1 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 5:11 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Council Mailbox Cc: Bradley Ewing; Sam Shapiro-Kline
Subject: Support Item 12.A with Amendments
EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers,
Santa Monica Forward supports Item 12.A, facilitating development in the Downtown Community Plan area. Council should go further to maximize the value of city owned land and the development potential of the Gateway area sites.
Specifically, council should:
1. The Gateway sites maximum height and FAR should be increased further. There is no reason to limit FAR to 5.0 in particular, as these sites are adjacent to the highway and transit, and would not impose burdens on adjacent neighbors. Council should consider both making FAR & Height unlimited, as well as adjusting affordable housing requirements for these sites to be consistent with the Offsite Affordable Housing Pilot Program. Otherwise, if council increases FAR it could result in affordable housing requirements greater than under state density bonus, hindering projects infeasible.
2. Policy Question 1: Choose Option 1, for administrative approval. Administrative approval increases certainty for project applicants, and makes it significantly more likely that projects will be proposed.
3. Question 3: Choose No - Requiring additional community benefits could make projects infeasible.
Thank you,
Sam Shapiro-Kline & Brad Ewing
Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward
--
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.
SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Diana Gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 7:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems; councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall Subject: Council Item 12-A, reject ministerial approval of Gateway or Downtown sites of up to 130’/5.0FAR and uphold Planning Commission recommendations
EXTERNAL
Good morning,
Please vote to uphold the Planning Commission recommendations as to these Downtown sites.
The staff report feels hastily written. It is short on substance for rejecting the Planning Commission’s recommendations for revising the DCP and increasing the heights and densities for key sites in the Downtown.
It’s a fundamental abdication of city planning to propose rezoning these mega sites for any use developers can finance and build. How, for example, would this affect the 4th/5th/Arizona site that has been earmarked for housing as part of the City’s Suitable Sites Inventory? How does including the parking structure conflict with Coastal Commission authority over it?
Similarly, to claim that a program EIR for the DCP is sufficient to cover the magnitude of this rezoning is to not understand what a program EIR does (and does not) analyze.
The DCP process was helmed by a planning director who believed in community engagement. Both public surveys and a robust community process established that residents did NOT want heights and densities above 84 feet in the Downtown. Residents successfully fought against the developer community then, and the Planning Commission recommendations for changes to the DCP now are reasonable in our current climate.
Please either affirm the Planning Commission recommendations or require a broader public process with sufficient facts and analysis, including an economic analysis before supporting a zoning change that would dramatically transform the Downtown.
Thank you for your consideration,
Diana Gordon
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Gina Jonas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 8:20 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; [email protected]; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Tonight's Hearing – Please Don't Shelve the Proposed Upzoning Changes to the DCP (Agenda Item 12A)
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I'm writing about tonight's hearing on the downtown zoning changes. I'm glad to see the City moving forward on the Cityowned sites and the Gateway properties, but I was really disappointed that the Planning Commission dropped the part that would have made it easier to build downtown - the taller height limits, increased FAR, and the local bonus program.
From what I understand, the City has approved plenty of housing projects, but hardly any of them are actually getting built because the numbers don't work for builders right now. If that's the problem, then approving projects on paper isn't enough.
The rules need to change so that projects can actually pencil out and get financed. Allowing a bit more height and floor area downtown does exactly that.
The Commission said we should wait and deal with this later, as part of bigger planning efforts down the road. But waiting has a cost. Every year that goes by, construction gets more expensive and fewer homes get built. And downtown is the one place almost everyone agrees new housing makes sense. It's right next to the Expo line, jobs, shops, and restaurants, and it doesn't touch our residential neighborhoods. Just a couple of months ago, the Commission itself seemed supportive of these very ideas at its study session, so it's hard to understand why they're now on the shelf.
Please don't let this piece of the plan quietly disappear. I'm asking the Council to direct staff to come back with the downtown housing changes, including the increased height limits and FAR, and the bonus program, as soon as possible.
Downtown needs more residents, and Santa Monica needs more homes.
Thank you for your time and your service.
Gina Jonas
Santa Monica Resident
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: DG Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 9:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell
Subject: Item 12A – Downtown Realignment Amendments: Restore the Housing Incentive Program and Upzoning
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Councilmembers:
I write in support of the amendments before you tonight concerning City-owned sites and the Gateway Master Plan area, and to register concern with what has been omitted: the Downtown Housing Local Bonus Incentive Program and associated upzoning of the Downtown core that staff presented to the Planning Commission on June 17.
The Commission's decision to defer these amendments to the 7th Cycle Housing Element or a future SB 79 alternative plan warrants closer scrutiny by this Council, for three reasons.
First, the deferral misdiagnoses the moment. Santa Monica's constraint on housing production is no longer entitlement - it is feasibility. Staff acknowledged as much at the June 17 hearing, noting the volume of approved projects that remain unbuilt because they cannot attract construction financing under current cost and rate conditions. Height and FAR are the two levers most directly tied to residual land value and project returns. Modest increases to baseline standards downtown are precisely the kind of intervention that converts an entitled pipeline into occupied units, at no fiscal cost to the City.
Second, the proposed sequencing is internally inconsistent. The rationale for deferral (that these tools belong within future SB 79 implementation) sits uneasily beside the City's concurrent pursuit of a temporary exclusion ordinance that would postpone SB 79's applicability until a year after adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element. Taken together, these positions defer meaningful downtown housing incentives to the end of the decade. If the City intends to chart its own course rather than rely on state minimums, it should demonstrate that intent by acting on its own downtown program now.
Third, the policy work is substantially complete. These concepts were vetted at the Commission's May 6 study session, where they enjoyed broad support and were advanced through Resolutions of Intention.
The environmental framework of the certified DCP and Housing Element EIRs provides a foundation for review. Deferral does not improve the work product; it simply idles it.
The Realignment Plan's economic and housing objectives depend on activating the Downtown as a whole, not solely a handful of public parcels and three Gateway sites. I respectfully request that, in addition to adopting tonight's recommended actions, the Council direct staff to return with the downtown housing incentive program and upzoning amendments in the near future.
Thank you for your consideration.
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
3 Respectfully,
D.G. Brown
North of Montana Resident
Retired Real Estate Developer
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Jennifer Polhemus <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Item 12-A — heed Planning Commission’s logic and recommendations
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I urge you to scrutinize carefully the staff arguments for negating the Planning Commission's recommendations, especially regarding building heights. The anrguments are not convincing and undermine the Commission’s logic and role.
I urge you to follow the recommendations of the commission whose purpose is to advise the Council! Jennifer Polhemus
Longtime Santa Monica resident & small business owner
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:49 AM
To: Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council 7/14/26 item 12-A -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
July 14, 2026
To: Mayor Torosis and Council members
From: Zina Josephs
RE: 7/14/26 agenda item 12-A
1) I oppose allowing projects in downtown of up to 130 feet in height and up to 5.0 FAR with only ministerial approval.
I can still remember when the maximum building height was 3 stories, and driving west on Wilshire Blvd. from West Los Angeles into Santa Monica was like a breath of fresh air.
Now, the boulevards in our Sunset Park neighborhood will soon have multiple 8-story buildings, and this agenda item intends to completely reshape the skyline in downtown Santa Monica, with no public input.
2) I urge you to uphold the Planning Commission's recommendations.
Again, I oppose agenda item 12-A.
Thank you for your consideration.
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: City Council July 14, 2026 - Item 12A Upzoning Downtown - OPPOSE
EXTERNAL
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Oliver Chi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 at 11:59:08 AM PDT
Subject: City Council July 14, 2026 - Item 12A Upzoning Downtown - OPPOSE Dear City Council –
I ask you to oppose 12A for the following reasons.
1. The staff report exceeds the Planning Commission recommendation. Again. This is becoming a disturbing trend. Who on council is speaking with staff to encourage this, and based on what expertise or data? There sure isn’t anything supporting this excess in the staff report. This is governance by ideology, not evidence-based decision-making.
2. It’s procedurally inappropriate for staff to introduce, and you to consider, changing our zoning with a first reading of a new ordinance when those changes weren’t advised by the Planning Commission and have not been discussed in a public hearing previously. It confirms what we all know, that you don’t care what the residents think. You are doing this anyway.
3. There is no lowering of heights on the boulevards, which is part of the Realignment Plan and was supposed to be done in exchange for increasing heights downtown to shield us from the disingenuous argument that restoring boulevards to their appropriate heights somehow conflicts with our Housing Element. Neighborhood Commercial used to be 32’, and it was erroneously increased to 55’ in the Housing Element, which becomes 85’ with state bonuses. This is wildly inappropriate for neighborhood-serving uses immediately adjacent to 1-3 story single family homes and low-density, multi-family buildings. Furthermore, there is no evidence that our infrastructure can support the density on the boulevards, and we have been denied the opportunity to obtain legitimate environmental and evacuation reviews to ensure our health and safety. The one prong of the Realignment Plan that was meant to help residents will now be the only prong you don’t do. What a surprise.
These decisions, once made, cannot be undone. You are about to gift wealthy property owners and investors even more largess instantly with this upzoning. You also further incentivize demolition and displacement of existing residents and the destruction of community. Such a path puts your developer benefactors first, and the people whom you are supposed to represent last.
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
4 Please reject this staff report and require a broader public process with sufficient facts and analysis, including an economic analysis, before supporting a zoning change that would dramatically transform the Downtown and ignoring the plight of the neighborhoods that have been erroneously upzoned.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026