1 Mitchell Kois
From: Holly Silvers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 3:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
I urge you to PLEASE!!!!!! Our neighborhood is begging you! a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses.
This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public. City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
2 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Holly Granelli
SM resident since 1999
Condo owner and business owner
Mom of 2 Grant Elementary students
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
3 Mitchell Kois
From: Mayra Herrera <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 3:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
4 Sincerely,
Mayra Herrera
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
5 Mitchell Kois
From: Cydney Kirschbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 3:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
6 Sincerely,
Cydney and Kenneth
Cydney and Kenneth Kirschbaum
[email protected]
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
7 Mitchell Kois
From: Mindi Shank <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 2:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
8 Sincerely,
Mindi Shank
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
9 Mitchell Kois
From: Kelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 2:12 PM
To: Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance up zoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes. The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards. Procedural flaws with this spot up zoning include the following: City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner up zone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public. City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees. 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. Up zoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning. Up zoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this up zoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for up zoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources. Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance up zoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Kelli Urode
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
10 Mitchell Kois
From: Vivien Flitton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 1:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Vivien FliƩon
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
11 Mitchell Kois
From: Nancy Hicks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 1:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
We urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Nancy & Wes Hicks
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
12 Mitchell Kois
From: LUCY F STONE <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 12:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
13 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
[Lucy Frances Stone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
14 Mitchell Kois
From: Maury Pearl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 12:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
15 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Maury Pearl
Sunset Park Resident
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
16 Mitchell Kois
From: mwdobbs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 11:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot.
It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue.
The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks.
Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain.
Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
17 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Michael Dobbs.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
18 Mitchell Kois
From: Warren Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 11:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
19 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Sarah J Allen
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
20 Mitchell Kois
From: Warren Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 11:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
21 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Warren M Allen
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
22 Mitchell Kois
From: John Greene <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 11:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
23 Sincerely,
John Greene
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
24 Mitchell Kois
From: Ellyn Lerner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 11:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spotzoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
25 Ellyn Lerner
25 Village Parkway
Santa Monica CA 90405
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
26 Mitchell Kois
From: Ilya Haykinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 10:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - SUPPORT Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to support the upzoning of 2644 30th street to Neighborhood Commercial. The property is adjacent to a commercial area, and would be a wonderful location to welcome in new neighbors — the 10-year deed restriction would likely encourage the developer of this property to create housing, rather than a purely commercial-use building. We need to continue to grow, as a city, and this property is already a commercial building.
-ilya haykinson
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
27 Mitchell Kois
From: Todd Sherman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 9:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Todd Sherman
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
28 portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spotzoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Todd Sherman
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 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
29 Mitchell Kois
From: Karrie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 9:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
30 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Karrie Dvorchak
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
31 Mitchell Kois
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 9:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spotzoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
32 Sincerely,
Phyllis Chavez
Sunset Park
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
33 Mitchell Kois
From: Laura Thixton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 9:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment. The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses.
This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes. The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the lowrise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards. Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following: City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public. City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees. 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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning. Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources. Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment. Sincerely, [Your Name] Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
34 Mitchell Kois
From: ErikLerner RealEstateArchitect.com <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Spot zoning is not the right way to plan the future of Santa Monica. Careful comprehensive planning balancing neighborhood character, environmental quality, social goals and economic realƟes is required.
I concur with the senƟments expressed below.
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
35 residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Erik Lerner
25 Village Pkwy
Santa Monica CA 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
36 Mitchell Kois
From: Carolyn Hanlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
37 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
[Carolyn Hanlin]
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
38 Mitchell Kois
From: ALICE ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
Importance: High
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
39 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Alice Ellis, 90405
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
40 Mitchell Kois
From: Lynne Schlosstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
41 Sincerely,
Lynne Schlosstein
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
42 Mitchell Kois
From: JORDAN ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
43 Sincerely,
Jordan Ellis
Sunset Park resident
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
44 Mitchell Kois
From: Dave Childs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
45 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
David Childs
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
46 Mitchell Kois
From: Dalila Fuentes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
47 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Respectfully,
Dalila Fuentes
Sunset Park Resident 30+yrs
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
48 Mitchell Kois
From: Adam Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 7:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
49 Sincerely,
Adam Cohen
Santa Monica home owner
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
50 Mitchell Kois
From: janet rt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 7:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
51 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Janet Tunick
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
52 Mitchell Kois
From: Brian Lanich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 6:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
53 Sincerely,
Brian Lanich
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
54 Mitchell Kois
From: John Reynolds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 6:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment. The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses.
This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes. The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the lowrise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards. Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following: City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public. City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees. 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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning. Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources. Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment. Sincerely, John Reynolds Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
55 Mitchell Kois
From: Peter Mezza <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 5:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
56 Sincerely,
Peter Mezza
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
57 Mitchell Kois
From: pierre-yves delaunay <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 5:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
58 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Pierre-Yves Delaunay
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
59 Mitchell Kois
From: Jackie Lawson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 5:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
60 Sincerely,
Jacquelyn Lawson
2421 22nd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
61 Mitchell Kois
From: Shane Murphy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 4:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
62 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Shane Murphy
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
63 Mitchell Kois
From: Norma Maister <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 4:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
64 Sincerely,
Norma Maister
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
65 Mitchell Kois
From: Aram Kadish <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 4:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment. The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses.
This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes. The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the lowrise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards. Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following: City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public. City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees. 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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning. Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources. Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment. Sincerely, Aram Kadish Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
66 Mitchell Kois
From: Ellen Mark <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 2:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
67 Sincerely,
Ellen Mark
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
68 Mitchell Kois
From: Jerry <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 11:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
69 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Jerry Nodiff
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
70 Mitchell Kois
From: Danielle Borgia <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
This seeming need for housing density is not able to be achieved in a way that is actually equitable because of the high costs of building. The current overdevelopment has not helped our homeless problem. It has not made rent more affordable for our seniors and people who work here. The few “affordable” units are a drop in the bucket compared to the need. Meanwhile the “market value” apartments already built in the newer high rises sit empty. We need to work on building the city back up for tourism, not trying to get by on taxes from overdevelopment that our water infrastructure cannot support and cars that have no parking.
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
71 use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Danielle Borgia
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
72 Mitchell Kois
From: Ben <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment. The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses.
This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes. The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the lowrise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards. Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following: City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public. City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees. 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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning. Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources. Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment. Sincerely, Ben Wang Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
73 Mitchell Kois
From: Famili, Anita <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
74 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Anita Famili
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
75 Mitchell Kois
From: cathykarolc <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment. The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes. The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards. Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following: City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees. 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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning. Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources. Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment. Sincerely, Cathy Karol-Crowther Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
76 Mitchell Kois
From: Larry Birstock <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
77 Sincerely,
Larry Birstock
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
78 Mitchell Kois
From: Kevin McCarthy <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
79 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Kevin McCarthy
1206 Grant st
SM 90405
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
80 Mitchell Kois
From: Sergio Penaloza <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
81 Sincerely,
Sergio Peñaloza
Sent from my iPhone on the run!
Please forgive any typos or the brevity of the message. Thank you! Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
82 Mitchell Kois
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is appropriately zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses.
A 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is not an acceptable consolation to neighbors because it’s merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity that our General Plan limits to the boulevards in order to protect residential neighborhoods.
Fatal procedural flaws with this spot upzoing include:
City Staff continue to mislead and misinform residents and Council that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 Land Use general plan (LUCE) but this is false. The LUCE was a lengthy and purposeful process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from creeping commercial activity which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have been helping the property owner upzone this parcel for over a year without disclosing this relationship to the public. We, the residents and taxpayers, pay City Staff and Council salaries, but they are working directly with the business owner and its lobbying firm against the residents of our city. City Staff allowed the owner to skip the application process for a zoning change, and avoid paying $34K in application fees at a time when the City has declared its fiscal distress.
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. Expanding that “district boundary” to even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a peninsula of commercial use in a residential neighborhood in violation of our General Plan and is spot-zoning.
Rezoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create unacceptable density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain our city cannot afford. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the City that the City cannot afford.
Crucially, it also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout residential neighborhoods.
Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will anger residents and erode trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Reject this illegitimate attempt to rewrite Santa Monica's General Plan.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only residential development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
83 90405
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Nancy Morse <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 10:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot.
It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue.
The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks.
Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain.
Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
2 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Nancy Morse
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
3 Mitchell Kois
From: Craig A Horowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 9:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
4 Sincerely,
Craig Horowitz
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
5 Mitchell Kois
From: Susanne Jacobson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 9:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
6 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Susanne Jacobson
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
7 Mitchell Kois
From: Alex Maddalosso <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 9:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
8 Sincerely,
Alex
Alex Maddalosso
[email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
9 Mitchell Kois
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 9:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Oliver Chi
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I respecƞully urge you to reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street. 10 years doesn’t seem like long enough to protect the surrounding neighborhood from the ramificaƟons of the upzoning of this parcel, especially when the upzoning sƟll seems to be taking place unnecessarily.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from what we know will likely become an 85’ tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood surround it. For it to be a meaningful deed restricƟon it would need to be longer - like on the order of 50 years or more.
I also would ask that you revisit the decision of last council meeƟng and oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, enƟrely, and also instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
There seems to be no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning, given that there were alternaƟves to help the owner with his (sƟll theoreƟcal) leasing challenge. Proceeding with such limited jusƟficaƟon sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods.
Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
I also conƟnue to be concerned for the city that Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
And finally - I strongly urge you to use all powers the city has to bring Neighborhood Commercial back down to 32’ so that we don’t have 7 story buildings lining our smaller streets like Ocean Park, Pico, Montana and Main. This issue is inƟmately related to the resistance we are seeing around the upzoning of this parcel, and we would be wise to push for this as soon as possible. We would gain a lot of good will from neighbors if we could do this in a way that prevents 7 story buildings on NC. Now that the state has passed even more laws that upzone various parts of our city beyond what we planned for, we should be able to ask and execute on tailoring other parts of our planning to truly suit our city and make a livable Santa Monica.
Thank you so much,
Heather Thomason
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
10 Mitchell Kois
From: Tracey Hom <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 8:45 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; [email protected]; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Oliver Chi; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Heidi von Tongeln; Esther Hickman; Roni Crichton; Jennifer Polhemus; Nikki Kolhoff [email protected]; [email protected]; Dan Kolhoff; Dick Bernstein; Teri B.; Mindi Shank; Betty Mednick; Karen M. Fisher; Molly Subject: OPPOSE AGENDA ITEM 11 D
EXTERNAL
Council agenda item 11 D on 10-14-25
OPPOSE THE COVENANT AND ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING OF 2644 30TH STREET
Mayor Negrete, Council, City Manager and City Attorney
I as a resident of 29th Street oppose the covenant that was secretly negotiated by Paula Larmore, her firm and the owner of 2644 30th Street. Our residents were told very clearly by Oliver Chi that we would have input and be able to be a part of the wording of the covenant. AGAIN MORE LIES. After pleading for 11 days to see the covenant that was allegedly already prepared prior to the last meeting, we finally saw the already negotiated covenant. Ms. Larmore ignored our please as did staff, the city attorney and Mr. Chi. Then as usual immediately prior to the holiday weekend it was emailed to us in its final form. We object to the covenant. We object to the rezoning.
We object to you overburdening our neighborhood with the 3205 32nd street project and this rezoning.
As Mr. Raskin is well aware this spot upzoning is illegal. The fact that you would favor one business/property owner over more than 100 single family property owners is egregious. The fact that you allow Mr. Zwicke to vote on anything is unethical. He has pushed through the ADU, zero lot line and parking lot ordinances which will help his employer and other developers. These were not emergency ordinances. There was no emergency and you know it.
It is disgusting that city employees’ salaries are paid for by the residents are working with a building owner to the detriment of the citizens of this city. You complain about $50,000 for neighborhood groups but you did not require Mr. Palmer to file an application for this illegal upzoning and pay the $34,000 fee. If he had filed an application this would have gone through the fire department among other departments to review ingress and egress. You are making it impossible for our neighborhood to Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
11 escape if there is a disaster or fire. The streets will no be able to handle the traffic. You are relegating us to run for our lives.
Additionally, this zoning is so stupid as it does not require the owner to provide parking. So an 85 foot tall building will add an additional 200-400 cars per day to our streets. We already cant park in our own neighborhood due to the people who work on Ocean Park needing parking.
All of this illegal upzoning has been done at the behest of Harding Larmore who has championed numerous projects that are ruining our town. We are a company town run by Harding Larmore. Who needs a city council. You are like MAGA cult members who kiss the ring of Harding Larmore. It is truly disturbing. What is worse, if you were to say if you don’t like it move. All of your dirty work would have to be disclosed. Mr Zwicke has cherry picked articles stating this density will lower our carbon footprint. We have no infra structure, second an additional 1000 people will use more water, more power, make more waste, use more plastic and burden the sewer system. The ingress and egress will make 29th and 30th less safe. The traffic will drive away potential diners and shoppers. We will look more and more like Westwood.
This demonstrates that you do not care about the ramifications. Anyone with half of a brain would see the negative environmental impact. Stop this nonsense and start working for the residents and protect our city. Stop giving our city over to overdevelopment. This action is illegal.
Tracey P. Hom Esq.
10850 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 825
Los Angeles, California 90024
310 749 5343
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
12 Mitchell Kois
From: Dan Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 8:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
This opens up the possibility of an 85-foot structure towering over the neighbors and truly changing the dynamic of Sunset Park. Would any of you want to have this potential structure next to your house? Craig Horowitz, my neighbor, who lives next to the lot would be directly impacted. Would you want that for yourself?
I want to emphasize that 2644 is NOT located on Ocean Park Boulevard. It has been a 2-story office building since the 1950s with a surface parking lot. Because of this and discussions had during the last LUCE process it is zoned R1 (residential). We understand the owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). That classification doesn't align with the how NC was designed.
The proposed 10-year restriction on development is merely putting a bush on a dumpsite and offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
1) City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. There were many special public meetings during the LUCE period that asked for public input that were not at City Hall. In fact, they were at community rooms where the public thought they were being heard. If residents can't trust that their voices are truly being heard at those meetings/events, and staff can go on the record to say there is no public record from hearings, then all the input received on Memorial Park and the SM Airport can be dismissed.
2) The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public. Who do they work for? 3) City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees. At a time where the City's finances are in trouble, why are we not following the process?
4) 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 Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
13 adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city which it cannot afford. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Dan Kolhoff
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
14 Mitchell Kois
From: Wendy Dembo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 7:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd., plus state density bonuses.
This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards!
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public!
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks.
Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain.
Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
15 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Wendy Dembo
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
16 Mitchell Kois
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 7:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
17 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Wilmont Chair
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
18 Mitchell Kois
From: Caitlin Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 7:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
19 Sincerely,
Caitlin
This message was sent from my phone, please excuse typos.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
20 Mitchell Kois
From: William Schoene <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 2:04 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses.
This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks.
Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain.
Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Seven-story buildings among homes in R-1 neighborhoods? It would be a bad look! It is not Santa Monica now and it is not the way we residents want it to go.Please do not just go meekly along with the travesƟes resulƟng from the forcedItem 11-D October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
21 densificaƟon mandates coming out of Sacramento. Fight for our General Plan, which resulted from significant public parƟcipaƟon.
Mr. & Mrs. William J. Schoene
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
22 Mitchell Kois
From: Richard Bernstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 11:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses.
This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain.
Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
23 Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city.
It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely, Richard Bernstein, 2606 29th Street, Santa Monica Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
24 Mitchell Kois
From: Cathy Larson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 10:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
This parcel is zoned R-1 for a reason. It is adjacent to homes and NOT located on a boulevard.
reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street,
oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial
instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Cathy Larson
Santa Monica resident
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
25 Mitchell Kois
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 10:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
26 Sincerely,
Karen Croner
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
27 Mitchell Kois
From: Leanna Einbinder <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 9:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
28 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Leanna Einbinder
90405
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
29 Mitchell Kois
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 9:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
From: Tina <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 7:16 AM
To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]> Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment. The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes. The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards. Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following: City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees. 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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning. Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources. Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Tina Cox
90405
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
30 Mitchell Kois
From: LINDA KNAB <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 9:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please realize how damaging rezoning this property to NC will be for the surrounding neighborhood. The only one that rezoniing will benefit are the developers. The council should put the wellbeing of the residents above the profits of big developers.
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
31 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Linda Reinbold
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
32 Mitchell Kois
From: Paula Mazur <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
33 Sincerely,
Paula Mazur
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
34 Mitchell Kois
From: Lois Bostwick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residenƟal to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building daƟng from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residenƟal). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restricƟon on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residenƟal neighborhood, and it offers no protecƟon against commercial acƟvity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff conƟnue to state that the parcel R1 (residenƟal) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residenƟal neighborhoods from commercial acƟvity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City AƩorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relaƟonship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the applicaƟon process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in applicaƟon fees.
The retail center on Ocean Park Blvd. between 29th and 30th, currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, already extends further into the residenƟal neighborhood than the NC zones on the adjacent blocks. Upzoning even a porƟon of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residenƟal neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create addiƟonal density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legiƟmate jusƟficaƟon for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly liƟgaƟon against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residenƟal neighborhoods. Other developers are waiƟng to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restricƟon limiƟng only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
35 Sincerely,
Lois Bostwick
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
36 Mitchell Kois
From: P Wu <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 8:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
37 erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Patricia Bolster
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 11:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Barry Snell
Cc: Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
Attachments: 2025-10-14 CC Comment (NHK re 2644 30th).pdf
EXTERNAL
Mayor Negrete and City Council -
Please see my attached comment opposing the illegal spot-zoning of a fully leased, residentially zoned, 2-story office building at 2644 30th Street in a residential neighborhood in violation of our General Plan.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and Project Neighbor
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
1 October 14, 2025
Re: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers –
This is an illegal spot-zoning of a fully leased, residentially zoned, 2-story oOice building at 2644 30th Street in a residential neighborhood. The proposed 10-year limitation on some development doesn’t protect our neighborhood. StaO (with the assistance of Harding Larmore) continues to mislead you with false claims about legal nonconforming uses, when the Code allows oOice use to continue in the entire building and the current oOice uses will still be nonconfoming in Neighborhood Commercial. StaO’s lies become the City Council’s lies if you approve the ordinance.
I urge you to:
a) reject the deed restriction limiting ONLY housing development and for ONLY 10 years, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct StaO to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment to restore the land use designation to residential.
A. THE COVENANT
The covenant is a 10-year reprieve from an 85’tower and that is unacceptable.
In the meantime, it ONLY restricts development of “Housing Projects.” It doesn’t restrict commercial development in a residential neighborhood.
It doesn’t restrict commercial activity in a residential neighborhood.
In short, it violates the LUCE. Again.
It doesn’t preserve the parking lot, if that is upzoned later.
It’s just a stay of execution for the neighbors for 10 years.
Furthermore, the city manager told the neighbors we would get to see the covenant before it was agreed. Instead, staO worked on the covenant with Harding Larmore and NOT the neighbors, emailing it to us late last Wednesday night stating this was it, signed it with the Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
2 owner last Thursday, and isn’t even presenting it tonight for your discussion or comment.
That is unacceptable.
We didn’t ask for this, it was negotiated without us, and it doesn’t work. It also is contrary to the claims made by the property manager, that there would be NO DEVELOPMENT, in several communications to the neighbors, and again at the City Council meeting. (See attached.)
The covenant wasn’t volunteered. The city manager told me he asked the owner for the covenant after he met with neighbors in the parking lot on September 17. Yet staO and the owner continue to claim it was volunteered, perhaps to imply some sort of good faith. Can staO be honest about anything? We really wonder.
You do not have to allow this betrayal of the residents by staO to continue. You can reject the covenant.
B. UPZONING
Even though this is second reading, you can oppose the upzoning.
1. Sta5 Misrepresented Legal Nonconforming Use Restrictions.
StaO is on the record, both written and verbally, characterizing the use limitations as more restrictive than they are. In the staO report, staO said the use couldn’t change from the current use and that any vacancy of any space for a year would prevent that use in that space. Both are false.
a. Categories of Use – It’s General OOice, not Production StaO inserted a chart in the staO report showing “Production” and claimed, “any future commercial uses are limited to those similar to existing uses in the building, which are media production and event production oOices.” This is false. The uses are determined at the time the use became nonconforming, not as a particular lease rolls oO.
Furthermore, the categories of use were not as granular at the time the building became residential. Prior to the LUCE and zoning update, the building was C2. Assuming the oOice building was being used for oOice use, the use category at that time was “general oOice”.
Not production, not creative, not anything more specific. Just “general oOice”. So general oOice use continues to be permitted if the oOice building was being used as an oOice when the zoning changed.
StaO failed to include what the uses were at that time in the staO report, and refused to provide the information when asked by the residents. StaO also failed to include a chart that sets forth all of the uses permitted as a legal nonconforming use in the staO report and Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
3 also refused to provide this information when asked by the residents. Maybe that part of the staO report was written by Harding Larmore? Maybe including those facts would reveal the farce of this upzoning?
We got an email from the property manager the day of the last meeting that said, “We're simply seeking the ability to lease to other professional oOice tenants (like accounting firms) so the building can remain economically viable as an oOice building. Nothing more.” Well, City code appears to say they already CAN.
b. Vacancy of Entire Building, Not One Space
StaO (or perhaps Harding Larmore) stated, “if a tenant space is vacant for more than 1 year, the prior nonconforming use (e.g. production oOice) is considered abandoned, and the tenant space must be filled with a use permitted in the R1 zoning district.” This is false.
Here is what the Code really says. Section 9.27.020 states that a “lawful nonconforming use” as “an occupancy or activity that was established in compliance with the standards and requirements in eOect 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.”
That means that so long as the use continues somewhere in the structure or on the parcel (i.e. there is at least one space in the building that continues to be leased as an oOice), then the use (an oOice) is not abandoned anywhere in the building.
Why is the city attorney allowing such a blatant misrepresentation of the city code?
2. The “Solution” is Still a Legal Nonconforming Use.
StaO claims the change to Neighborhood Commercial is needed to resolve the legal nonconfoming use problem. StaO told you, “The property owner has stated that the nonconforming condition created by the rezoning to R1 presents impediments to future leasing and financing for the existing commercial oOice building.” As many comments confirmed at the last meeting, the building is fully leased, filling the most recent vacancy just last year.
Any future vacancy is purely speculative and unsubstantiated.
But staO is asking you to expand the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district oO the boulevard to include the building to solve this “problem”. I say staO, but public records have revealed that a significant portion of the staO report, resolutions and ordinance were drafted by the owner’s counsel, Harding Larmore.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
4 The property manager said, “We're simply seeking the ability to lease to other professional oOice tenants (like accounting firms) so the building can remain economically viable as an oOice building. Nothing more.”
But guess what? General oOice use is not allowed on the ground floor in Neighborhood Commercial. So the use of this building for the past 70 years REMAINS A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE ON THE GROUND FLOOR after upzoning.
Even if the building had been designated NC in 2010 or 2015, it would have been a legal nonconforming use then (and now) because it’s oOice space on the bottom floor.
That is why it was purposeful, and consistent with the LUCE, to designate and zone the building residential. Commercial activity was deliberately kept on the boulevards and any commercial activity remaining in the residential neighborhood could do so only as a legal nonconforming use. This is confirmed by the Council’s May 15, 2015 resolution:
“WHEREAS, the City has a long history of creating and maintaining bu?ers 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;”
The building has been an oOice since 1956, almost 70 years. It’s fully leased. Under the current residential zoning, it would have to be entirely vacant for over a year to no longer be leased as oOice space. That very same hurdle exists if you zone it NC. Nothing changes, except for their ability to bring in types of activity that were never intended to be in a residential neighborhood, in violation of the LUCE.
3. The Resolution and Ordinance Become City Council’s Words StaO continues to misrepresent the legal nonconforming use issue and continues to lie about the LUCE and zoning changes, claiming it was inadvertent or in error. But these lies become your lies when you approve the land use resolution and ordinance. “Lie” is a strong word, but it is the appropriate characterization when staO continues to make statements that have been proved false by the residents since March.
Attached are copies of both, highlighted to show the false statements in red, and the unsubstantiated statements in yellow. This is only what has been demonstrated false or Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
5 unsubstantiated in public comments so far. If we had more time, it’s likely we would find more. (See attached.)
Here is a list of verifiably false statements repeated in the land use resolution and ordinance that will be your words:
• The land use change was inadvertent.
• The lots were inadvertently excluded from parcel discrepancy list. • Amending the land use designation corrects the inadvertent designation. • Amending the land use designation is consistent with the general plan. • Amending to Neighborhood Commercial land use will rectify the nonconforming conditions.
• The zoning change was inadvertent and changing it back is a correction. • Amending the zoning to NC is consistent with the general plan. • The change in district boundaries is consistent in principle with the General Plan. • The change will align the Districting Map with the historic existing commercial use. • The change in District Boundaries promotes growth in an orderly manner. • The change in District Boundaries promotes the public health, safety and general welfare in that the change will align the Districting Map with the existing commercial development of the lots.
• Amending to NC zoning will rectify the nonconforming conditions. • The change in district boundaries is necessary to achieve the balance of land uses desired by the City, consistent with the General Plan.
• In May, Council decided to table the adoption of the amendments to the OOicial Districting Map to a later date.
Here is a list of unsubstantiated statements repeated in the land use resolution and ordinance that will be your words:
• Nonconforming uses create impediments to future leasing opportunities and financing.
• Changing the land use designation map removes impediments to leasing and uses. • Changing the zoning removes impediments to leasing and uses. • Changing the district boundaries is necessary to increase the inventory of land within a given district.
• Since May, there were renewed requests from the property owner and new information submitted in support of the upzoning.
• The parking lot will remain unchanged.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
6 This illegal spot upzoning is the eOort (and work product) of a lobbyist disguised as a staO item. And now you know that this isn’t even a solution to the claimed problem, which confirms the ruse. Please don’t reward unethical misuse of staO time and city resources, and potential violations of your lobbying rules.
The right thing to do here is REJECT the covenant, OPPOSE the second reading of the ordinance, and ask staO to come back to RESCIND the land use change from the September 30 meeting. If not, you are forcing residents to consider all their rights and remedies, which includes more litigation this city cannot aOord.
Regards,
Nikki KolhoO
Santa Monica Resident and Project Neighbor
YOU CAN STILL FIX THIS
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Statements in conflict with upzoning.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Clarification: No 85-foot building allowed on 2644 30th Street From: Jeffrey Palmer ([email protected]) To: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 at 04:32 PM PDT
Dear Neighbors,
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns about our property at 2644 30th Street. I want to be absolutely clear about what we're proposing.
What we're NOT asking for: We are NOT seeking to redevelop this property into an 85-foot residential building. We CANNOT build an 85-foot building on this site. We have voluntarily agreed to a 10-year covenant that legally prohibits any redevelopment into housing or taller construction. Our goal is to preserve the existing commercial building and ensure its long-term viability in the face of the tough commercial leasing environment, not to change the character of your neighborhood.
What we ARE asking for: We're simply seeking the ability to lease to other professional office tenants (like accounting firms) so the building can remain economically viable as an office building. Nothing more. The simple way to do this is to place the portion of the property that is occupied with the existing commercial building back into commercial zoning like it was when we bought the property and for decades (and was so for decades).
Why this matters: The R1 zoning causes our 30,000+ sq. ft. commercial building to be a "legal nonconforming building" and the existing uses within the building became "legal non-conforming uses." Under the City's regulations, this creates an impossible situation: we can only lease to the exact same type of tenant as before (e.g. entertainment office versus an accounting firm), and if any space sits vacant for more than one year, we permanently lose the right to use it. This could eventually render the entire building unusable.
Why this benefits the community: Keeping this building occupied with professional offices maintains property values, provides local jobs, and keeps your neighborhood vibrant rather than seeing a large vacant building hit with vagrancy issues. An occupied, well-maintained office building is better for everyone than the alternative of increasing vacancy and potential blight.
Looking ahead: When the City undertakes future citywide rezoning efforts, this site can be reconsidered in conjunction with the entire neighborhood. We believe addressing the non-conforming use restrictions more broadly would create unintended complications and other objections citywide. Our request is narrowly tailored to maintain the existing office building in its current use to maintain the viability of the existing building.
I understand the concerns about development in our community because I share them. All we're asking for is the ability to keep this building functioning with commercial uses. We're not trying to change anything about the neighborhood you love. We're just trying to preserve what's already there.
I appreciate your consideration and am happy to discuss any questions.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Palmer
PMI Properties | 1000 Roscomare Road | Los Angeles, CA 90077 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice about:blank 1/1
Type text here
Statements in conflict with upzoning.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
CHAPTER 9.27
NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES
§ 9.27.010. Purpose.
This Chapter's standards have been developed in recognition of the City's policies related to historic preservation, adaptive reuse, and sustainability and provide for the continuation of uses, continued occupancy and maintenance of structures, and development of parcels that were lawfully established but do not now comply with all of the standards and requirements of this Ordinance so long as the uses, continued occupancy, and maintenance meet the provisions of this Chapter.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015) § 9.27.020. Definitions.
Any lawfully established use or structure that is in existence on the effective date of this Ordinance but does not comply with all of the standards and requirements of this Ordinance or subsequent amendment including, but not limited to, the lack of an approved permit or other required authorization shall be considered nonconforming. Unless otherwise specified, the term "nonconforming" as used in this Ordinance shall mean "lawful nonconforming" as defined herein.
Lawful nonconforming use. An occupancy or activity that was established in compliance with the standards and requirements in effect at the time it commenced and has not been abandoned within the same structure or on the same parcel since that date but does not comply with all of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance including, but not limited to, permitted use, location, intensity, operational characteristics, performance standards or hours of operation.
City of Santa Monica, CA
§ 9.27.010 § 9.27.030
***********
A. Change of Ownership. A change of ownership, tenancy, or management of a nonconforming use shall not affect its status as a legal, nonconforming use.
B. Abandonment. If a nonconforming use of a building, structure, or parcel ceases for a continuous period of one year or more, the use shall be considered abandoned, and the building, structure, or parcel shall thereafter be used only in accordance with the regulations for the District in which it is located except as provided below. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide evidence demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Director that the use was legally established and has not been abandoned. Notwithstanding the above, no nonconforming residential use shall be considered abandoned regardless of the length of time of non-use unless the Director determines the building is dangerous, unsafe, a health and safety hazard, and/or uninhabitable, and these conditions cannot be remedied. § 9.27.050. Legal Nonconforming Uses.
A legal, nonconforming use may be maintained subject to the following provisions:
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
1 City Council Meeting September 30, 2025 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AMENDING THE SANTA MONICA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP REGARDING TWO LOTS LOCATED WITHIN 2644 30TH STREET
WHEREAS, 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”) was developed in 1956 as a commercial office building, which includes approximately 35,000 square feet of leasable space; and
WHEREAS, historically, since at least 1961, this portion of the Commercial Lots was designated as C2 (Limited 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, which included an amendment to the General Plan Use Map; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015, the City adopted a revised Zoning Ordinance, which included a revised Official Districting Map; and
WHEREAS, when the General Plan Land Use and the Official Districting Maps were amended as part of the 2015 Zoning Ordinance update, the subject Commercial Lots were changed to Single Family Housing in the Land Use Map and Single-Unit Residential (R1) in the Official Districting Map, respectively; and WHEREAS, this rezoning to Single Family Housing appears to have been inadvertent given the longstanding use of the property and prior designation as Limited Commerical; and
Red = False Statement Yellow = Unsubstantiated Statement Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
2 WHEREAS, during the public review process and in the course of analyzing the boundaries of the newly created zoning districts, inconsistencies between the adopted LUCE Land Use Designation Map and the then existing Official Districting Map were identified as reflected in the April 14, 2015, Staff Report to City Council; and WHEREAS, as a result of the identified inconsistencies, City Staff attempted to compare the LUCE Map with the existing Official Districting Map in the City, to generate a listing of inconsistent parcels, and
WHEREAS, a list of 115 parcels with such inconsistencies (“Inconsistent Parcel List”) was prepared and included with the Staff Report to the Planning Commission and were reviewed in detail on June 18, 2014 and October 1, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Inconsistent Parcel List was also included and discussed in the April 14, 2015, City Council Staff Report and reviewed by the City Council prior to their voting on the Zoning Ordinance Districting Map; and WHEREAS, the majority of these inconsistent parcels were those in the City whose land designations were changed to a commercial designation with the adoption of the LUCE Land Use Designation Map and were inconsistent with their predominantly residential zoning or partial residential zoning; and WHEREAS, however, a portion of the properties on the Inconsistent Parcel List were those designated commercial/industrial on the then-existing Official Districting Map and improved with commercial/industrial uses but had been designated residential on the 2010 LUCE map; and
WHEREAS, the subject Commercial Lots appear to be similarly situated to these previously identified formerly commercial/industrial parcels; however, the Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
3 subject Commercial Lots were inadvertently not included on the Inconsistent Parcel List; and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) amending the LUCE map to, among other things, change the LUCE designation for certain parcels that had been identified on the Inconsistent Parcel List as having inconsistent LUCE and then-existing Zoning Districting Map designations; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015, the City adopted a revised Zoning Ordinance, which included a revised Districting Map that designated the Commercial Lots as R1; 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 Family Residential designation has resulted in the existing building becoming both a legal, nonconforming building and the existing uses becoming legal, nonconforming uses and, thus, creates impediments to future leasing opportunities and financing for the property given the limitations of the Single Family Housing designation and zoning of R1; 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 located at 2466 30th Street; and
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
4 WHEREAS, amending the General Land Use Map to zone the Commercial Lots located at 2644 30th Street as Neighborhood Commercial will correct the prior inadvertent designation and reflect the longstanding use of the Commercial Lots, removing impediments to future leasing and changes of use of the Commercial Lots; and WHEREAS, amending the General Land Use Map to zone Commercial Lots 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 and changes of use 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 General Plan Land Use Map, adopted Resolution Number 25- 007 (PCS), recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Map for the Commercial Lots located at 2644 30th Street; and WHEREAS, the adjacent parking lot that is designated in the Land Use Map as Single Family Residential and in the Official Districting Map as R-1 Single-Unit Residential will remain unchanged; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed hearing, and, after considering all oral and written testimony, decided to table the adoption of the amendments to the Official Districting Map to a later date; and WHEREAS, after renewed requests from the property owner and new information submitted in support thereof, on September 30, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed hearing, and, after considering all oral and written testimony, desires to amend Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
5 the General Land Use Map for the Commercial Lots 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:
SECTION 1. Based upon the oral and written testimony presented to the City Council at the public hearing on September 30, 2025, regarding the proposed change to the General Land Use Map for the Commercial Lots located at 2644 30th Street, the City Council hereby makes the following findings regarding the Amendments to the General Plan Map:
Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.45.080, the City Council does hereby amend the General Plan Land Use Map for the parcel located at 2644 30th Street because although subject parcel is currently designated as Single Family Housing, it has been developed as a commercial office building since 1956 and was historically zoned as commercial, and when the General Plan Land Use Map was amended as part of the 2010 update to the Land Use and Circulation Element, the parcel’s designation was changed to Single Family Housing in the Land Use Map, which appears to have been inadvertent given the longstanding use of the property and prior C2, Neighborhood Commercial zoning of the parcel. This has created a nonconforming condition and impediments to future development, leasing opportunities, and financing for the property given the limitations of the Single Family Housing designation. The proposed change to Neighborhood Commercial will rectify these issues and align the LUCE designation with the development history of the parcel, ensure consistency between the General Plan Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
6 Land Use Map and the Official Districting Map, and address any nonconforming conditions and impediments to planned and future development of the parcel, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached to this Resolution is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
HEIDI VON TONGELN,
Interim City Attorney
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
7 SECTION 2.EXHIBIT A
Amendment to the Zoning Designation in the Official Districting Map for the Commercial Lots Located within 2644 30th Street
Address APN Zoning
Classification
Proposed
Portion of 2644
30th St described
as Northwest 60
feet of lots 78 and
83 of Tract No.
1980 (see map
below)
Portion of
4270-016-
084
R1 (Single-Unit
Residential)
NC (Neighborhood
Commercial)
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
8 Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
1 City Council Meeting: September 30, 2025 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL DISTRICTING MAP OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA REGARDING TWO LOTS LOCATED WITHIN 2644 30TH STREET
WHEREAS, 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”) was developed in 1956 as a commercial office building, which includes approximately 35,000 square feet of leasable space; and
WHEREAS, historically, since at least 1961, this portion of the Commercial Lots was designated as C2 (Limited 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, which included an amendment to the General Plan Use Map; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015, the City adopted a revised Zoning Ordinance, which included a revised Official Districting Map; and
WHEREAS, when the General Plan Land Use and the Official Districting Maps were amended as part of the 2015 Zoning Ordinance update, the subject Commercial Lots were changed to Single Family Housing in the Land Use Map and Single-Unit Residential (R1) in the Official Districting Map, respectively; and WHEREAS, this rezoning to R1 appears to have been inadvertent given the longstanding use of the property and prior designation as C2; and Red = False Statement Yellow = Unsubstantiated Statement Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
2 WHEREAS, during the public review process and in the course of analyzing the boundaries of the newly created zoning districts, inconsistencies between the adopted LUCE Land Use Designation Map and the then existing Official Districting Map were identified as reflected in the April 14, 2015, Staff Report to City Council; and WHEREAS, as a result of the identified inconsistencies, City Staff attempted to compare the LUCE Map with the existing Official Districting Map in the City, to generate a listing of inconsistent parcels, and
WHEREAS, a list of 115 parcels with such inconsistencies (“Inconsistent Parcel List”) was prepared and included with the Staff Report to the Planning Commission and were reviewed in detail on June 18, 2014 and October 1, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Inconsistent Parcel List was also included and discussed in the April 14, 2015, City Council Staff Report and reviewed by the City Council prior to their voting on the Zoning Ordinance Districting Map; and
WHEREAS, the majority of these inconsistent parcels were those in the City whose land designations were changed to a commercial designation with the adoption of the LUCE Land Use Designation Map and were inconsistent with their predominantly residential zoning or partial residential zoning; and
WHEREAS, however, a portion of the properties on the Inconsistent Parcel List were those designated commercial/industrial on the then-existing Official Districting Map and improved with commercial/industrial uses but had been designated residential on the 2010 LUCE map; and
WHEREAS, the subject Commercial Lots appear to be similarly situated to these previously identified formerly commercial/industrial parcels; however, the subject Commercial Lots were inadvertently not included on the Inconsistent Parcel List; and Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
3 WHEREAS, on May 5, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10874 (CCS) amending the LUCE map to, among other things, change the LUCE designation for certain parcels that had been identified on the Inconsistent Parcel List as having inconsistent LUCE and then-existing Zoning Districting Map designations; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015, the City adopted a revised Zoning Ordinance, which included a revised Districting Map that designated the Commercial Lots as R1; and
WHEREAS, there are no permitted commercial uses in the R1 Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the change of the Commercial Lots to the Single Family Housing designation and R1 zone has resulted in the existing building becoming a legal, nonconforming building and the existing uses becoming legal, nonconforming uses and, thus, creates impediments to future leasing opportunities and financing for the property given the limitations of the Single Family Housing designation and zoning of R1; 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 located at 2466 30th Street; and
WHEREAS, amending the Official Districting Map to zone the Commercial Lots located at 2644 30th Street as NC (Neighborhood Commercial) will correct the prior inadvertent designation and reflect the longstanding use of the Commercial Lots, Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
4 removing impediments to future leasing and changes of use of the Commercial Lots; and
WHEREAS, amending the Official Districting Map to zone Commercial Lots located at 2644 30th Street as NC 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 and changes of use 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 Commercial Lots 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 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 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 Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
5 Commercial Lots;
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 Lots. Since 1956 the Commercial Lots have 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), 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 Lots; 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 have historically been developed with as a commercial use since 1956 and 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 Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
6 Lots with existing development; and
WHEREAS, the adjacent parking lot that is designated in the Land Use Map as Single Family Residential and in the Official Districting Map as R-1 Single-Unit Residential will remain unchanged; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed hearing, and, after considering all oral and written testimony, decided to table the adoption of the amendments to the Official Districting Map to a later date; and WHEREAS, after renewed requests from the property owner and new information submitted in support thereof, on September 30, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed hearing, and, after considering all oral and written testimony, desires to amend the Official Districting Map for the Commercial Lots 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:
SECTION 1. Based upon the oral and written testimony presented to the City Council at the public hearing on September 30, 2025, regarding the proposed change to the Official Districting Map for the Commercial Lots located at 2644 30th Street, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:
1. The change in district boundaries is consistent in principle with the General Plan in that the proposed amendments will provide consistency between existing development and the Official Districting Map.
Due to an inadvertent reclassification of the Commercial Lots during both the 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element update and the 2015 Zoning Ordinance update to Single Family Housing and R1 (Single-Unit Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
7 Residential), respectively, the commercial use of the Commercial Lots established in 1956 is now a nonconforming land use. This inconsistency between the use and Official District Map has created impediments to future leasing of tenant space within the building and financing the property due to the land use limitations of the R1 zoning district . The proposed change will rectify this issue by aligning the Official Districting Map with the historic existing commercial use of the Commercial Lots.
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 Lots. Since 1956 the Commercial Lots have been developed as a commercial use, but inadvertently during both the 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element update and 2015 Zoning Ordinance update were reclassified as Single Family Housing and R1 (Single-Unit Residential), respectively. This inconsistency between the use and zoning district has created impediments to future leasing of tenant space within the building and financing the property due to the land use limitations of the R1 zoning district. The proposed change will rectify this issue by aligning the Official Districting Map with the historic existing use of the Commercial Lots.
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 Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
8 the Commercial Lots have 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 leasing of tenant space within the building and financing the property due to land use limitations of the R1 zoning district. The proposed change will align the Official District Map for the Commercial Lots 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 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 Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
9 newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
HEIDI VON TONGELN
Interim City Attorney
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
10 EXHIBIT A
Amendment to the Zoning Designation in the Official Districting Map for the Commercial Lots Located within 2644 30th Street
Address APN Zoning
Classification
Proposed
Portion of 2644
30th St described
as Northwest 60
feet of lots 78 and
83 of Tract No.
1980 (see map
below)
Portion of
4270-016-
084
R1 (Single-Unit
Residential)
NC (Neighborhood
Commercial)
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
2 Mitchell Kois
From: Laura Kachergus <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 11:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards.
The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning.
Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
3 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Laura Kachergus
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
4 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 11:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Council Mailbox
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot.
It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it , eventually,
to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses.
This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue.
The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees. 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.
Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain.
Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city.
It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods.
Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
5 Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street,
and instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Nancy Hall
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Lois Bostwick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 4:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Automatic reply: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Council members,
Are there plans for 6-8 story buildings on or just off Montana, like there are for Pico and Ocean Park Blvd.? Too high for any residential neighborhood, including ours! An increase in density, and traffic, needn't be that extreme.
Lois Bostwick
On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 8:35 PM councilmtgitems <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you for your email. Please be advised that this email will: 1) become part of the public record, 2) be filed with the City’s official records, and 3) be posted online at smgov.net/council/agendas. Comments will not be redacted and appear online as they are submitted.
If you plan to speak at the meeting and have an electronic presentation to show, please submit it to [email protected] no later than 12 PM on the day of the meeting.
Levine Act Disclosure. Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $250 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official. Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well. The disclosure must include the name of the party, participant, or agent, and any other person making the contribution; the name of the recipient, the amount of the contribution, and the date the contribution was made.
Thank you,
The City Clerk’s Office
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
2 Mitchell Kois
From: George Ferrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 12:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council 10/14 item 11-D - OPPOSE Covenant and Ordinance Changing the Zoning of 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to
a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street from residential to commercial, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
The property, which is NOT located on a boulevard, currently has a 2-story office building dating from the 1950s and a surface parking lot. It is zoned R1 (residential). The owner(s) want the property rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow it eventually to be redeveloped to 85 feet in height, with the current 55-foot height limit on Ocean Park Blvd. plus state density bonuses. This would be directly across 29th and 30th Streets from 1- and 2-story homes.
The proposed 10-year restriction on developing housing projects is merely a short-term reprieve from a tower shading the low-rise residential neighborhood, and it offers no protection against commercial activity, which our General Plan specifically limits to the boulevards.
Procedural flaws with this spot upzoning include the following:
City Staff continue to state that the parcel R1 (residential) zoning was an “inadvertent error” in the 2010 LUCE, but this appears to be untrue. The LUCE update involved a lengthy process intended to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial activity, which was limited to the boulevards. The City Staff and City Attorney have spent a year helping the property owner upzone the parcel without disclosing this relationship to the public.
City Staff allowed the owner to both skip the application process for a zoning change and avoid paying $34,000 in application fees.
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. Upzoning even a portion of the 2644 30th parcel creates a “peninsula” of commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and it is spot-zoning.
Upzoning to Neighborhood Commercial would also create additional density, traffic, parking shortages, noise, and infrastructure strain. Staff has provided no legitimate justification for this upzoning. Proceeding virtually guarantees costly litigation against the city. It also sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for upzoning throughout all residential neighborhoods. Other developers are waiting to follow suit, which will erode residents’ trust in local government and further exacerbate our already strained city resources.
Again, I urge you to a) reject the 10-year deed restriction limiting only housing development at 2644 30th Street, b) oppose the ordinance upzoning of 2644 30th Street, and c) instruct Staff to return with rescission of the LUCE amendment.
Sincerely,
Peggy and George Ferrell
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025
Item 11-D
October 14, 2025