Zoning and LUCE Maps.pdf
Exhibit 2 - Excerpts from CC SR 2014.04.14.pdf
Exhibit 3 - Resolution No. 15-007 (PCS) w.highlight.pdf Exhibit 4 - Excerpt CC Resolution 10874 (Amend LUCE).pdf

2. The Property’s Zoning / LUCE History
a. The Property has a long history of commercial zoning and use – in 1984 LUCE and 1988 Zoning the Property was designated C2.
b. In 2010, the Property’s LUCE designation was changed from C2 to “Single Family Housing”.
·
There is no evidence this change was intentional.
c. Until 2015, the Property was zoned C2.
d. In 2015, the City updated its zoning Citywide to be consistent with 2010 LUCE. ·
As explained below, during the 2015 Zoning Map update process City Staff attempted to identify all parcels that had inconsistent 2010 LUCE designations relative to their then-existing/pre-2015 zoning designations and provided the list of these parcels to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Property was missed during this identification process and Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
not included on the list presented to the Planning Commission or the City Council. As such, neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council were notified of the inconsistency for this Property before voting on the map with the R1 zoning for this property.
·
It is easy to see how the inconsistency was inadvertently missed. See Exhibit 1 attached.

Initially the focus was on properties that had been changed from residential to commercial but, after community feedback, City Staff attempted to conduct a comprehensive list of inconsistent parcels. An April 14, 2014, City Council Staff Report to the City Council (attached as Exhibit 2) states in relevant part:
“
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
urseofanalyzingtheboundariesofthenewlycreatedzoningdi
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
stricts,inconsistenciesbetweentheadoptedLUCELandUseDe
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
signationMapandtheexistingOfficialDistrictingMapwerei
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
dentified.Asaresult,staffcomparedtheLUCEMapwiththeexi
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
stingOfficialDistrictingMapforall23,500parcelsintheCi
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
ty,togeneratealistingofinconsistentparcels.”(emphasis
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
a
d
d
e
d
.
)
b. As a result of the effort above, a list of 115 parcels with inconsistent was prepared and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. 19 of the parcels on the list were zoned commercial/industrial and used with commercial/industrial uses but had been given a residential LUCE designation. [See Resolution No. 15- 007 (PCS) attached as Exhibit 3.]
2644 30th Street was missed/not included on the list of parcels with inconsistent zoning and LUCE designations. At that time, it was zoned C2 but the 2010 LUCE designation was Single Family Housing. See Exhibit 1.
c. On May 5, 2015 Council adopted Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) (attached as Exhibit 4) amending the LUCE including the LUCE map. The amendments to the LUCE map included changing the LUCE designation from residential to commercial for then-identified parcels that had commercial zoning and were in commercial use.

At the time of voting on the Resolution, Council had been informed that staff had provided a comprehensive list of all of the parcels with inconsistent zoning (1988) and 2010 LUCE designations. One of the recitals to Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) states:
“
W
H
E
R
E
A
S
,
s
t
a
f
f
h
a
s
c
o
m
p
a
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
redtheLUCEMapwiththeexistingOfficialDistric
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
tingMapforall23,500parcelsintheCity,togener
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
atealistingofinconsistentparcels;”(CityCoun
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
c
i
l
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
1 0
8 7
4 (
C
C
S
)
,
p
a
g
e
1 2
.
)
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Paula Larmore
To: Caroline Torosis; Caroline M. Torosis
Subject: FW: Agenda Item 11.A: Support the LUCE and Zoning Change for 2644 30th Street Commercial Office Building Date: Sunday, May 11, 2025 3:12:29 PM
Attachments: 2644 30th Presentation.pdf
Exhibit 1 - Old and Current Zoning and LUCE Maps.pdf
Exhibit 2 - Excerpts from CC SR 2014.04.14.pdf
Exhibit 3 - Resolution No. 15-007 (PCS) w.highlight.pdf Exhibit 4 - Excerpt CC Resolution 10874 (Amend LUCE).pdf

EXTERNAL
From: Paula Larmore
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 11:43 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Armine Chaparyan
<[email protected]>; Jing Yeo <[email protected]>; Ross Fehrman <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 11.A: Support the LUCE and Zoning Change for 2644 30th Street Commercial Office Building
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing on behalf of the owner of 2644 30th Street in support of the proposed change of the LUCE and Zoning designations this property to Neighborhood Commercial (from R1 single-family residential) consistent with its current use as a commercial office building and prior commercial zoning. Under the R1 single-family zoning district land use regulations (which are currently applicable to the Property), there are no permitted commercial uses. Thus, the existing commercial uses within the building are now considered legal, nonconforming and retenanting and changes of use are extremely limited.

Below is a summary of the issue. A powerpoint summary with pictures of the building and property are also attached.

Initially the focus was on properties that had been changed from residential to commercial but, after community feedback, City Staff attempted to conduct a comprehensive list of inconsistent parcels. An April 14, 2014, City Council Staff Report to the City Council (attached as Exhibit 2) states in relevant part:
“
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
rocessandinthecourseofanalyzingtheboundariesofthenewl
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
ycreatedzoningdistricts,inconsistenciesbetweentheadop
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
tedLUCELandUseDesignationMapandtheexistingOfficialDis
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
trictingMapwereidentified.Asaresult,staffcomparedtheL
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
UCEMapwiththeexistingOfficialDistrictingMapforall23,5
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
00parcelsintheCity,togeneratealistingofinconsistentpa
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
r
c
e
l
s
.
”
(
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
a
d
d
e
d
.
)
b. As a result of the effort above, a list of 115 parcels with inconsistent was prepared and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. 19 of the parcels on the list were zoned commercial/industrial and used with commercial/industrial uses but had been given a residential LUCE designation. [See Resolution No. 15- 007 (PCS) attached as Exhibit 3.]
2644 30th Street was missed/not included on the list of parcels with inconsistent zoning and LUCE designations. At that time, it was zoned C2 but the 2010 LUCE designation was Single Family Housing. See Exhibit 1.
c. On May 5, 2015 Council adopted Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) (attached as Exhibit 4) amending the LUCE including the LUCE map. The amendments to the LUCE map included changing the LUCE designation from residential to commercial for then-identified parcels that had commercial zoning and were in commercial use.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
b. The Property is improved with a commercial office building. c. The Property is currently zoned R1 with LUCE designation of “Single Family Housing”.
d. Permitted uses in the R1 zone are extremely limited.

Initially the focus was on properties that had been changed from residential to commercial but, after community feedback, City Staff attempted to conduct a comprehensive list of inconsistent parcels. An April 14, 2014, City Council Staff Report to the City Council (attached as Exhibit 2) states in relevant part:
“
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
e
v
i
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
ewprocessandinthecourseofanalyzingtheboundariesofthen
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
ewlycreatedzoningdistricts,inconsistenciesbetweenthea
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
doptedLUCELandUseDesignationMapandtheexistingOfficial
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
DistrictingMapwereidentified.Asaresult,staffcomparedt
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
heLUCEMapwiththeexistingOfficialDistrictingMapforall2
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
3,500parcelsintheCity,togeneratealistingofinconsisten
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
t
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
.
”
(
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
a
d
d
e
d
.
)
b. As a result of the effort above, a list of 115 parcels with inconsistent was prepared and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. 19 of the parcels on the list were zoned commercial/industrial and used with commercial/industrial uses but had been given a residential LUCE designation. [See Resolution No. 15- 007 (PCS) attached as Exhibit 3.]
2644 30th Street was missed/not included on the list of parcels with inconsistent zoning and LUCE designations. At that time, it was zoned C2 but the 2010 LUCE designation was Single Family Housing. See Exhibit 1.
c. On May 5, 2015 Council adopted Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) (attached as Exhibit 4) amending the LUCE including the LUCE map. The amendments to the LUCE map included changing the LUCE designation from residential to commercial for then-identified parcels that had commercial zoning and were in commercial use.

At the time of voting on the Resolution, Council had been informed that staff had provided a comprehensive list of all of the parcels with inconsistent zoning (1988) and 2010 LUCE designations. One of the recitals to Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) states:
“
W
H
E
R
E
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
AS,staffhascomparedtheLUCEMapwiththeexistin
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
gOfficialDistrictingMapforall23,500parcelsi
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
ntheCity,togeneratealistingofinconsistentpa
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
rcels;”(CityCouncilResolutionNo.10874(CCS),
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
p
a
g
e
1 2
.
)
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Paula Larmore
To: [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Ross Fehrman; Rachel Kwok; Jing Yeo; Armine Chaparyan Subject: Agenda Item 12.A: Support the LUCE and Zoning Change for 2644 30th Street Commercial Office Building Date: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:43:54 PM
Attachments: 2644 30th Street Zone and LUCE Change.pdf
Exhibit 1 - 2644 30th Street Comparison of Prior vs NewZoning.pdf Exhibit 2 - Excerpts from CC SR 2014.04.14.pdf
Exhibit 3 - Resolution No. 15-007 (PCS) w.highlight.pdf Exhibit 4 - Excerpt CC Resolution 10874 (Amend LUCE).pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing on behalf of the owner of 2644 30th Street to request your approval of the LUCE and Zoning designation changes for the portion of this property improved with a commercial building (approx. 18,000 sf) to Neighborhood Commercial as recommended by City Staff and the Planning Commission. This change is consistent with the property’s longstanding use as a commercial building and prior commercial zoning. See attached PDF clarifying that:

The proposed change is only for the lots currently improved with the commercial building (totaling approx.. 18,000 sf).

No change is proposed for the lots with the surface parking. These lots totaling 36,000 sf will remain R1 (single-family residential).

The owner purchased the property in the 1980s, when the commercial building was zoned commercial (C2) and a variety of commercial uses were permitted within the building. The owner’s goal and focus was and continues to be on long-term viability of the commercial building. In light of shifts in commercial office space needs, flexibility and the ability to lease the building to a variety of office uses is critical.

The owner only learned that the existing building had been rezoned from commercial to R1 recently, after approaching the City to figure out allowed uses for the building upon an upcoming tenant vacancy. Under the R1 single-family zoning district land use regulations, there are no permitted commercial uses. Thus, the existing commercial uses within the building are now considered legal, nonconforming and re-tenanting and changes of use are extremely limited. Moreover, the abandonment provisions for legal, nonconforming uses create significant risks for the property owner. As detailed below, the prior zone change (from C2 to R1) appears to have been inadvertent and neither the Planning Commission nor the Council were notified of this change before voting on the current LUCE and Zoning maps (although they were presented with a list of other properties in a similar situation). The owner is respectfully requesting that the portion of the property occupied by the commercial building be re-zoned back to commercial (NC) consistent with the neighboring commercial property to the south.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Here is a further outline of the issue:

1. Existing Conditions - The Property consists of: .
a. Approximately 18,000 square feet of land that is improved with a commercial office building (“Building Lots”).
b. Approximately 36,000 square feet of land that is improved with surface parking (“Parking Lots”).
c. The entire Property (both Building Lots and Parking Lots) is currently zoned R1 with LUCE designation of “Single Family Housing”.

2. Existing Land Use Regulation – Single-Family (R1) vs. Neighborhood Commercial a. R1 zone – There are no permitted commercial uses. Therefore, the existing uses are designated as “legal, nonconforming uses”.

Legal, nonconforming uses may be maintained but they cannot be changed to any other use other than a conforming use (and there are no permitted commercial uses). Thus, when the current tenants move out, their suites can only be reoccupied with the same type of commercial use (post-production) and not for other office or similar uses. This is very limiting/restrictive.

Moreover, the abandonment provisions for legal, nonconforming uses create significant risks for the property owner. If the tenant “goes dark” or leaves early unexpectedly, the property owner will be at risk of losing the grandparented rights for the commercial use.
b. NC zone – There are a variety of permitted commercial uses within existing buildings including Business & Professional Office and Creative Office.

3. The Property’s Zoning / LUCE History
a. The Property has a long history of commercial zoning and use – in 1984 LUCE and 1988 Zoning the Property was designated C2.
b. In 2010, the Property’s LUCE designation was changed from C2 to “Single Family Housing”.
·
There is no evidence this change was intentional.
c. Until 2015, the Property was zoned C2.
d. In 2015, the City updated its zoning Citywide to be consistent with 2010 LUCE. ·
As explained below, during the 2015 Zoning Map update process City Staff attempted to identify all parcels that had inconsistent 2010 LUCE designations relative to their then-existing/pre-2015 zoning designations and provided the list of these parcels to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Property was missed during this identification process and not included on the lists presented to the Planning Commission or the City Council. As such, neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council were notified of the inconsistency for this Property before voting on the map with the R1 zoning for this property.
·
The Property owner was also not notified before either the LUCE or Zoning maps were changed.
·
Given that the line between commercially-zoned and residentially-zoned property along Ocean Park Boulevard varies (as it does along all boulevards), it is understandable that the inconsistency was inadvertently missed. See Exhibit 1 attached.

4. LUCE/Zoning Ordinance Map Changes Background
a. During Zoning Ordinance update process in 2014/2015, inconsistencies between the then-existing/pre-2010 LUCE zoning and the new LUCE zoning were identified.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Initially the focus was on properties that had been changed from residential to commercial but, after community feedback, City Staff attempted to conduct a comprehensive list of inconsistent parcels. An April 14, 2014, City Council Staff Report to the City Council (attached as Exhibit 2) states in relevant part:
“
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
o
f
a
n
a
l
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
yzingtheboundariesofthenewlycreatedzoningdistricts,in
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
consistenciesbetweentheadoptedLUCELandUseDesignationM
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
apandtheexistingOfficialDistrictingMapwereidentified.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Asaresult,staffcomparedtheLUCEMapwiththeexistingOffic
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
ialDistrictingMapforall23,500parcelsintheCity,togener
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
a
t
e
a
l
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
f
i
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
.
”
(
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
a
d
d
e
d
.
)
b. As a result of the effort above, a list of 115 parcels with inconsistent was prepared and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. 19 of the parcels on Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
the list were zoned commercial/industrial and used with commercial/industrial uses but had been given a residential LUCE designation. [See Resolution No. 15- 007 (PCS) attached as Exhibit 3.]
2644 30th Street was missed/not included on the list of parcels with inconsistent zoning and LUCE designations. At that time, it was zoned C2 but the 2010 LUCE designation was Single Family Housing. See Exhibit 1.
c. On May 5, 2015 Council adopted Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) (attached as Exhibit 4) amending the LUCE including the LUCE map. The amendments to the LUCE map included changing the LUCE designation from residential to commercial for then-identified parcels that had commercial zoning and were in commercial use.

At the time of voting on the Resolution, Council had been informed that staff had provided a comprehensive list of all of the parcels with inconsistent zoning and 2010 LUCE designations. One of the recitals to Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) states:
“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;” (City Council Resolution No.
10874 (CCS), page 12.)
2644 30th Street was again missed/not included on the list of parcels with inconsistent zoning and LUCE designations.

Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
From: Dan Hall
To: Paula Larmore
Subject: Re: Agenda Item 12.A: Support the LUCE and Zoning Change for 2644 30th Street Commercial Office Building Date: Monday, May 12, 2025 8:24:20 PM
Thank you for your input, Paula. I have received and read your note regarding Tuesday’s agenda. Appreciate you sending us your thoughts.

Dan Hall
City Councilmember
City of Santa Monica, California
From: Paula Larmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:41:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>
Cc: Ross Fehrman <[email protected]>; Rachel Kwok <[email protected]>; Jing Yeo <[email protected]>; Armine Chaparyan <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 12.A: Support the LUCE and Zoning Change for 2644 30th Street Commercial Office Building

The proposed change is only for the lots currently improved with the commercial building (totaling approx.. 18,000 sf).

No change is proposed for the lots with the surface parking. These lots totaling 36,000 sf will remain R1 (single-family residential).

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
The owner only learned that the existing building had been rezoned from commercial to R1 recently, after approaching the City to figure out allowed uses for the building upon an upcoming tenant vacancy. Under the R1 single-family zoning district land use regulations, there are no permitted commercial uses. Thus, the existing commercial uses within the building are now considered legal, nonconforming and re-tenanting and changes of use are extremely limited. Moreover, the abandonment provisions for legal, nonconforming uses create significant risks for the property owner. As detailed below, the prior zone change (from C2 to R1) appears to have been inadvertent and neither the Planning Commission nor the Council were notified of this change before voting on the current LUCE and Zoning maps (although they were presented with a list of other properties in a similar situation). The owner is respectfully requesting that the portion of the property occupied by the commercial building be re-zoned back to commercial (NC) consistent with the neighboring commercial property to the south.

Here is a further outline of the issue:

3. The Property’s Zoning / LUCE History
a. The Property has a long history of commercial zoning and use – in 1984 LUCE and 1988 Zoning the Property was designated C2.
b. In 2010, the Property’s LUCE designation was changed from C2 to “Single Family Housing”.
·
There is no evidence this change was intentional.
c. Until 2015, the Property was zoned C2.
d. In 2015, the City updated its zoning Citywide to be consistent with 2010 LUCE. ·
As explained below, during the 2015 Zoning Map update process City Staff attempted to identify all parcels that had inconsistent 2010 LUCE Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
designations relative to their then-existing/pre-2015 zoning designations and provided the list of these parcels to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Property was missed during this identification process and not included on the lists presented to the Planning Commission or the City Council. As such, neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council were notified of the inconsistency for this Property before voting on the map with the R1 zoning for this property.
·
The Property owner was also not notified before either the LUCE or Zoning maps were changed.
·
Given that the line between commercially-zoned and residentially-zoned property along Ocean Park Boulevard varies (as it does along all boulevards), it is understandable that the inconsistency was inadvertently missed. See Exhibit 1 attached.

Initially the focus was on properties that had been changed from residential to commercial but, after community feedback, City Staff attempted to conduct a comprehensive list of inconsistent parcels. An April 14, 2014, City Council Staff Report to the City Council (attached as Exhibit 2) states in relevant part:
“
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
inthecourseofanalyzingtheboundariesofthenewlycreatedz
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
oningdistricts,inconsistenciesbetweentheadoptedLUCELa
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
ndUseDesignationMapandtheexistingOfficialDistrictingM
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
apwereidentified.Asaresult,staffcomparedtheLUCEMapwit
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
htheexistingOfficialDistrictingMapforall23,500parcels
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
intheCity,togeneratealistingofinconsistentparcels.”(e
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
a
d
d
e
d
.
)
b. As a result of the effort above, a list of 115 parcels with inconsistent was prepared and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. 19 of the parcels on the list were zoned commercial/industrial and used with commercial/industrial uses but had been given a residential LUCE designation. [See Resolution No. 15- 007 (PCS) attached as Exhibit 3.]
2644 30th Street was missed/not included on the list of parcels with inconsistent zoning and LUCE designations. At that time, it was zoned C2 but the 2010 LUCE designation was Single Family Housing. See Exhibit 1.
c. On May 5, 2015 Council adopted Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) (attached as Exhibit 4) amending the LUCE including the LUCE map. The amendments to the LUCE map included changing the LUCE designation from residential to commercial for then-identified parcels that had commercial zoning and were in commercial use.

Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration.

Paula
Paula J. Larmore | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
O: (310) 656-4311 | [email protected]
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2644 30th Street Commercial Building
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Street-Facing Facades
30th Street
29th Street
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
South/North Facades
South/Adjacent to C2
North/From Parking Lot
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Legal, Nonconforming Use
• Leasing of Existing Commercial Building
• R1 does not allow any commercial uses (SMMC Table 9.07.020) • Interpretation of “maintenance” of legal nonconforming use may be extremely limiting for future leasing of building
• Abandonment language is problematic.
• Limiting future potential is in conflict with City and State Housing Policies including AFFH
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Zoning / LUCE History
• Long history of commercial
designation
• 1984 LUCE = C2
• 1988 Zoning = C2
1984 LUCE 1988 Zoning
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Zoning / LUCE Current
• 2010 LUCE designation was
changed from C2 → Single
Family Housing
• 2015 Zoning → R1 (consistent
with 2010 LUCE Map)
2010/Current LUCE 2015/Current Zoning
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2014/15 Map Inconsistency Identification
• In 2014/25, as part of Zoning Ordinance update process, inconsistencies between the then-existing/1988 zoning and the 2010 LUCE zoning were identified. • Initially the focus was on properties that has been changed from residential to commercial but, after community feedback, Staff attempted to conduct a comprehensive list of inconsistent parcels.
• April 14, 2015 City Council Staff Report states:

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2014/15 Map Inconsistency Identification
• A list of 115 parcels with inconsistent 1988 zoning and 2010 LUCE designations was prepared and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. • 19 of the parcels on the list were zoned commercial/industrial and used with commercial/industrial uses but had been given a residential LUCE designation. Resolution No. 15-007 (PCS) recitals state:
• 2644 30th Street met the criteria to be included on this list but was missed. • It was zoned C2 in 1988/pre-2015 Zoning but the 2010 LUCE designation was Single Family Housing. • It should have been but was not included on the list of parcels with inconsistent zoning and LUCE designations.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1984 LUCE 1988 Zoning
(pre-2015 Zoning)
2010/Current LUCE 2015/Current Zoning
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Parcels with Inconsistent 1988 Zoning/2010
LUCE Map Designations
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
City Council Resolution Amending Maps
• On May 5, 2015 Council adopted Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) amending the LUCE including the LUCE map.
• Amendments to the LUCE map included changing the LUCE designation from residential to commercial for then-identified parcels that had commercial zoning and were in commercial use. • At the time of voting on the Resolution, Council had been informed that staff had provided a comprehensive list of all of the parcels with inconsistent zoning (1988) and 2010 LUCE designations:
• On June 23, 2015, Council adopted Resolution No. 10885 further amending the LUCE including the LUCE Map due to a few additional parcels identified late in the process with inconsistent thenexisting zoning designations and 2010 LUCE map designation changes.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Summary
• R1 zoning is:
• Inconsistent with long-standing existing commercial use • Historical zoning
• Problematic for future leasing of the building
• Inconsistent with State and City housing policies, including AFFH • LUCE mapping change in 2010 was an inadvertent error. • Inconsistency was missed during 2015 Zoning Ordinance update. • Both Planning Commission and City Council were informed that they had been given a comprehensive list of map inconsistencies prior to voting on the LUCE map amendments to address inconsistencies.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2644 30th Street Commercial Building
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Proposed Change
18,000 sf lots with commercial office
building  NC designation
36,000 sf lots with surface parking 
retain R1 (Single Family Zoning)
designation (no change)
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Comparison of Use Regulations
Existing R1 Zoning
• R1 does not allow any
commercial uses (SMMC Table

9.07.020)
• Legal nonconforming use
• “Maintenance” of existing
legal nonconforming use is
extremely limiting for future
leasing of building.
• Abandonment language is
problematic.

NC Zoning
• Variety of commercial
office uses are permitted
including (SMMC Table 9.11.020)
• Business & Professional
Office
• Creative Office
• Walk-In Clientele Offices
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Summary
• Change LUCE and Zoning to Neighborhood Commercial
• R1 zoning is:
• Inconsistent with long-standing existing commercial use • Historical zoning
• Problematic for future leasing of the building
• In 2015, when Zoning was changed, both Planning Commission and City Council were informed that they had been given a comprehensive list of map inconsistencies prior to voting on the LUCE map amendments to address inconsistencies.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1984 LUCE 1988 Zoning
(pre-2015 Zoning)
2010/Current LUCE 2015/Current Zoning
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2014/15 Map Inconsistency Identification
• In 2015, Staff attempted to prepare a comprehensive list of inconsistencies • A list of 115 parcels with inconsistent 1988 zoning and 2010 LUCE designations was prepared and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. • 19 of the parcels on the list were zoned commercial/industrial and used with commercial/industrial uses but had been given a residential LUCE designation. Resolution No. 15-007 (PCS) recitals state:

It was zoned C2 in 1988/pre-2015
Zoning but the 2010 LUCE designation
was Single Family Housing.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Proposed Change
18,000 sf lots with commercial building →
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
designation
36,000 sf lots with surface parking → retain
R1 (Single Family Zoning) designation (no
change)
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
City Council Meeting: May 13 , 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 TWO LOTS LOCATED WITHIN 2644 30TH STREET FOR

CONSISTENT DESIGNATION
WHEREAS, since 1956, the Northwest 60 feet of lots 78 and 83 of Tract No. 1980 (the “Commercial Lots”, also shown on the map included in Attachment “A”) has been developed as a commercial office building; and
WHEREAS, on and before July 5, 2010, Commercial Lots were designated C2 Neighborhood Commercial on the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Districting Maps; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2010, the City Council adopted the Land Use and Circulation Element (“LUCE”) of the City’s General Plan, including a General Plan Land Use Map that designated the Commercial Lots as Single Family Housing; and WHEREAS, on and before July 23, 2015, the Commercial Lots were designated C2 Neighborhood Commercial on the City’s Zoning Ordinance Districting Map; WHEREAS, during the preparation of the Zoning Ordinance District Map to reflect the LUCE “inconsistencies between the adopted LUCE Land Use Designation Map and the [then] existing Official Districting Map were identified” (April 14, 2014 Staff Report to City Council, page 33); and
WHEREAS, as a result of the identified inconsistencies City Staff attempted to compare “the LUCE Map with the existing Official Districting Map for all 23,500 parcels in the City, to generate a listing of inconsistent parcels” (Id.); and Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
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 the “Planning Commission reviewed these inconsistent parcels in detail on June 18, 2014 and October 1, 2014 (Id.); and
WHEREAS, the Inconsistent Parcel List was also included and discussed in the City Council’s April 14, 2014 Staff Report and reviewed by the City Council, including on April 14, 2014, prior to their voting on the Zoning Ordinance Districting Map; and WHEREAS, “[t]he majority of these inconsistent parcels…[were] parcels 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, 19 of the 115 parcels on the Inconsistent Parcel List were 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 (see Resolution No. 15-007 (PCS) page 13 and Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) page 13); and
WHEREAS, the Commercial Lots were in the same position as these 19 parcels (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); however, the Commercial Lots were not included on the inconsistent parcel list (see Resolution No. 15-007 (PCS) Exhibit “A”); 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 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
WHEREAS, the City Council’s May 5, 2015 Resolution adopting the amendments to the LUCE Map states that “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, on July 24, 2015, the City Council adopted a revised Zoning Ordinance, which included a revised Districting Map that designated the Commercial Lots as Single-Unit Residential; and
WHEREAS, there are no permitted commercial uses in the Single-Unit Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the change of the Commercial Lots to the Single-Unit Residential designation has resulted in the existing building becoming both a legal, nonconforming building and the existing uses becoming legal, nonconforming uses and creates WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65860 was amended by SB 1333, which became effective on January 1, 2019, to require that Charter Cities have consistency between their General Plans and Zoning Ordinances; and WHEREAS, since 1956, the parcel located at 2644 30th Street has been developed as a commercial office building, and, historically, was designated as C2, Neighborhood Commercial District; and
WHEREAS, during the adoption of the LUCE in 2010 and the update to the Zoning Ordinance to 2015, the parcel was designated as Single Family Housing for the General Plan Land Use Map and zoned Single-Unit Residential for the Official Districting Map; and
WHEREAS, these updates appear to have been inadvertent given the longstanding use of the property as a commercial office building and the prior designation Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
as C2, Neighborhood Commercial; and
WHEREAS, the updates have caused a nonconforming condition on the property as well as impediments to future development, leasing opportunities, and financing for the property given the limitations of the Single Family Housing designation and zoning of R1 (Single Unit Residential); 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 Map and Official Districting Map of the City of Santa Monica for the Commercial Lots parcel located at 2466 30th Street; and
WHEREAS, amending the Official Districting Map to zone the Commercial Lots parcel located at 2644 30th Street as NC (Neighborhood Commercial) will correct the prior inadvertent designation and reflect the longstanding use of the Commercial Lotsproperty, removing impediments to future leasing/changes of use and development of the Commercial Lots; and
WHEREAS, amending the Official Districting Map to zone Commercial Lots the parcel located at 2644 30th Street as Neighborhood Commercial will correct the prior inadvertent designation and reflect the longstanding use of the property, ensure consistency with the General Plan, and remove impediments to future leasing/changes of use and development of the Commercial Lots, including the existing building; 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- 008 (PCS), recommending that the City Council amend the Official Districting Map for the Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Commercial Lots parcel located at 2644 30th Street 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.

Due to an inadvertent reclassification of the Commercial Lots parcel during both the 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element update and the 2015 Zoning Ordinance update to Single Family Housing and R1 (Single-Unit Residential), respectively, the commercial use of the Commercial Lots subject parcel established in 1956 is now a nonconforming land use and the existing building on the Commercial Lots is a legal, nonconforming building. This inconsistency between the use and Official District Map has created impediments to future development due to the land use limitations of the R1 zoning district, leasing/changes of use tenant space within the building, and financing the property. The proposed change will rectify this issue by aligning the Official Districting Map with the historic existing commercial use of the Commercial Lotsparcel;

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 proposed change will align the Official Districting Map with the existing commercial development of the Commercial Lotsparcel.

Since 1956 the Commercial Lots subject parcel haves been developed as a commercial use, but inadvertently during both the 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element update and 2015 Zoning Ordinance update was reclassified as Single Family Housing and R1 (Single-Unit Residential), Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
respectively. This inconsistency between the use and zoning district has created impediments to future changes of use and development due to the land use limitations of the R1 zoning district, leasing tenant space within the building, and financing the property. The proposed change will rectify this issue by aligning the Official Districting Map with the historic existing use of the Commercial Lotsparcel; 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 Commercial Lots subject parcel haves historically been developed with as a commercial use since 1956 and was were zoned as such until it was inadvertently amended as part of both the 2010 Land Use and Circulation update and 2015 Zoning Ordinance update to Single Family Housing and R1 (Single-Unit Residential), respectively. This inadvertent reclassification has resulted in a nonconforming condition and impediments to future development due to land use limitations of the R1 zoning district, leasing tenant space with the building, and financing the property. The proposed change will align the Official District Map for the Commercial Lots subject parcel with existing development; and
WHEREAS, on May 13 , 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 Commercial Lots parcel located at 2644 30th Street as set forth below.

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

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
SECTION 1. Based upon the oral and written testimony presented to the City Council at the public hearing on May 13 , 2025, regarding the proposed change to the Official Districting Map for the Commercial Lots parcel located at 2644 30th Street, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:

Due to an inadvertent reclassification of the Commercial Lots parcel during both the 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element update and the 2015 Zoning Ordinance update to Single Family Housing and R1 (Single-Unit Residential), respectively, the commercial use of the Commercial Lots subject parcel established in 1956 is now a nonconforming land use. This inconsistency between the use and Official District Map has created impediments to future development due to the land use limitations of the R1 zoning district, leasing tenant space within the building, and financing the property. The proposed change will rectify this issue by aligning the Official Districting Map with the historic existing commercial use of the Commercial Lotsparcel.

Since 1956 the Commercial Lots subject parcel haves been developed as a commercial use, but inadvertently during both the 2010 Land Use and Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Circulation Element update and 2015 Zoning Ordinance update was reclassified as Single Family Housing and R1 (Single-Unit Residential), respectively. This inconsistency between the use and zoning district has created impediments to future development due to the land use limitations of the R1 zoning district, leasing tenant space within the building, and financing the property. The proposed change will rectify this issue by aligning the Official Districting Map with the historic existing use of the Commercial Lotsparcel.

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 Commercial Lots subject parcel haves historically been developed with as a commercial use since 1956 and was zoned as such until it was inadvertently amended as part of both the 2010 Land Use and Circulation update and 2015 Zoning Ordinance update to Single Family Housing and R1 (Single-Unit Residential), respectively. This inadvertent reclassification has resulted in a nonconforming condition and impediments to future development due to land use limitations of the R1 zoning district, leasing tenant space with the building, and financing the property. The proposed change will align the Official District Map for the Commercial Lots subject parcel with existing development.

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

SECTION 3. Any provision of the Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
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:

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney
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
1984 LUCE 1988 Zoning
(pre-2015 Zoning)
2010/Current LUCE 2015/Current Zoning
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Zoning / LUCE History
• Long history of commercial
designation
• 1984 LUCE = C2
• 1988 Zoning = C2
1984 LUCE 1988 Zoning
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Zoning / LUCE Current
• 2010 LUCE designation was
changed from C2 → Single
Family Housing
• 2015 Zoning → R1 (consistent
with 2010 LUCE Map)
2010/Current LUCE 2015/Current Zoning
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
exception to authorize Tier 3 height for City-Designated Landmarks and Structures of Merit.

The Planning Commission recommended these LUCE amendments on March 18, 2015.

Other Potential Amendments
One of the potential amendments that the Planning Commission also included in the Resolution of Intention adopted on November 5, 2014 would have authorized market rate housing through a discretionary review process in the Industrial Conservation and Office Campus Districts. Currently the LUCE does not allow residential development in the Industrial Conservation District except for one hundred percent affordable housing in limited areas. It is unclear whether the LUCE authorizes any housing in the Office Campus District. This limited allowance for housing in the IC land use designation raised legal issues. More specifically, concerns were raised that only authorizing the provision of affordable housing may run afoul of Costa Hawkins, Civil Code Section 1954.50 et. seq., and to address this concern, market rate housing should also be permitted in these districts. However, upon further analysis, it was determined that allowing market rate housing in these employment districts could trigger the need for additional environmental analysis, which could not be undertaken in a timely fashion. Consequently, to address the potential Costa Hawkins issue the Planning Commission did not move forward with this potential LUCE amendment.

Instead, the issue will revisited at a later time after further analysis and review.

Consequently, the Draft Zoning Ordinance does not authorize one hundred percent affordable housing or market rate housing in these two districts.

Draft LUCE Land Use Designation Map (Attachment I)
A City-wide Land Use Designation Map was adopted as part of the adoption of the LUCE on July 6, 2010. 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 existing Official Districting Map were identified. As a result, staff 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. The Planning Commission reviewed these inconsistent parcels in detail on June 18, 2014 and October 1, 2014.

Exhibit A of Attachment K 3 is a table that lists the parcels in the City whose LUCE land use designations have been identified as being inconsistent with their existing 8/27/24, 10:31 AM City of Santa Monica - Study Session on the Draft Zoning Ordinance, Proposed Land Use and Circulation Element Amendments, … https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2015/20150414/s2015041404-A.htm 33/42 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
zoning and uses as well as with adjacent parcels. The parcels are listed in the table with their address, existing zoning, existing LUCE designation, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation as to what the appropriate LUCE designation should be for the parcels. This list contains 115 parcels.

The majority of these inconsistent parcels, #1-84 on Exhibit A of Attachment K 3, are parcels in the City whose land use designations were changed to a commercial designation with the adoption of the LUCE Land Use Designation Map and are now inconsistent with their predominantly residential zoning or partial residential zoning.

As shown in Exhibit A of Attachment K 3, the recommendation is for these LUCE commercial land use designations to be changed back to LUCE residential land use designations to make them consistent with the existing residential zoning of these parcels. The remainder of these inconsistent parcels, #85-115 on Exhibit A of Attachment K 3, includes parcels in the City whose LUCE land use designations are inconsistent with their existing commercial and industrial zoning and uses as well as with adjacent parcels.

Of the 115 parcels, the Planning Commission recommended retaining the existing commercial land use designation of three parcels:
1127 2nd St (#5 on Exhibit A of Attachment K 3)
1129 2nd St (#6 on Exhibit A of Attachment K 3)
1137 2nd St (#7 on Exhibit A of Attachment K 3)
These parcels are currently zoned R3 (Medium Density Multiple Family Residential), with the southern end of 1137 2nd Street also zoned C3 (Downtown Commercial). The residential portions of these parcels also contain “A” overlay designations and are currently used for surface parking and a small office building. All three parcels, however, are currently designated Downtown Core under the existing LUCE land use designation map, are commercially used, and are within the boundaries of the pending Downtown Specific Plan area. As the LUCE provides that the specific uses, height, FAR, and development standards for buildings and uses within the Downtown Core will be addressed by a Specific Plan, the Planning Commission voted not to 8/27/24, 10:31 AM City of Santa Monica - Study Session on the Draft Zoning Ordinance, Proposed Land Use and Circulation Element Amendments, … https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2015/20150414/s2015041404-A.htm 34/42 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
recommend that these parcels be changed and would retain their LUCE commercial land use designation. Commissioner Kennedy appealed this action.

A significant amount of public correspondence has been received regarding 1801 Wilshire Boulevard (#90 on Exhibit A of Attachment K 3). Although the entire parcel is currently zoned C6 (Boulevard Commercial) and is currently occupied by multi-story commercial and office buildings with multi-level parking, the existing LUCE Land Use Designation Map identified the rear of the parcel as Low Density Housing. The Commission’s recommendation is to change the rear portion of the parcel to a MixedUse Boulevard (MUB) LUCE land use designation to provide consistency with the existing MUB designation of the majority of the parcel, the existing zoning of the entire parcel, and the existing commercial, office, and parking uses on the parcel. No existing residential uses would be included in this LUCE land use designation correction at 1801 Wilshire Boulevard.

A draft Official Districting Map (Attachment H) is attached that corresponds to the Draft LUCE Land Use Designation Map.

Additional Issues
In addition to the issues discussed above that were the subject of robust discussion and debate, several other issues were identified and resulted in revisions that resolved the concerns that were raised.

Residential Uses on Commercial Parcels Adjacent to Residential Districts or Active Commercial- Section 9.21.200
This revision addresses situations where residential uses are located within commercial districts. Specifically, if a commercial parcel immediately adjacent to a residential district has only been residentially used since July 10, 2010, any redevelopment of a commercial parcel adjacent to this parcel, shall be designed in accordance with the development standards (minimum setbacks and daylight plane) as if the development were occurring next to a residential zoned parcel. Essentially, this provision protects residentially used parcels from having a zero setback when an adjacent commercially zoned parcel redevelops. It also extends to the adjoining parcel deeper into the commercial zoning if it is also residentially used. 8/27/24, 10:31 AM City of Santa Monica - Study Session on the Draft Zoning Ordinance, Proposed Land Use and Circulation Element Amendments, … https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2015/20150414/s2015041404-A.htm 35/42 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
:..UCE Map Changes
I Page Address Street APN Existing Zoning Approved LUCE Designation , LUJ:;E Designation Change I Number , 79 1421 23RD ST 4275005010 R3 I MUBL Change back to Medium Density Hsg ' 80 12311 SCHAOE.R DR 427S005068 R3 MUBL Change back to Medium Density Hsg 81 12428 SANTA MONICA BLVD 4275003016 C4/R2 I MUBL Change back to Low Density Hsg 8� !2505 SANTA MONICA BLVD 4276021054 R2A I MUBL Change back to Low Density Hsg 83 850 PALISADES BEACH RD 4292031018 R2S OF Change back to Low Density Hsg

3.1. ,8S0 PALISADES BEACH RD 4292031905 R2B OF Change back to Low Density Hsg ' 85 11337 12TH ST 4282014016 C4 jMedium Density Housing Change to General Commercial I 86 2001 BROADWAY 4275008808 CP3-C4 jHealthcare Mixed Use/MUBL Change to MUBL for entire parcel I 37 1418 19TH ST 4275010004 C4 Low Density Housing Change. to General Commercial 38 1560 12TH ST 4282031030 Ml jMUBL/Medium Density Housing Change·to MUBL for entire parcel 89 1519 COLORADO-AVE 4282035010 Ml Low Density Housing/MUBL Change to MUBL for entire parcel 90 1801 WILSHIRE BLVD 4276009036 C6 Low Density Housing/MUB Change to MUB for entire parcel �- \2602 MAINS1 4288002902 CM2-0P2 1Low Density Housing Change to lnsitutional/Public lands :,_ 32 1::.s.6.: 15TH ST 4282035014 M: Low Density Housing Change to MUBL I -- ,:.547 15 IH SI 4282035013 iv11 . Lo•..v Density Housing Change to MUBL :IL 11548 18TH ST 4275012011 M'.:. 1 Low Density Housing Change to MUBL :i-�:l J1547 16TH ST 4282036015 M: I Low Denslty Houslng Change to MUBL I 96 715 CALIFORNIA AVE. 4292003028 R2 1
·nstitutional/?ublic lands .Change to Low Density Housing 97 1030 LINCOLN BLVD 4292003027 R2 Institutional/Public Lands Change to Low Density Housing 98 701 PICO BLVD 4290004013 C4 Medium Density Housing • Change to MUBL 95 12019 14TH ST 4284034014 Rl I Low Density Housing Change to Single Family Housing lCO )1550 jEUCLID ST 4282032010 Ml I Medium Density Housing Change to MUBL 10: !1534 \20TH ST 4275014003 LMSD Low Density Housing Change to MUBL - ,, _
_ .J.! 1544 20TH ST 4275014005 . I Lfv15J 'Low Densitv Housing Change to MUBL :03 11538 20TH ST 4275014004 -1 LMSC LJv✓ Densi:y Housing Change to MUBL ,_ 1C4 11528 20TH ST 4275014002 I LMSD Lc-w Der,sity Housing Change to MUBL 105 12515 EUCLID ST 4284025002 I R1-,i3 Medi1.Jm Density Housing Change to Single Family Housing I 106 J1547 18TH ST 4275013014 I Ml Low Density Housing Change to MUBLl 107 J1547 19TH ST 4275014009 Ml Low Density Housing ·
Change to MUBL
j 108 1212 BAY ST 4289018002 CM2 Low Density Housing Change to NC I 109 12101 OCEAN PARK BLVD 4273016900 I R3 Medium Density Housing Change to lnsitutional/Puolic Lands ! 110 1704 MONTANA AVE 4277008900 i'l.2 Low Density Housing Change to lnsitutional/P.ublic Lands· l .. .. ,1 1847 114TH ST 4283031907 I R2 1 Parks and Open Space Change to lnsitutional/Public Lands ! 112 1847 i14TH ST 4283033917 I R.2 ?ar!<s and Open Space Change to lnsitutional/Public Lands �13 1847 /14TH ST 4283033918 I �2 I Parks 3nd Open Space Change to lnsitutional/Public Lands 'lL 11847 !14TH ST I 4283033916 I °'2 \Perks and Open 5paca Change to lnsitutional/Public Lands ·15 !18d7 14TH ST I 4283031900 I C4-R2 ?:;rl:s and Open Soaca Change to lnsitutional/Public Lands Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting: February 19, 2025 Santa Monica, California

RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-003 (PCS)

(Planning Commission Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA

MONICA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO CONSIDER RECOMMENDING TO THE

CITY COUNCIL THAT THE COUNCIL AMEND THE SANTA MONICA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND THE OFFICIAL DISTRICTING MAP REGARDING 2644 3OTH STREET AND 1331 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD FOR CONSISTENT

DESIGNATION
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2010, the City Council adopted the Land Use and Circulation Element (“LUCE”) of the City’s General Plan, including a General Plan Land Use Map; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2015, the City adopted a revised Zoning Ordinance, which included a revised Districting Map; and
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2017, the City Council adopted the Downtown Community Plan, which revised the Districting Map to include the DCP subareas; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65860 was amended by SB 1333, which became effective on January 1, 2019, to require that Charter Cities have consistency between their General Plans and Zoning Ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City has been made aware of inconsistencies for the parcels located at 2644 30th Street and 1331 Wilshire Boulevard that are causing nonconforming conditions and development impediments to planned and future development for these parcels; and
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
WHEREAS, City staff are aware that there are additional parcels with similar conditions as throughout the City, and staff will strive to periodically return with additional clean-ups as staff become aware thereof; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2025, the Planning Commission considered amendments to the Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Map, which are detailed in Exhibit A, and hereby declares its intention to consider such changes by adopting this resolution pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.45.060(A); and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2025, the Planning Commission considered amendments to the Official Districting Map, which are detailed in Exhibit B, and hereby declares its intention to consider such changes by adopting this resolution pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.46.030(B); and
WHEREAS, this Resolution of Intention represents the formal initiation of the process for the Planning Commission to consider recommending that the City Council make amendments to these maps.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map.

Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.45.060(A), the Planning Commission does hereby announce its intention to consider recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend the land use designations in the General Plan Land Use Map for the parcels located at 2644 30th Street and 1331 Wilshire Boulevard to attain consistency between the General Plan Land Use Map and the Official Districting Map and/or Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
consistency with the existing development/use and prior zoning as set forth in Exhibit A, attached to this Resolution.

SECTION 2. Proposed amendments to the Official District (Zoning) Map.

Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.46.030(B), the Planning Commission does hereby announce its intention to consider recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend the zoning in the Official Districting Map for the parcels located at 2644 30th Street and 1331 Wilshire Boulevard in order to attain consistency between the General Plan Land Use Designation Map and the Official Districting Map and/or consistency with the existing development/use and prior zoning, as set forth in Exhibit B, attached to this Resolution.

SECTION 3. The Director of the Community Development Department 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:

_________________________
DOUGLAS SLOAN, City Attorney

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

Adopted this __th day of month, 2025.

______________________________________________
Chair, Planning Commission

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution of Intention was duly and regularly introduced and approved at a meeting of the Planning Commission on the __th day of ___, 2025 by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:

Attest:

______________________________________________
Director of Community Development Department

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 8:57 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!

Sincerely,
Vanessa McCarthy
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 9:34 AM
To: councilmtgitems; 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 -- 2644 30th St. -- Oppose upzoning of building; exempt parking lot from upzoning

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Lana Negrete and City Councilmembers
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th Street from R1 (residential) to "Neighborhood Commercial" (NC) -- OPPOSE!
The FOSP Board urges 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. 4) It seems puzzling that, given the city's current financial distress, staff prioritized spending a year working with Harding Larmore to upzone a building that is fully leased until 2027, and that the owner says they have no plans for.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
3 Again, the FOSP Board urges you
a) to oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) to exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Larson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 10:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A - Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
85-foot buildings do NOT belong adjacent to an R-1 neighborhood.

Please preserve the character of our neighborhood.

Boulevard facing lots in commercial areas are more suited for development.

Given the current commercial vacancy rates in Santa Monica, encourage adapƟve re-use of exisƟng buildings--specially transiƟoning empty office space into living spaces.

Cathy Larson
Sunset Park resident
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
5 David Yakobson
From: Lmkmanning <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 10:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell 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,
Linda Manning
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
6 David Yakobson
From: lmarreola <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 10:28 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.

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
Larry and Carol Arreola
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
7 David Yakobson
From: Dan Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 10:57 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.

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,
Dan Kolhoff
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
8 David Yakobson
From: Tracey Hom <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 10:58 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.

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
9 David Yakobson
From: Roni Crichton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 11:12 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 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. I live in one of those homes. Morning sunshine would be obliterated. The level of traffic congestion is already terrible and this combined with the Gelson project and the approved apartment building at 32nd and Ocean Park will render the traffic constant gridlock.
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 know the developer is very influential and there is money likely flowing, but we elected you. Please do right by us.

Sincerely,
Roni Crichton
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
10 David Yakobson
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 11:13 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,
I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) 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 Croner
90405
Karen Croner
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
11 David Yakobson
From: brian estwick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 11:16 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.

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 K. Estwick, M.D., MBA
Santa Monica, Ca.
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
12 David Yakobson
From: Heather Strofs <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 11:17 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. I live on 30th street with my husband and 2 sons and moved to this neighborhood because it is exactly that.. an inviting and safe place for my family and kids. I do not want to see tall buildings take over. It will be a disaster!
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).

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.

Heather Strofs a residient of 30th street.
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
13 David Yakobson
From: John Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 11:19 AM
To: Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Nikki Kolhoff; Robb Curtis Brown; Cathy Larson; Jeanne Laurie; John Reynolds; ALICEANN GRUSIN; Clare Thomas; John Murdock Subject: 2644 30th Street Proposal

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council and City Manager:

The proposed zoning amendment to the parcel at 2644 30th Street does not comport with Code Requirements and cannot be approved consistent with Santa Monica Municipal Code requirements.

The code amendment must be justified by a showing of “public necessity and convenience and the general welfare” to maintain consistency with the General Plan, as required by Section 9.46.010:

Chapter 9.46AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP
§ 9.46.010Purpose.The purpose of this Chapter is to provide procedures by which changes may be made to the text of this Ordinance and to the Zoning Map whenever the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare require such amendment to maintain consistency with the General Plan. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015) The proper procedure for initiating a plan and zone amendment is not simply a request to have staff recommend it to Council. Rather, there is a formal requirement for an application, fees to the city, documentation to prove it is required by public necessity, public review of said documentation, and participation in public hearings after review of that evidence. None of that has happened here, and the proposal before you is in violation of the code requirements. § 9.46.040"Application Requirements.
"A. Application. A qualified applicant shall submit an application for a zoning amendment on a form prescribed by the Director accompanied by the required fee. The Director may require an applicant to submit such additional information and supporting data as considered necessary to process the application" So, query, Did the Public Records Act Request by the public bring up any application or supporting data or payment of fees to the city as required by code? No.

The following analysis is a summary of the general process in a request for zone change which is representative of how the process should have unfolded. Objection is hereby made to the hidden, Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
14 informal application by attorneys for the owner, without adequate documentation of evidence to support the public necessity, and without adequate public review of the information supposedly given by owner to justify the change.

Here’s how the process typically unfolds:

1. Pre-Application / Consultation
o The applicant normally meets with City planning staff ahead of formal submission to review feasibility, required materials, and identify issues.
o Staff may advise on neighborhood response, compatibility with the General Plan, etc.

2. Application Submission / Completeness Review.. See Code Requirements:

Chapter 9.37COMMON PROCEDURES
§ 9.37.010Purpose.

Initiation of Application. An application shall be filed by a qualified applicant.

Application Forms and Materials.

2. Supporting Materials. The Director shall require the submission of supporting materials as part of the application, including but not limited to statements, photographs, plans, drawings, renderings, models, material samples, contextual drawings, massing diagrams and/or models, site development history information, and other items necessary or relevant (e.g., easements, prior site zoning) to describe existing conditions and the proposed project and to determine the level of environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
15 C.

Application Fees. The City Council shall approve by resolution a Municipal Fee Schedule that establishes fees for permits, appeals, amendments, informational materials, penalties, copying, and other such items. These fees may be amended by the City Council by legislation. o Thus, the applicant submits the required application forms, plans, reports, etc. as defined by the Director under SMMC § 9.37.020.
o Supporting materials may include site plans, diagrams, renderings, statements of justification, context analysis, environmental review materials, etc.
o The City must determine whether the application is “complete” before proceeding (as per §

9.37.020).
o The applicant must pay application fees (Santa Monica publishes a “Text Amendment / Zone Change” fee in its Planning Fees schedule).

2. Staff Review & Recommendation
o Once the application is deemed complete, planning staff will prepare a staff report that analyzes consistency with the General Plan, zoning objectives, potential impacts, and whether to recommend approval, denial, or approval with conditions. o The staff report is circulated to other City departments (e.g. Public Works, Fire, etc.) for comment.
o Environmental review (under CEQA) may be required depending on the magnitude of change and impacts.

3. Public Notice & Hearing(s)
o Because a zone change is a legislative or discretionary action, public notice and a public hearing(s) are required.
o The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the zone change proposal, consider public testimony, staff report, and make a recommendation to the City Council. o Then, the City Council will hold a public hearing (or multiple hearings) and make the final decision (adopt or reject an ordinance amending the map). o The public hearings allow neighbors, stakeholders, and interested parties to weigh in.

4. Council Decision & Ordinance Adoption
o If the Council approves, it must adopt an ordinance that amends the Zoning Map accordingly. o That ordinance becomes part of the municipal code / zoning map and is the new controlling classification for the parcel.
o If denied, the applicant typically has appeal options (if provided by code) or may revise and resubmit.

5. Post-Approval / Implementation
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
16 o Once zone change is adopted, any development on the parcel must conform to the requirements of the new zone (uses, setbacks, density, height, etc.). o The applicant must still apply for the necessary development permits (building permits, site review, applicable conditional or minor use permits, etc.) under the new zoning.

A zone change is not guaranteed — it’s discretionary, and the burden is on the applicant to justify why the change is appropriate in light of City policies, compatibility, and community impacts.  The city will evaluate consistency with the General Plan (or any applicable specific plan) as part of the review.
 Because the change is to the zoning map (i.e. a legislative change), the standard is more demanding than a variance or waiver.
 The city prohibits granting a variance if it would be “substantially equivalent to a reclassification (zone change)” — meaning you can’t bypass the zone change by asking for extreme variances.  Environmental impacts (traffic, noise, height/shadow, aesthetic, infrastructure) often become key battlegrounds, particularly in urbanized areas.
 The cost (fees, consultants, time) can be significant. According to Santa Monica’s FY 24–25 fee schedule, the “Text Amendment / Zone Change” fee is about $34,471.90 (plus other associated fees) as of the current schedule.

Here’s a Santa Monica Zone Change (Zoning Map Amendment) Step-by-Step Timeline & Checklist (2025 practice, under SMMC):

2. Application Submission & Completeness (1–2 months)
 Submit formal application for “Zoning Map Amendment” under SMMC 9.46.030.  Must include:
o Application form (City Planning Division)
o Justification statement (public necessity, general welfare, consistency with General Plan) o Legal description of parcel
o Site plan / concept drawings
o Environmental review materials (CEQA checklist)
 Fee: ~$34,471.90 (FY 24–25 schedule).
 City has 30 days to review for completeness (Gov. Code § 65943). If incomplete, they issue a letter of required corrections.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
17  Planning staff draft a staff report with analysis and recommendation.

5. City Council Hearing (1–3 months after Commission)
 Public notice given again.
 Council considers:
o Commission recommendation
o Staff analysis
o Public input (neighbors)
 Council may:
o Adopt ordinance approving zone change (two readings required) o Deny outright
o Request modifications.
 Legal standard: Zone change must be consistent with the General Plan and serve “public necessity, convenience, and general welfare” .

Applicant slept through the public process when the plan and zoning were adopted and then slept again through the public “correction” process whereby errors could be changed. However, the public, including FOSP, was not asleep, they participated dutifully in the review with supporting comments, and the position advocated by FOSP prevailed and is now binding absent a formal application to amend Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
18 as spelled out in the code. The statute of limitations on informal “corrections” due to inadvertence has run, ergo a formal application is required with adequate time to examine any evidence put forth in support of “public necessity”, since none is apparent on this record.

This entire process is illegal and cannot be approved.

Thank you for your attention,
John Murdock
1209 Pine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
19 David Yakobson
From: Sarah Gallagher <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 11:29 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 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 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,
Sarah Gallagher
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
20 David Yakobson
From: Ria McVeigh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 11:39 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.

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,
Katrina McVeigh
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Diana Bianchini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:24 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! 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.

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,
Diana Bianchini
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Robert Dean <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 7:56 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.

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,
Robert Dean
90405

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information contained in this communication (including, without limitation, in any attachment) is confidential and is intended for disclosure only to the addressee(s). If you are not an intended recipient or have otherwise received this communication in error, please notify the sender and then delete it, and Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2 you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of any of the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: Amanda Robertson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 8:23 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.

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,
Amanda Robertson (310) 614-8071
Please excuse any typos! Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Stuart Grusin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 8:34 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.

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,
Stuart Grusin
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
5 David Yakobson
From: LINDA KNAB <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 8:37 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,
The only group that this upzoning resolution will benefit are big developers that are trying to take over Santa Monica.

I am receiving multiple messages per day, since the “developer friendly “ resolutions have been passed, to sell my property. What these dangerous resolutions have started my very well end up with elderly people and unexperienced people being taken advantage of, and losing their most important possession, their home to aggressive developers out for the big buck.

I urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) 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,
Linda Reinbold
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: David Abramis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 11:54 PM
To: Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Iris Souza
Subject: Upzoning 2644 30th St. & Construction at 3205 Ocean Park Blvd.

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members and City Manager:

Because we will be unable to attend your meeting on 9/30/2025 and speak in person, we are writing this email in hopes that you will read it, take it seriously, and include it in the record for the meeting. The following are the issues we wish you to consider:
(I) We strongly oppose the proposal to upzone 2644 30th Street. (II) We strongly oppose the current plans for the construction of a 7-story building at 3205 Ocean Park Blvd.

Specifically, we have serious concerns about the following:
(1) We believe that all appropriate and legal analyses have not yet been conducted to vet these changes to our beautiful community.
(2) We believe that appropriate consideration has not been made for these developments' proper integration with the local residential community (i.e., mostly families in single-family dwellings). (3) We believe that appropriate consideration has not been made for parking on the residential streets near these proposed developments.
(4) We believe that appropriate consideration has not been made for wear and tear on the local streets near these proposed developments.
(5) We believe that appropriate consideration has not been made for the privacy of homes on the residential streets near these proposed developments (e.g., with a 7-story building looking down into many homes and yards).
(6) We believe that appropriate consideration has not been made for safety on the residential streets near these proposed developments.
(7) We believe that appropriate consideration has not been made for traffic on both residential and commercial streets near these proposed developments.
(8) We believe that appropriate consideration has not been made for the health impacts on residents near these proposed developments.

We understand the need to increase more affordable residential housing in our community, as well as increasing development that would raise revenue for the city, and we fully support both. However, it is vital that such development be done in a way that does not harm our community. Please help us keep Santa Monica the beautiful jewel it has been and can continue to be, without excessive and/or inadequately vetted development.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2 We invite you to walk our local streets and consider the aforementioned impacts of the proposed upzoning and very large building at 3205 Ocean Park Blvd. Come and meet our neighbors and us. We would love to meet you face-to-face, to show you around, and to demonstrate the validity of our concerns.

Thank you very much for your attention to these matters and for your hard work for our city.

David Abramis and Iris Souza
2642 33rd St.

Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Dorothy Le Suchkova <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 5:17 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Cc: Ross Fehrman; Rachel Kwok; Jing Yeo; Oliver Chi
Subject: Re: Item 12.A 2644 30th Street Commercial Building Re-Zone Support

EXTERNAL
Dear Honorable Mayor Negrete and Santa Monica City Councilmembers:

My name is Dorothy Suchkova and I live with my husband and two kids in Santa Monica, on the same block as the commercial property of 2644 30th Street. I am an urban planner, our children play AYSO soccer, we are active PTA members at our local school, Grant Elementary, and we are active residents in our local community.

I fully support the City's efforts to appropriately re-zone 2644 30th Street, which is Item 12.A on the Council’s 9/30 agenda: 2025/09/30 05:30 PM City Council Regular Meeting - Web Outline - City of Santa Monica, California.

In addition, we are disappointed at the divisive and misleading tactics used by Friends of Sunset Park.

We understand they may have different opinions on the matter, but their spreading of misinformation does the community and neighborhood a disservice.

We hope that the City's does the right thing and passes the rezoning. We fully support it.

Sincerely,
Dorothy Suchkova
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Boris Suchkov <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 5:19 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Cc: Ross Fehrman; Rachel Kwok; Jing Yeo; Oliver Chi
Subject: Re: Item 12.A 2644 30th Street Commercial Building Re-Zone Support

EXTERNAL
Dear Honorable Mayor Negrete and Santa Monica City Councilmembers:

My name is Boris Suchkov and I live with my wife and two kids in Santa Monica, on the same block as the commercial property of 2644 30th Street. I am an urban planner, our children play AYSO soccer, we are active PTA members at our local school, Grant Elementary, and we are active residents in our local community.

In addition, we are disappointed at the divisive and misleading tactics used by Friends of Sunset Park.

We understand they may have different opinions on the matter, but their spreading of misinformation does the community and neighborhood a disservice.

We hope that the City does the right thing and passes the rezoning. We fully support it.

Sincerely,
Boris Suchkov
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: suzie roth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 5:56 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.

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,
Suzie
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: leona mason <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 6:00 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.

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,
Leona Mason
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
5 David Yakobson
From: ALICE ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 6:14 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.

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,
Alice Ellis
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
6 David Yakobson
From: Robin Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 6:17 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.

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,
Robin Anderson
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
7 David Yakobson
From: JORDAN ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 6:20 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.

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,
Jordan Ellis
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
8 David Yakobson
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete
Subject: item 12-A – Ask questions

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor,
Which city staffer(s) or council member(s) or combination of these people, prior to Sept 2024, engaged HLKK as their intermediary to get to the owners of 2644 30th Street? The city appears complicit in this plot to up-zone an R1 property using a multi tier process to circumvent approved zoning in order to develop not another commercial space which would be ridiculous in the current leasing environment which according to the staff report indicates a 30% vacancy rate, but instead to develop a mixed use property with ground floor retail, maybe a few affordable units and expensive rentals all with limited and sub standard parking. The owners are being taken for a ride on this endeavor. Maybe they will go belly up, thus allowing the city to follow its track record of creating plans that depress prope values then taking over those commercial properties with low ball offers.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
9 David Yakobson
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:22 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,
The owners are being taken for a ride on this endeavor - a multi tier erosion plan of R1 hatched from within city hall.

Did Oliver initiate the intermediary, HLKK, to engage the owner? Maybe they will go belly up, thus allowing the city to follow its track record of creating plans that depress prope values then taking over those commercial properties with low ball offers.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
10 David Yakobson
From: Adam Monaghan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:32 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.

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,
Adam Monaghan
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
11 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Owens <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:52 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 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,
Nancy Owens
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
12 David Yakobson
From: PAULINE YANO <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 8:05 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.

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,
Pauline Yano
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
13 David Yakobson
From: Julie Rhee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 8:07 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.

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,
Julie Rhee
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
14 David Yakobson
From: Michelle LoMonaco <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 9:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

Sincerely,
Michelle LoMonaco 90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
15 David Yakobson
From: Warren Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 9:20 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.

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,
Warren and Sally Allen
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
16 David Yakobson
From: Caitlin Lili <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 9:40 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.

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,
Caitlin Lili
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
17 David Yakobson
From: Julia Nicholls <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 9:44 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.

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,
Julia Nicholls
90404
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
18 David Yakobson
From: Tali Ekstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 9:59 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.

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,
Tali Ekstein
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
19 David Yakobson
From: Paula Mazur <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: I Oppose Item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Are you, the Santa Monica City Council, serious about affordable housing? Or are you taking the expedient, shiny surface, easy way to solve a complex problem, with no nuance in your approach? It looks to most of SM’s citizens like the latter.

I therefore oppose Item 12-A. It does NOT solve the affordable housing issues. Let’s please come up with solutions that work, bring affordable housing to teachers, nurses, firefighters, policemen, and don’t give windfalls to the developers, which this Item 12-A does.

Yours truly,
Paula Mazur
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
20 David Yakobson
From: Caitlin Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:06 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.

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 have seen this before - in my 25 years as an architect working in NYC and Northern NJ. Neighborhoods are really just communities of people with something in common, something legible. An 85’ tall building in an 2 to 3 story fabric undermines that reading of place and thus begins the process of undermining it - and making it a place for developers to make money, and less of a place for people to identify as their community.

Sincerely,
Caitlin Moore, Architect
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
21 David Yakobson
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:23 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.

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,
Jeanne Laurie
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
22 David Yakobson
From: ALICEANN GRUSIN <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:28 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.

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
Aliceann Grusin
90405
Sent from my annoying device.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
23 David Yakobson
From: Peter A Donald <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:36 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.

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,
-pad蚋蚌蚍蚎Peter A Donald
2618 32nd St.

Santa Monica, CA 90405
310 871-4862
[email protected]
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
24 Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
25 David Yakobson
From: Nora Vasquez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:46 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.

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
Nora Vasquez, MD
[email protected]
310-745-0331
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
26 David Yakobson
From: Amanda O'Brien <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:59 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.

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
27 David Yakobson
From: Amanda O'Brien <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:59 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.

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,
Amanda OBrien
1744 Bryn Mawr Ave
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
28 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 11:56 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,
Surely there is a need to protect our homes from overdeveloping. I do realize developers have deep pockets that support intense political lobbying, but at some time our city officials need to focus on the people they are supposed to represent. Therefore, 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,
Charles Blum
90405
Dr. Charles L. Blum
[email protected]
1752 Ocean Park Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-392-9795
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
29 www.drcharlesblum.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-Mail communication (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18, U.S.C 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received this message in error, and then delete it. Thank You.

Ferpa Notice: Additionally, these records are protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and are provided to the intended recipient under an exception to the Act found in Section 99.32.

These records must be maintained confidentially and may not be re-disclosed. They must be destroyed when your legitimate educational interest no longer exists.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
30 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 12:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Council Members,
I am very concerned about the upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial of the parcel at 30th Street. I urge you not to proceed with this.

Why are we rushing this? The lease doesn't expire until 2027. No reason has been clearly articulated for why this decision must proceed at this speed. It's hard to understand why this is at the forefront of the council's agenda when staff time could be spent on so many other crucial issues. If there are factors driving this timeline, citizens of Santa Monica deserve a full explanation. Please either slow this down or explain the urgency fully.

The R1 zoning was not a mistake—that is inaccurate. The staff report continues to describe the R1 zoning as a mistake. But when Neighborhood Commercial became part of the city's zoning in 2010 with the LUCE, it was exclusively reserved for boulevards and excluded interior lots by definition. This parcel was intentionally not made NC because the height allowed under NC was already considered—rightly—much too tall for an interior lot in a residential neighborhood.

Residents raised this issue back in May, but the staff report continues to describe this as a mistake.

Why?
Why can't the city create a new, appropriate zoning category? Staff claims "legal non-conforming use" could have unintended consequences for the city. But upzoning an interior parcel to match boulevard zoning will also have unintended consequences. If neither approach works, create a new category that allows commercial use within the existing 2 stories but doesn't exceed R1 height standards.

Questions about process and transparency: Rather than applying through the standard rezoning process, the owner went directly to city staff through their law firm to request this zoning change by resolution. When private interests appear to have more access and influence than residents in shaping our zoning laws, it undermines the community-centered values Santa Monica is known for.

What are the broader implications? I am concerned about future development potential and precedent-setting for other interior lots in residential neighborhoods. Upzoning could substantially increase the property's development potential and value, with long-term impacts on neighborhood character. These decisions deserve thorough public discussion and full community input.

Please slow this process down.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
31 Thank you for considering my thoughts.

Heather Thomason, 90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
32 David Yakobson
From: Leanna Einbinder <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 12:38 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.

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,
Leanna Einbinder
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
33 David Yakobson
From: Bill Josephs <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 4:05 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.

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,
William Josephs, 2454 23rd Street, Santa Monica, CA
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
34 David Yakobson
From: Taunya Post <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 6:12 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.

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,
Taunya Post
2247 24th street - 90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
35 David Yakobson
From: Isabel <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 6:55 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.

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,
Isabel Cardoso Ferreira
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: William Schoene <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 4:44 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.

Really? An 85 foot tall building in a residential neighborhood, not near public rapid transit? Really? 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
1 David Yakobson
From: Andrew Wilder <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 4:29 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.

I understand we're going to have taller buildings soon along Ocean Park Blvd. and our other major thoroughfares. But let's keep that along the major thoroughfares, so the buildings aren't towering over our residential neighborhoods.

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,
Andrew Wilder
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Debbie Millar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 4:33 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 strongly 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 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 the homes on 29th and 30 Streets.

The parcel is not located on Ocean Park Blvd., so how can it qualify for Neighborhood Commercial zoning?
Please keep our city's taller construction projects in the proper zones! Sincerely,
Debbie Millar
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Elaine Becker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 4:09 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!

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
1 David Yakobson
From: julie anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 3:45 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.

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,
Julie Anderson
2641 4th St, #1
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Katherine Reuter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 3:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
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,
Katherine Reuter
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: oesr <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 4:11 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.

Please do not continue spot zoning next to R1.

Jane Dempsey
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Kathy Knight <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 4:21 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,
We urge you to a) oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and b) exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

Again, we 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,
Kathy Knight and Joe Faris
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Todd Sherman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 12:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!, 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.

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Lana Negrete and City Councilmembers
Subject line: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE! 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.

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.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2 Sincerely,
[Your Name]
90405
Todd Sherman
2800 28th Street, Suite 130
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310.780.5565 mobile
310.664.6705 ext. 101
310.664.6706 (fax)
[email protected]
www.FirstPacific1.com
DRE #00925920
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and/or any attachment(s) is confidential and intended for the use only by the recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, reproduce, or distribute the contents of this message. If this e-mail is received in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 12:13 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.

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,
Danielle Charney
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Aram Kadish <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 12:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell
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.

I strongly oppose having 85 foot or greater buildings in any spaces they are currently not in since they prevent air flow, create shadow windows preventing natural light from reaching blocked homes. reduces privacy for all surrounding homes and simply don't fit into the natural feel of the neighborhoods. I think it is time Santa Monica push back on this over-emphasis on building housing with no regard to any other issues or neighborhood desires. If we absolutely need to build high rises beyond 2-3 floors, to meet our housing needs, I suggest they be built along the 10 freeway corridor where these tall buildings will act as a sound barrier and not negatively affect other home owners and ruin the character of our special Santa Monica neighborhoods.

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,
Aram Kadish 90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
5 David Yakobson
From: Terrence Marre <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 12:17 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.

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,
Terrence Marre
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
6 David Yakobson
From: Levin, Amy C <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 12:18 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.

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,
Amy Levin
90405
*****************************************
Amy Levin, LCSW, PhD
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
7 David Yakobson
From: Kathleen Kelleher McCarthy <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 12:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya
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.

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,
Kathleen Kelleher McCarthy
1206 Grant St.

Santa Monica, CA
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
8 David Yakobson
From: Joy Moini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 12:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Barry Snell
Cc: Rachel Kwok; Ross Fehrman; Jing Yeo; Oliver Chi
Subject: Item 12.A 2644 30th Street Commercial Building Re-Zone Support

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
As a Sunset Park resident living a few blocks away from 2644 30th Street, I’m writing to express my support for the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and Official Districting Map for this property. We have been clients of a speech/language therapist in that building and sincerely value the convenience of having small businesses like it and others in close proximity to our home, not to mention the added business/economic activity for local restaurants and stores, all of which keep the neighborhood vibrant and thriving. In addition, my family owns commercial real estate in Santa Monica-- three small shops leased to local retailers all of which are struggling to make it in this economy. We should be making it easier-- not harder-- for business to thrive here, all of which benefits the residents and our city in a myriad of ways.

From my perspective, this proposal reflects a thoughtful and reasonable compromise. The building has operated as a commercial office space since 1956, and its current “legal non-conforming” status seems to stem from a clerical oversight. Fixing that error is the right thing to do and would bring much-needed clarity for leasing, financing, and upkeep — without paving the way for major redevelopment, especially since the adjacent parking lot remains zoned R1. If the zoning isn’t corrected, the risk of a large-scale development could actually increase if the owner is forced to sell due to financial constraints.

I also want to acknowledge the property owner’s voluntary offer of a 10-year covenant not to redevelop into housing. That’s a meaningful gesture that gives neighbors peace of mind while allowing the city to revisit the issue during the next LUCE update.

Unfortunately, I’ve seen misleading materials circulating in the neighborhood — including exaggerated renderings of high-rise buildings supposedly planned for the site. These depictions are not based in fact and only serve to stir up fear and confusion. I believe our city deserves decisions grounded in truth and transparency.

For all these reasons, I urge you to approve the staff recommendation and adopt the proposed map amendments. It’s a fair and balanced solution that respects the needs of the property owner, the surrounding community, and the integrity of our planning process.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
9 Joy Moini
2328 27th St.

Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
10 David Yakobson
From: Gail Block <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 1:01 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.

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
11 David Yakobson
From: Susan Shapiro <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 1:08 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.

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,
Susan Shapiro
90405
Sent from Outlook
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
12 David Yakobson
From: Wendy Dembo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 1:15 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.

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,
Wendy Dmbo
90403
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
13 David Yakobson
From: Elias <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 1:19 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.

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,
Elias Davis
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
14 David Yakobson
From: Patty McCollim <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 1:48 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.

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,
Richard Sproul
& Patty McCollim
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
15 David Yakobson
From: Laura Kachergus <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 1:53 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 oppose the upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and exempt the parking lot at 2644 30th from future upzoning.

The property, located behind the 2901 Ocean Park Blvd. retail center, 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,
Laura Kachergus
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
16 David Yakobson
From: Vincenzo Landay <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 2:03 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 – OPPOSE Resolution to rezone 2644 30th Street Importance: High

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

Sincerely,
V
…………………………………………………………………………………….…...

Vincent Landay. ”Memento Vivere”
Santa Monica Native & Current Resident
……………………………………………………………………………………………
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
17 David Yakobson
From: rob arocd.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 2:33 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.

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,
Rob Levin
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
18 David Yakobson
From: Mary Duprey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 2:35 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.

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,
Mary Duprey
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
19 David Yakobson
From: Marilyn Elias <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 2:36 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.

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,
Marilyn Elias
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
20 David Yakobson
From: Lauren Behrendt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 2:41 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!

Sincerely,
Lauren Behrendt 90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Tregg Rustad <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:06 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.

Tregg Rustad
Sunset Park owner and resident
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:17 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.

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,
Erik Lerner
25 VIllage Parkway
Santa Monica CA 90405
310 729 4597
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: Michael Rosenberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:17 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.

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 Rosenberg
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Leslie Neale <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:18 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.

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,
Leslie Neale
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
5 David Yakobson
From: Mindi Shank <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:18 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.

This Council has acted disingenuously at many times and especially now. This move to rezone this parcel is a brazen power grab FOR the developer and against the wishes of the residents in the neighborhood. It is also seemingly illegal spot zoning. Staff is acting on behalf of the owner and potential developer and it is beyond frustrating to the taxpayers and people living in this city to constantly fight against the greed of others in positions of power here in Santa Monica. It is ENOUGH.

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,
Mindi Shank
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
6 David Yakobson
From: Clerk Mailbox
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE! Mitchell Kois
Staff Assistant III | City Clerk’s Office
(310) 458-8211 x5518
From: Karen Raz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 9:57 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Clerk Mailbox <[email protected]>
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.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
7 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 Raz
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
8 David Yakobson
From: Rosie Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:32 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.

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,
Rosie Lee
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
9 David Yakobson
From: Lisa Golden <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:40 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.

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,
Lisa and Jonathan Balfus
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
10 David Yakobson
From: Bronwyn Barkan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:54 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 up-zoning 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.

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

Sincerely,
Kelly Hsiao
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
12 David Yakobson
From: Will von Bernuth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 11:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell
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.

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,
Will von Bernuth
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
13 David Yakobson
From: Robert Bernstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 11:22 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.

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,
Robert Bernstein
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
14 David Yakobson
From: Gavin Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell Subject: 9/30/25 agenda item 12-A – Resolution to rezone 2644 30th - OPPOSE!

Sincerely,
Gavin & Nicola Scott
1801 Marine Street
90405

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
15 David Yakobson
From: Jackie Stansbury <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 12:02 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.

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.
[email protected]
(310) 339-9417
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
16 David Yakobson
From: Hilary Galanoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 12:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
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,
Hilary Galanoy
2636 32nd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Mary Hubbell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 9:41 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.

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,
Mary Hubbell
90405
Sent from Mary's iPhone
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Cheryl Downey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 9:38 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.

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,
Cheryl Downey
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: Lauren Wyka <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 9:38 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.

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.

Santa Monica is not Miami.

Sincerely,
Lauren Wyka
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Kevin McCarthy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 9:26 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.

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,
Kevin McCarthy
1206 Grant St, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
5 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Dolores <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 9:09 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.

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
2 David Yakobson
From: MIke Choe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 9:11 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! Importance: High

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

The owner(s) of the 2-story office building 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 Choe
90405
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
Item 12-A
September 30, 2025
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:

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

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
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.

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.

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
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.

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
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.

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.

Santa Monica City CouncilSeptember 30, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
September 30, 2025