1 David Yakobson
From: Leslie Lambert <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2026 12:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete Subject: Item 12C
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers:
I am writing this as a resident of Santa Monica and not as a representative of the Planning Commission.
I strongly encourage you to follow the direction of the Planning Commission in its recommendation that the minimum size of units to be developed under the new ordinance not be set at 1,500 SF. Instead it should remain at 800SF.
There are several reasons for this 6-1 Commission vote, which I will discuss below. Unfortunately, the staff report does not provide you with a discussion of how the Commission reached this conclusion.
Hopefully my points will help clear that up.
1. The major objective of SB9 and any ordinance the City adopts is to create more affordable opportunities for residency in R1 neighborhoods. The result of setting a minimum unit size at 1,500 will create a situation that is the diametric opposite of that objective. Units of this size will be far more costly to build, and their prices will reflect that. This will limit the number of potential buyers or renters to those making far more annual income than required for a smaller unit. There will also be fewer units built.
2. There is nothing in State or local law that prohibits a competent developer from building 1,500 SF units in these projects. Or larger for that matter if a market exists. But the point remains that the market will be smaller than that for smaller units and will not reach the broader market that would benefit from living in R1 neighborhoods.
3. If redressing racial and ethnic disparities created by past restrictive covenants and red-lining is one of the City's objectives, then developing units less than 1,500 SF is a far more effective way to meet this objective because these units are less costly and therefore available to a bigger market.
4. Providing new family housing is an important City objective. However, because of fair housing laws, there can be no discrimination based on household type in these projects.
5. "Affordable" as it relates to units created by SB9 or the proposed local does not have the traditional meaning as affordable tio lower income or middle income households, the latter being households with annual incomes that do not exceed 200% of AMA.
As a side note, all of Santa Monica has been designated by the State as a "high resource area" with only two census tracts considered a rung lower in resource availability. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is access to the city's excellent local schools. This is not to say, of course, that the city is not economically and racially segregated. This has much to do with the high land prices in the city.
Item 12-C
April 14, 2026
Item 12-C
April 14, 2026
2 SB9 has been a failure statewide in its objective to increase access to housing opportunities in R1 districts. Hopefully our joint efforts will reverse this trend.
Leslie Lambert
Item 12-C
April 14, 2026
Item 12-C
April 14, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 9:31 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Amend Item 12.C, the SB9 Implementation Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers,
The reversion of Santa Monica’s SB9 implementation ordinance to state standards will effectively make it unusable, further preventing the creation of relatively affordable townhomes in single family zones. To make this ordinance usable, it must provide for more generous minimum unit sizes of 1,500 square feet, as opposed to only 800, which was agreed upon by council previously. Further, owner-occupancy requirements mean that few or no projects will be proposed, as it is extremely challenging and risky for individual homeowners with no development experience to build multiple additional units on their lots. The city should eliminate the owneroccupancy requirement, as it previously voted to do.
While the above suggestions are crucial to making SB9 deliver new housing in the city, we understand that a local ordinance is likely required to implement these changes. In that case, Forward recommends moving forward on 4/14/26 with changes that can be made through the implementation ordinance, while crafting a local ordinance to achieve the desired results alongside the local ordinance for SB1123.
Sincerely,
Sam Shapiro-Kline and Brad Ewing
Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward
--
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.
SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 12-C
April 14, 2026
Item 12-C
April 14, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 10:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: April 14, 2026 City Council - Item 12C - OPPOSE Upzoning
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council -
I oppose any changes to our zoning code that go beyond state law.
1. There are so many new laws being passed, for which we don't know the impacts or outcomes.
We need to see how implementation goes before adding more.
2. There is no analysis or evidence that the proposed changes will make Santa Monica affordable.
3. Given the current political environment with state housing laws, once we make a change to increase height and density, it will be harder to go back when we learn it was a mistake.
4. While the purported reason for the increase in square footage is to create "family housing", there is no requirement that any of this actually be family housing. The only certainty is they will be market rate.
5. Many lots are so small that it isn't possible to build four 1500 sqft units without demolishing the existing structure, which incentivizes demolition and displacement and the destruction of existing neighborhoods.
6. We know we cannot trust this developer-endorsed council, so the next change we can expect to be proposed is the elimination of height/story and setback limitations in order to fit these larger units on small lots, which also alters the character of the neighborhood in violation of the LUCE.
7. The Planning Commission, your appointed experts on this subject, already told you not to do this.
Please stop filling the city council agenda with things residents don't want or need, and that we didn't ask for. You are wasting our time by forcing us to respond to your bad proposals.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
ps. Release the Uller Report.
Item 12-C
April 14, 2026
Item 12-C
April 14, 2026