SR 04-26-2022 14A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 26, 2022
Agenda Item: 14.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services
Department
Subject: Written Public Comment
Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Item 14
14.A
Packet Pg. 2748
1
Vernice Hankins
From:anthony weatherbee <anthonyweatherbee@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 22, 2022 6:13 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:When is the next city council and how do I schedule time to speak about the lack of any police
service in Santa Monica !
EXTERNAL
My name is Anthony weatherbee!
I live at 5:20 Colorado avenue in Santa Monica and every day walking out my front door on the private property that I'm
living at I have homeless people herrassing and attacking me and my license Service dog even attacking us with
weapons !
Everyday as a resident of Santa Monica when I walk to McDonald's or do a different restaurant to order breakfast lunch
or dinner or just to go for a walk around Santa Monica I'm attacked by the homeless ( I E ) physically attacked and
beaten by the homeless!
Several time in the last year calling the Santa Monica Police department when this has happened they mostly refuse to
even do their job and show up! If and when they do show up for a violent attack against me they don't do anything they
don't arrest anybody they don't clear anybody off they don't even take the weapons that the homeless people have
away they just say we'll handle it have a nice day and drive off doing nothing!
Crime is running rapid in Santa Monica because we have an incompetent worthless do nothing Police department that
don't do what they're overpaid to do and I believe that if the police department's not doing their job in Santa Monica
that we need to fire them and hire the Los Angeles Police department or the Los Angeles sheriff's department to come
in and clean up out control crime filled Santa Monica and I would like to speak about this at a city council meeting thank
you!
Item 14
4/26/22
1 of 5 Item 14
4/26/22
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 2749 Attachment: Item 14 (5110 : Written Public Comment)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clerk Mailbox
Sent:Thursday, April 21, 2022 8:14 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: No response to urgent concerns 4/2022
From: santa monica <santamonicagal@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 6:57 PM
To: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Fwd: No response to urgent concerns 4/2022
EXTERNAL
Please pass this IMPORTANT email to all City Council members we elected.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: SM <zgalwilson@yahoo.com>
Date: April 20, 2022 at 6:56:05 PM PDT
To: erin.taylor@smgov.net
Subject: No response to urgent concerns 4/2022
We are residents and want to know when City Hall will respond to questions instead of sending us to
311 for ALL questions
The " novel Corona virus" reason for limited hours is a farce and we are tired of paying taxes in a city
that changes us extra surcharges
" just for being Santa Monica resident."
Many concerns as the pandemic has lifted. We are left with an over population of homeless people
inundating our space where we have to pay rent and tax for everybody. I've tried to reach the
CITY managers office & City Council ‐but they are ALL unresponsive.
We sent Lana Negrete an important "citizen concern "email last week still haven't heard anything back.
311 is not
Acceptable replacement for city employees that are getting full salary in the most expensive town on
the West Coast.
We want answers. Please contact me at 310‐428‐6232 so we can set up an appointment for the
residents concerns ‐
Life is not the same after the pandemic and it is not being addressed appropriately. Public safety is an all
time low but our taxes are at an all‐time high.
Residents in Beat 1&2 Santa Monica.
We want our Elected City Council to step up to plate and assist in our concerns of issue number 1:
Public safety & removing homeless north of wilshire area.
Concerned Residents 90403
(310)428‐6232
Item 14
4/26/22
2 of 5 Item 14
4/26/22
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 2750 Attachment: Item 14 (5110 : Written Public Comment)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Kim Reeder <kimreederla@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:08 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Homeless Services comment.
EXTERNAL
Hello.
I would like to address the City Council in regard to the difficulties and barriers I am facing in Santa Monica with
homeless service providers. I’m homeless and living in a Santa Monica shelter.
Unlike many homeless people, I do not have addiction issues or serious mental health issues, I fall into the 30% of the
homeless that are low acuity and high functioning. Homeless services are not designed or developed for us. I’m a client
of both Chrysalis and The People Concern and need help.
I’m curious if The City if helping people like me. I’m significantly more valuable on my feet and working but honestly The
People Concern isn’t remotely concerned with homeless job seekers. I have a college degree as do many homeless
people and Chrysalis services are not appropriate though their facility is nice when it’s open.
Kim Reeder
Sent from my iPhone
Item 14
4/26/22
3 of 5 Item 14
4/26/22
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 2751 Attachment: Item 14 (5110 : Written Public Comment)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Corin L. Kahn <clkesq@outlook.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 4:17 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; David Martin; David White
Subject:NOTICE TO BUYERS OF ZONING RESTRICTIONS REGARDING ADUs
EXTERNAL
Hello City Council members: I am a land use attorney who lives in Santa Monica. My neighbor, who also is a land use
attorney who lives in Santa Monica. Combined, we have approximately 75 years of experience litigating land use cases.
The problem I bring to your attention herein was discussed with the Planning Manager and an assistant City Attorney
today. Both understand the accuracy of the issue identified herein and both stated they know of no limitation to making
a change to the zoning ordinance to address it. What I am asking for is a zone amendment to require some form of
notice to each and every successive buyer regarding the zoning prohibition of making a connection between an
attached ADU and a main house if that connection would violate the total parcel coverage requirements stated in the
code.
HERE IS HOW THE ISSUE HAS COME UP:
On the lot situated between us, a developer purchased a piece of property and is building on spec, a single‐family home
plus an attached ADU. That is fine in light of the State’s mandate to allow such units without counting them towards lot
coverage calculations. The problem is that the design and layout of the house provide with ample circumstantial
evidence that the so‐called ADU will never meet the State’s objective of providing additional housing density in the R‐1
zone because it will be used as a master suite for the house, which otherwise has none and which has 4 bedrooms less
than 180 square feet each.
The plans were stamped with a very strict limitation the ADU must never be connected to the main house. Without
adding this requirement, the structure would greatly exceed: 1) total structure size; 2) and second floor structure size.
The house layout makes it clear the builder has no intention to sell this single‐family home with 4 tiny bedrooms, 4 tiny
bathrooms and 4 really tiny closets, and no a master suite (until you punch a door through the separating wall to
connect it to the house.) The value loss of selling such a home in the form it was approved by the City, as opposed to a 5
bedroom home with a 800 square foot master suite, where there is a pretense of an ADU, has to be a lot of money. The
current approval and lay out of the house creates a strong disincentive to obey the zoning law.
The obvious problem arises because of the manner in which construction permitting and title are separated, i.e., the
former will never provide notice to the buyer. The absolute condition, that is strictly required or else the structure will
violate the 2 lot coverage zoning standards described above, does not run with the land. It is only stamped on the plans.
I believe that plans are not normally a part of a purchase and sale agreement. So, effectively, this building condition will
only apply until the builder obtains his certificate of occupancy and sells the completed home.
Planning has admitted that they too are concerned about the future zoning violation. But they say all that the City can
do is inform the builder, that they can do nothing until the code has been actually violated.
I disagree. City can amend its zoning ordinance without conflicting with State law to require notice of the strict
requirement that the two housing units must never be connected without specific permission from the City.
Item 14
4/26/22
4 of 5 Item 14
4/26/22
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 2752 Attachment: Item 14 (5110 : Written Public Comment)
2
The current hands off approach is bad policy for a bunch of reasons: 1) The alternative of not taking action (I have a
suggestion that I will briefly discuss below) is to force the neighbors to take over the police power from the City by
watching the owner to make sure they do not violate what is stated only on the plans – it is stated nowhere else; 2)
Buyer will honestly state they knew nothing about this limitation; 3) City is turning a blind eye to a foreseeable risk; 4)
turning enforcement over to neighbors will unnecessarily create bad feelings within a community; 5) it sets into motion
forces where the buyer loses; 6) the builder reaps a windfall; and 7) last, City looks lax or worse yet ‐ stupid.
I believe the solution is to require the builder, whose structure exceeds otherwise allowable coverage standards, as a
land use condition in order to proceed with a design like this, to pass along specific notice of the zoning limitation to the
buyer of the City’s fundamental concern the two housing units not be joined and thereafter notice provided to
successive owners. If a builder is sincerely intending to create an ADU, he will not hesitate – it’s a quick and easy fix.
Sent from Mail for Windows
Item 14
4/26/22
5 of 5 Item 14
4/26/22
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 2753 Attachment: Item 14 (5110 : Written Public Comment)